Study of the Implementation of the 

ESEA Title I — Part C 

Migrant Education Program 

August 2019 

Prepared for: 

U.S. Department of Education 

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development 

Policy and Program Studies Service 

Prepared by: 

Leslie M. Anderson 

Julie Meredith 

Policy Studies Associates 

Rebecca Anne Schmidt 

Jaunelle Pratt-Williams 

Deborah L. Jonas 

SRI International 

Kirk Vandersall 

Arroyo Research Services 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Contents 

List of Exhibits...................................................................................................................................... v 

Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................................. vii 

Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................... viii 

Methodology .......................................................................................................................................... x 

Summary of Findings ............................................................................................................................. xi 

Identifying, Recruiting, and Prioritizing Migratory Children for MEP Services............................... xi 

Using the Migrant Student Information Exchange (MSIX) to Improve Services and Supports 

for Migratory Children............................................................................................................. xii 

Providing MEP Services to Eligible Migratory Children .................................................................xiii 

Collaborating to Deliver Services to Eligible Migratory Children...................................................xvi 

Conclusion ...........................................................................................................................................xvii 

Chapter 1. Introduction........................................................................................................................ 1 

Study Overview ...................................................................................................................................... 2 

Study Purpose .................................................................................................................................. 2 

Program Administration .................................................................................................................. 3 

Study Design Overview .................................................................................................................... 5 

Sample Selection .................................................................................................................................... 5 

Surveys............................................................................................................................................. 5 

Site Visit Sample............................................................................................................................... 6 

Data Collection ....................................................................................................................................... 7 

Surveys............................................................................................................................................. 7 

Site Visits.......................................................................................................................................... 7 

Analysis Methods ................................................................................................................................... 8 

Surveys............................................................................................................................................. 8 

Site Visits.......................................................................................................................................... 9 

Study Limitations.................................................................................................................................... 9 

Chapter 2. Identifying, Recruiting, and Prioritizing Migratory Children for MEP Services .................... 11 

Managing the Identification and Recruitment Process........................................................................ 12 

Strategies Used to Identify and Recruit Migratory Children ................................................................ 15 

Recruiting Eligible Migratory Out of School Youth ........................................................................ 17 

Prioritizing MEP Services for Qualifying Migratory Children................................................................ 18 

PFS Eligibility Criteria ..................................................................................................................... 18 

iii 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ensuring That MEP Subgrantees Prioritize Services for PFS-Eligible Migratory Children..............20 

Chapter Summary................................................................................................................................. 22 

Chapter 3. Using the Migrant Student Information Exchange (MSIX) to Improve Services 

and Supports for Migratory Children.................................................................................................. 23 

Notification of Intra- and Interstate Moves ......................................................................................... 23 

Facilitating Interstate Student Records Transfers ................................................................................ 25 

Improving Practices Intended to Mitigate Educational Disruptions for Migratory Children ...............26 

Chapter Summary................................................................................................................................. 28 

Chapter 4. Providing MEP Services to Eligible Migratory Children...................................................... 29 

Selecting Services to Meet Migratory Children’s Needs ...................................................................... 30 

Sources of Influence in the Selection of Services .......................................................................... 31 

Using Evidence and Data to Inform the Selection of MEP-Funded Services ................................. 32 

Serving the Instructional and Support Needs of Migratory Children................................................... 35 

Instructional Services..................................................................................................................... 35 

Support Services ............................................................................................................................ 41 

Referral Services ............................................................................................................................ 44 

Chapter Summary................................................................................................................................. 45 

Chapter 5. Collaborating to Deliver Services to Eligible Migratory Children ....................................... 47 

Developing and Formalizing Collaborations with Other Agencies and Organizations.........................47 

Advocacy and Outreach ................................................................................................................. 48 

Formal Agreements ....................................................................................................................... 49 

Collaborating with HEP and CAMP ................................................................................................ 51 

Collaborating with Other Agencies and Organizations ........................................................................ 53 

Collaborating to Provide Instructional Services............................................................................. 54 

Collaborating to Provide Support Services .................................................................................... 56 

Chapter Summary................................................................................................................................. 58 

Chapter 6. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 59 

References......................................................................................................................................... 61 

iv 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exhibits 

Exhibit 1. State subgranting and service-delivery structures for the Migrant Education Program..........3 

Exhibit 2. Number of migratory children ages 0–21 identified as eligible to receive MEP services 

and number of MEP subgrantees, by state, 2017-18................................................................ 4 

Exhibit 3. Characteristics of site visit states based on 2015–16 data ....................................................... 7 

Exhibit 4. State MEP ID&R management structures, 2017–18 ............................................................... 13 

Exhibit 5. Strategies state and local/regional recruiters used to identify and recruit migratory 

children, 2017–18.................................................................................................................... 16 

Exhibit 6. Academic risk criteria state grantees and local/regional subgrantees used to define 

PFS eligibility, 2017–18............................................................................................................ 19 

Exhibit 7. Changes to PFS academic risk eligibility criteria under ESSA, 2017–18 .................................. 20 

Exhibit 8. State strategies used to ensure local/regional subgrantees prioritize services for PFS 

migratory children, 2017–18................................................................................................... 21 

Exhibit 9. Extent to which MSIX improved timely notification when migratory children move 

across states, 2017–18 ............................................................................................................ 24 

Exhibit 10. Extent to which MSIX facilitated migratory student records transfer across states, 

2017–18................................................................................................................................... 25 

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..... 26 

Exhibit 12. Sources of influence on state MEP grantees’ determination of specific services for 

migratory children, 2017–18................................................................................................... 31 

Exhibit 13. Percentage of state MEP grantees and local/regional subgrantees that could 

disaggregate various types of data by students’ migratory status, 2017–18 ......................... 34 

Exhibit 14. State MEP structures for providing instructional services to migratory children, 2017–18..36 

Exhibit 15. MEP-funded instructional services that state grantees and local/regional subgrantees 

provided directly to migratory children 2017–18 ................................................................... 38 

Exhibit 16. Percentage of local/regional subgrantees that provided various instructional services to 

migratory out-of-school youth, 2017–18 ................................................................................ 40 

Exhibit 17. State MEP structures for providing support services to migratory children, 2017–18 ..........42 

Exhibit 18. MEP-funded support services state MEP grantees and local/regional MEP subgrantees 

provided directly to migratory children, 2017–18 .................................................................. 43 

Exhibit 19. Services for which the state MEP grantees or local/regional subgrantees referred eligible 

migratory children to others, among referring MEPs, 2017–18 ............................................. 45 

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.................................................................................................................... 49 

v 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit 21. Types of organizations and agencies with which state grantees and local/regional 

subgrantees had at least one formal agreement to collaborate, 2017–18 ............................ 50 

Exhibit 22. Ways in which state MEP directors and local/regional MEP coordinators coordinated 

and collaborated with HEP or CAMP, 2017–18....................................................................... 52 

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 ....................... 53 

Exhibit 24. Collaboration among state MEP grantees, local/regional subgrantees, and other 

agencies and organizations to directly provide instructional services to migratory 

children, 2017–18.................................................................................................................... 55 

Exhibit 25. Collaboration between state MEP grantees, local/regional subgrantees, and other 

agencies and organizations to directly provide support services to migratory 

children, 2017–18.................................................................................................................... 57 

vi 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Acknowledgments 

We wish to thank several individuals who contributed to the completion of this report. First, we are 

grateful to the many state, regional, and local Migrant Education Program (MEP) administrators and 

other staff who participated in interviews and focus groups as part of the data collection for this study. 

In addition, we want to thank all the state MEP directors and the hundreds of regional and local MEP 

coordinators who took time out of their busy schedules to complete the online survey. Without their 

efforts, this report would not have been possible, and we deeply appreciate their assistance. 

We are also grateful for the guidance and support of the U.S. Department of Education. In particular, we 

thank Joanne Bogart, Victoria Hammer, and Stephanie Stullich of the Policy and Program Studies Service 

as well as Office of Migrant Education staff for their careful guidance and support throughout the study. 

In addition, we thank the many members of the study team for their thoughtful contributions to the 

study. In particular, we thank Derek Riley, Yvonne Woods, and Tandra Turner at Policy Studies 

Associates (PSA); Alexandra Ball, Aliya Pilchen, and Katrina Woodworth at SRI International (SRI); and 

Brian Curry, Crystal Martin-Nelson, and John Kucsera at Arroyo Research Services. We are also grateful 

to Shari Golan of SRI and Brenda Turnbull of PSA for their thoughtful review and feedback on the study 

design, data analysis, data collection, and reporting for this study. 

Finally, we want to thank the members of our technical working group who helped inform the study 

design and final report, including Veronica Aguila, Mary Haluska, Geri McMahon, Carmen Medina, and 

Jared Robinson. 

While we appreciate the assistance and support of these individuals, any errors in judgment or fact are 

the responsibility of the authors. 

vii 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Executive Summary 

The children of migratory agricultural workers and fishers are extremely disadvantaged and more likely 

than their nonmigratory peers to live in poverty and experience disconnected educational experiences 

that can hinder their educational progress and success (Berger 2014; Quandt et al. 2016; U.S. 

Department of Labor 2017; Wiltz 2016). Congress established the Migrant Education Program (MEP) in 

1966 through an amendment to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA). The goal 

of the program under ESEA, as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 (ESSA), is to help 

meet the unique educational needs of migratory children.

1 2 In particular, the MEP seeks to mitigate 

challenges associated with mobility that may impede students’ academic success, such as differences in 

curricular or academic requirements as students move between and among states. 

In fiscal year (FY) 2018, Congress appropriated $374.8 million for the MEP,

3 with each state’s award 

based on its migratory child count, the number of migratory children receiving summer and intersession 

services, and the average per-pupil expenditure in the state (ESEA, Sec. 1301(b)). In FY 2018, 46 states 

received MEP funding,4 and 304,480 migratory children ages 0–21 in the United States were eligible to 

receive MEP-funded services and support.5 6 The median population of migratory children per state, 

among the states that receive MEP funding, was 1,555, but the number varied widely across 

participating states. For example, in 2017–18, Nevada had the fewest eligible migratory children, with 

106, and California had the most, with 85,198. 

States may award subgrants to regional educational service agencies, local school districts, and/or other 

local operating agencies, or serve eligible children directly. States have flexibility to administer MEPfunded services and activities however they believe best supports the needs of the migratory children 

they serve. This flexibility is reflected in the variety of grant-making strategies and local subgrantee 

types evident in the program. For example, three states made no subgrant awards in 2017–18 and 

served migratory children directly. Another six states made only one subgrant award, usually to a 

statewide or regional educational service provider to carry out some or all of the state’s responsibilities. 

The remaining 37 states awarded a total of 826 subgrants to local school districts (716 subgrants), to 

1 Appendix A includes the entire statute, including the statutory definition of a migratory child under ESEA. Appendix A is 

available in a separate technical volume at [insert link here]. 

2 Although the MEP technically serves migratory children and migratory out-of-school youth ages birth through 21, for purposes 

of readability we reference children throughout this report. In addition, out-of-school youth refers to migratory out-of-school 

youth, not out-of-school youth in general. 

3 States receive MEP allocations each federal fiscal year, which extends from October 1 through September 30. The Department 

currently awards funds to each eligible state educational agency on July 1. States may obligate those funds for an initial period 

of 15 months and an additional 12 months granted by the “Tydings amendment” in section 421(b) of the General Education 

Provisions Act (GEPA). In FY 2019, Congress again appropriated $374.8 million for the MEP. The U.S. Department of Education 

reserves up to $10 million of this amount to conduct migrant education coordination activities 

(https://www2.ed.gov/programs/mep/funding.html). 

4 Connecticut, Rhode Island, West Virginia, Wyoming, the District of Columbia, and the island territories (e.g., Puerto Rico, 

Guam, etc.) did not apply for or receive MEP grant awards in FY 2018. 

5 Only migratory children ages 3–21 are counted for state funding allocations. However, migratory children from birth to 21 are 

eligible for MEP services. 

6 Based on EDFacts data for 2017–18, the most recent year for which data were available. 

viii 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

statewide or regional educational service agencies or district consortia (96 subgrants),

7 and to nonprofit 

organizations, including colleges and universities (14 subgrants). 

State MEP grantees and local/regional MEP subgrantees carry out a range of activities and services to 

support the needs of migratory children, including identifying and recruiting migratory children, 

providing instructional and support services that help bolster and sustain the educational progress of 

migratory children, and collaborating with other organizations and programs that serve migratory 

children (e.g., Migrant and Seasonal Head Start,

8 the College Assistance Migrant Program, or the High 

School Equivalency Program). MEP grantees and subgrantees vary in how they carry out these tasks. For 

example, MEP grantees and subgrantees may identify and recruit migratory children directly or assign 

this task to others. They also have flexibility to provide a range of services, including direct academic 

instruction, online courses, graduation-planning assistance, health and dental care, clothing, 

transportation, and other supports that help migratory children progress and succeed in school. 

In 2018, this study examined how state MEP grantees and local/regional subgrantees implemented the 

program’s four central components—(1) identification and recruitment, (2) records transfer, (3) service 

delivery, and (4) coordination and collaboration—and thereby positioned the program to achieve its 

longer-term goals of reducing barriers to migratory children’s school success, closing the gaps in their 

academic achievement, and increasing their high school graduation rates. The study focused on four 

main study questions: 

1. How do state MEP grantees and local/regional subgrantees identify, recruit, and prioritize 

migratory children for services? 

2. How does the Migrant Student Information Exchange (MSIX) system facilitate the transfer of 

educational and health information to support enrollment, placement, and accrual of credits for 

migratory children? 

3. What services do state MEP grantees and local/regional subgrantees provide to migratory 

children? 

4. How do state MEP grantees and local/regional subgrantees collaborate with other programs and 

organizations to deliver services to migratory children? 

Key findings from the study include the following: 

• Most state MEP grantees relied on their local/regional MEP subgrantees and outside contractors 

to manage the identification and recruitment (ID&R) process, including hiring, deploying, and 

supervising MEP recruiters. At the same time, states played a significant role in recruiter 

training, monitoring, and quality control. 

• Most state MEP directors and local/regional MEP coordinators reported that MSIX had 

improved timely notification when migratory children moved across states and facilitated 

interstate migratory student records transfers. 

7 Because the lead district for a local educational agency consortium provides MEP services to eligible migratory children on 

behalf of the consortium members, we group such consortia with regional educational service agencies. 

8 Funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 

ix 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• State MEP directors considered a variety of factors in determining specific services to provide or 

fund for migratory children, including the needs of migratory children, the availability of funds, 

student outcomes, policy priorities, and the services provided by other programs. 

• State MEP grantees and local/regional MEP subgrantees that provided direct services to 

migratory children most commonly provided supplemental instructional services that included 

reading/language arts instruction and mathematics instruction. Among the state MEP grantees 

and local/regional subgrantees that directly provided support services to migratory children, 

most provided school supplies, language support (e.g., translation or interpretation services), 

and individual student advocacy services. 

• Most state MEP grantees and local/regional MEP subgrantees that provided direct instructional 

and support services to migratory children collaborated with other agencies and organizations 

to provide these services. 

Methodology 

To answer the study questions, the study included a 2018 national survey of all state MEP grantees and 

their local/regional subgrantees, including 46 state MEP directors and 821 local/regional MEP 

coordinators, generating response rates of 100 and 90 percent, respectively. 

In addition, the study included site visits in winter 2018 to a purposive and nested sample of 10 state 

MEP grantees, 20 local/regional MEP subgrantees (two per state), and 40 schools or projects 

(approximately four per state). Site-selection criteria included the size of the state’s migratory child 

population eligible for MEP-funded services, the percentage of the eligible population receiving MEPfunded services, the percentage of eligible children identified as Priority for Services (PFS), and the 

number and type of local/regional MEP subgrantees. Site visitors interviewed MEP staff members, 

including state MEP directors and local/regional MEP coordinators and their staff, as well as school- or 

project-based personnel involved in implementing MEP-funded services. The interviews provided 

examples that illustrate, elaborate on, or give context for the survey findings. 

The study team also examined extant data from the U.S. Department of Education’s website ED Data 

Express,

9 from Consolidated State Performance Reports for 2010–11 through 2016–17, and from 

EDFacts data for 2017–18. A literature review (Pratt-Williams, Pilchen, Kistler, Schmidt, and Jonas 2017) 

summarized information available about MEP services and service partners through public reports, 

research articles, and evaluation reports of state MEPs. Together, the extant data and literature review 

informed the study questions, sampling approach, instrument design, analysis plan, and final report. 

9 https://eddataexpress.ed.gov/. 

x 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Summary of Findings 

Identifying, Recruiting, and Prioritizing Migratory Children for MEP Services 

Most state MEP grantees relied on their local/regional MEP subgrantees and outside 

contractors to manage the identification and recruitment process, including hiring, 

deploying, and supervising MEP recruiters. At the same time, states played a significant 

role in recruiter training, monitoring, and quality control. 

Under Section 1304(c)(8) of ESEA, the state is responsible for identifying the number of migratory 

children residing in the state but has flexibility to decide whether to manage the process on a statewide, 

regional, or local basis. In 2017–18, the majority of state MEP directors (74 percent, or 34 of 46 states) 

reported relying on local/regional MEPs to manage the hiring, deployment, and supervision of recruiters 

who identify and recruit eligible migratory children. Local/regional MEP coordinators confirmed this 

ID&R management structure, with 78 percent reporting that they managed ID&R activities directly. 

Recruiters most commonly identified and recruited migratory children using their contacts 

in the schools, communities, and businesses that migratory families frequent. 

State MEP directors and local/regional MEP coordinators most frequently reported that recruiters 

identified and recruited migratory children by developing and maintaining contacts with key groups. 

These groups included staff in local schools (100 percent of state MEP directors and 96 percent of 

local/regional MEP coordinators), people in communities where migratory families are likely to reside 

(100 percent and 83 percent), employers who hire migratory workers (96 percent and 81 percent), and 

local businesses and organizations that serve migratory families (96 percent and 77 percent). In 

addition, most state MEP directors and local/regional MEP coordinators reported that recruiters 

identified children through referrals from other agencies and organizations (91 percent and 71 percent) 

and by attending community events (80 percent and 75 percent). 

In interviews, local/regional MEP coordinators noted that recruiters often struggled to find out-of-school 

youth because, for example, farmers and facility owners no longer granted recruiters access to the work 

sites to identify MEP-eligible youth, or out-of-school youth were unwilling to participate in the MEP 

because they lacked time to attend school. 

MEP coordinators used both academic performance and academic risk factors to determine 

migratory children’s Priority for Services status. 

Introduced in the 1994 reauthorization of ESEA under the Improving America’s Schools Act (IASA), 

Priority for Services (PFS) requires state MEP grantees and local/regional subgrantees to identify and 

deliver services to the most recently mobile and academically at-risk migratory children before all 

others. The PFS requirement has remained a significant focus of the MEP and was further expanded in 

the 2015 reauthorization of ESEA by ESSA. The PFS “mobility” factor now includes migratory children 

who have moved within the previous one-year period (rather than being limited to children whose 

education was interrupted during the regular school year). The PFS “academic risk” factor now explicitly 

includes children who have dropped out of school, in addition to those who are failing or at-risk of 

failing to meet the challenging state academic standards. Because grantees had only begun 

implementing the expanded definition of PFS a few months prior to the launch of the study survey, they 

were surveyed only about the criteria they used to define students who were failing or at-risk of failing 

xi 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

to meet academic standards.10 It is important to note, nevertheless, that ESEA requires each state to 

identify as PFS-eligible migratory children who have made a qualifying move within the previous oneyear period, and who: (1) are failing or most at risk of failing to meet challenging state academic 

standards or (2) have dropped out of school (ESEA Sec. 1304(d)). 

Most state MEP directors and local/regional MEP coordinators operationalized “failing or at risk of 

failing to meet challenging academic standards” as migratory children who scored below grade level 

based on state assessment results (94 percent of state MEP directors and 89 percent of local/regional 

MEP coordinators), were English learners11 (85 percent and 78 percent), and/or were retained in grade 

for more than one year (80 percent and 71 percent). 

State MEP directors and local/regional coordinators also reported prioritizing MEP services for migratory 

children based on whether they had dropped out of school (89 percent and 70 percent) or on academic 

risk factors, such as changing schools in the past year (74 percent and 75 percent), chronic absence (44 

percent and 52 percent), or truancy (32 percent and 40 percent). 

Using the Migrant Student Information Exchange (MSIX) to Improve Services and 

Supports for Migratory Children 

The reauthorization of ESEA under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 authorized MSIX, a database12 to 

transfer educational and health information across and within states to facilitate timely school 

enrollment, grade and course placement, and accrual of course credits. MSIX maintains an electronic 

Consolidated Student Record for each migratory child, including records of a child’s history of school 

enrollments; high school course history; credit accumulation; achievement testing; medical alert, 

individualized education program (IEP), English Learner (EL), graduation and Algebra I completion 

indicators, as well as PFS and immunization records flags. MSIX allows for the Consolidated Student 

Record to be transferred within and across states. All MEP grantees are required to upload student 

information to MSIX. Its purpose is to mitigate the effects of educational disruptions for migratory 

children caused by frequent moves within and across states by providing rapid access to data needed to 

identify, enroll, and place migratory children. 

More than two-thirds of state MEP directors and local/regional MEP coordinators reported 

that MSIX moderately or substantially improved timely notification when migratory children 

moved across states. 

Most state MEP directors (72 percent) and local/regional MEP coordinators (70 percent) agreed that 

MSIX moderately or substantially improved notifications about migratory children moving across states. 

In an interview, one state MEP director described MSIX as a useful tool for learning when migratory 

children have arrived in his state: “It is nice for the recruiters to go in [to MSIX] and say ‘Oh, this kid has 

10 This decision was based on guidance provided by the study’s Technical Working Group. 

11 The state and local/regional survey instruments asked respondents about children who were “Limited English Proficient,” the 

term used in the Consolidated State Performance Reports. However, in this report, we use “English learner” because that is the 

term preferred in the field. “English learner” is also the term used in ESEA, as amended by ESSA. When presenting survey 

results in exhibits, we use both terms. 

12 In fact, it is a web-based repository of 76 minimum data elements or MDEs collected and submitted to MSIX by MEP 

grantees. 

xii 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

moved here’ and see that the kid has been in the [MEP] before.... I know the recruiters, all of them, they 

use MSIX a lot.” 

Most state MEP directors and local/regional MEP coordinators reported that MSIX facilitated 

interstate migratory student records transfers. 

Among those who said they knew how MSIX affected the records transfer process (93 percent of state 

MEP directors and 76 percent of local/regional MEP coordinators), more than three-quarters (76 

percent of state MEP directors and 82 percent of local/regional MEP coordinators) agreed that MSIX 

somewhat or significantly facilitated migratory student records transfer across states. In interviews, 

state and local/regional MEP staff members described MSIX as valuable for expediting enrollment 

because it provides critical information for migratory children but explained that information from the 

sending schools is often delayed, incomplete, erroneous, or out of date by the time it is received. 

The majority of local/regional MEP coordinators and about half the state MEP directors 

reported that MSIX had moderately or substantially improved other practices intended to 

mitigate the effects of educational disruptions for migratory children, such as the 

appropriateness of course placements and the timeliness of school enrollment. 

The majority of local/regional MEP coordinators reported that MSIX moderately or substantially 

improved other practices intended to mitigate educational disruptions for migratory children, such as 

the facilitation of course credit accrual (62 percent), appropriateness of course placements (63 percent), 

appropriateness of grade placements (63 percent), timeliness of school enrollment (59 percent), and 

reduction in unnecessary immunizations (53 percent). About half of the state MEP directors agreed that 

MSIX had moderately or substantially improved these other practices. 

In interviews, state MEP directors and local/regional MEP coordinators identified areas for improvement 

for MSIX, observing that not all states use MSIX consistently or in the same ways, which can lead to gaps 

in information about migratory children. Suggested areas for improvement included ensuring that 

(1) data handlers enter migratory children’s full names in MSIX so that student identification and records 

transfers can proceed more quickly, and (2) states define student performance as pass/fail to avoid 

varied and sometimes inaccurate interpretations of how grades or percentages translate into course 

credits. 

Providing MEP Services to Eligible Migratory Children 

The core of the MEP is the supplemental instructional and support services provided to migratory 

children that help mitigate the negative impacts of mobility on school success.13 State MEP grantees and 

their subgrantees have considerable flexibility to determine the services to be provided with MEP funds, 

“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,”14 and 

13 ESEA section 1306(b)(2) requires that “MEP funding be used to address the needs of migratory children that are not 

addressed 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” that result from their migratory lifestyle. 

14 ESEA section 1306(b)(1). 

xiii 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

state MEP grantees draw on a range of data sources to make their determinations for provisions of 

services. 

Most state MEP directors considered multiple data sources and factors in determining what 

services to provide or fund for migratory children. 

The vast majority of state MEP directors identified four factors as important in determining what 

services to provide or fund for migratory children: results from the needs assessments of migratory 

children (100 percent of state MEP directors), the amount of MEP funding available (98 percent), 

migratory student outcome data (98 percent), and availability of services from other programs 

(93 percent). 

Most state MEP directors and local/regional MEP coordinators reported that their state 

information systems permitted the disaggregation of student performance data by 

migratory status, which they used to help select instructional and support services to offer 

migratory children. 

Most state MEP directors (85 percent) and local/regional MEP coordinators (91 percent) reported being 

able to disaggregate various data for migratory children. Of those, most reported being able to 

disaggregate English learner status (97 percent of state directors and 92 percent of local/regional 

coordinators), dropout status (87 percent and 76 percent), whether they had changed schools during 

the previous or current school year (87 percent and 84 percent), their state assessment scores (85 

percent and 85 percent), and their cohort graduation rates (82 percent and 62 percent). 

Notably fewer state MEP directors and local/regional MEP coordinators reported being able to 

disaggregate nonacademic dropout-risk factors by children’s migratory status, such as involvement with 

social services (22 percent of state directors and 41 percent of local/regional coordinators), involvement 

with the juvenile justice system (6 percent and 25 percent), reports of substance abuse (3 percent and 

16 percent), and pregnancy or teen parenthood (0 percent and 20 percent). 

More than a third of state MEP grantees directly provided supplemental instructional 

services and other academic supports to migratory children, including college and career 

supports and subject-area instruction. 

To mitigate the learning challenges caused by education disruptions that migratory children regularly 

experience, 19 states provided, on average, six types of instructional services and other academic 

supports to migratory children. Common types of instructional services and other academic supports 

states provided directly to migratory children included career exploration and guidance (69 percent), 

high school graduation planning and assistance (63 percent), reading and language arts instruction (58 

percent), mathematics instruction (53 percent), credit-recovery programs (53 percent), and preparation 

for the postsecondary transition (53 percent). In interviews, state MEP directors described the types of 

instructional services and other academic supports they directly provided to migratory children, and in 

most cases, these were special events, such as college visits or summer camps, which embedded direct 

instructional services. 

The vast majority of local/regional MEP subgrantees (93 percent) directly provided 

supplemental instructional services and academic supports to migratory children, the most 

common of which included reading and language arts instruction, mathematics instruction, 

and academic guidance and advocacy. 

xiv 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On average, local/regional MEP coordinators that directly provided supplemental instructional services 

and other academic supports reported providing nine types of such services and supports to migratory 

children, including reading and language arts instruction (84 percent), mathematics instruction (82 

percent), academic guidance and advocacy (80 percent), graduation-planning assistance (76 percent), or 

career exploration and guidance (75 percent). 

Local/regional MEP coordinators described in interviews services that were unique to their 

communities. One local MEP coordinator described providing in-home reading and developmental 

support to eligible preschool-age migratory children. Another subgrantee ran an after-school program 

for migratory children in grades K–5 that provided supplemental English-language arts and mathematics 

instruction as well as enrichment instruction, including science, technology, engineering, and 

mathematics (STEM) lessons combined with soccer drills and artists teaching visual and performing arts. 

One teacher described the benefits of the after-school support: “These kids need something to come 

and do after school, and it’s great that they’re getting more one-on-one time with teachers.” 

Local/regional MEP coordinators also reported providing instructional services and other 

academic supports to out-of-school youth, the most common of which were academic 

guidance and advocacy, reading and language arts instruction, career exploration and 

guidance, and mathematics instruction. 

More than half of the local/regional MEP coordinators reported providing direct instructional services 

and other academic supports to out-of-school youth that included academic guidance and advocacy (59 

percent), supplemental reading and language arts instruction (55 percent), career exploration and 

guidance (55 percent), and supplemental mathematics instruction (52 percent). In interviews, some 

local/regional MEP coordinators explained that the selection of services provided to out-of-school youth 

was largely based on the groups’ needs, interests, and access to sources of support. 

More than a third of state MEP grantees provided direct support services to migratory 

children, including leadership development and language support. Ninety-two percent of 

local/regional coordinators reported providing direct support services to migratory children, 

including distribution of school supplies, language supports (e.g., translation or 

interpretation services), and individual student advocacy services. 

In addition to instructional services and other academic supports, state MEP grantees and local/regional 

MEP subgrantees also provided an array of support services to address the social, emotional, and health 

issues that migratory children regularly experience that can impact their ability to attend and fully focus 

at school. Eighteen state MEP grantees provided direct support services to migratory children that most 

commonly included leadership development programs (58 percent of states), language support (50 

percent), transportation not otherwise provided (39 percent), and individual student advocacy services 

(39 percent). The least common support services states provided directly were related to home 

supports, including housing guidance and assistance (16 percent), clothing (11 percent), and child care 

(11 percent). 

Local/regional MEP coordinators reported providing an average of six types of support services to 

migratory children, including school supplies (82 percent), language support (74 percent), individual 

student advocacy services (65 percent), mentoring (61 percent), transportation (57 percent), and 

clothing (51 percent). In interviews, local/regional MEP coordinators described helping migratory 

children enroll in school and obtain proper immunizations, transporting families to obtain medical 

xv 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

services, and conducting home visits to identify and address the needs of migratory children and their 

families. 

Collaborating to Deliver Services to Eligible Migratory Children 

MEP grantees and subgrantees not only identify needs and provide services to migratory children, but, 

according to the Department’s Non-Regulatory Guidance for the MEP (USED 2017a), they are also 

encouraged to identify other agencies and organizations that might provide a service that addresses an 

identified need. Coordinating and collaborating with other federal and non-federal programs is both a 

practical necessity and a statutory requirement for efforts to meet the educational needs of migratory 

children. 

Most state MEP directors and local/regional MEP coordinators participated in outreach 

activities to engage with other agencies and organizations in supporting the needs of 

migratory children. 

Most state MEP directors and local/regional MEP coordinators reported delivering or attending 

presentations (89 percent of state directors and 61 percent of local/regional coordinators), attending inperson meetings (87 percent and 83 percent), and disseminating materials such as informational letters, 

brochures, or briefs (80 percent and 78 percent) as part of their outreach efforts. In an interview, one 

state MEP director described how twice a year the state team brought together all the agencies across 

the state that work with migratory children, including migrant health services, housing services, and the 

ED-funded High School Equivalency Program (HEP) and College Assistance Migrant Program (CAMP). 

During these meetings, participants described the services they provided, the barriers they 

encountered, and how they would like to collaborate. Similarly, another state MEP director described 

holding quarterly cross-agency meetings to talk about the needs of migratory children and the agencies 

that could meet them. 

Half or fewer state MEP grantees and local/regional MEP subgrantees had formal 

agreements articulating their commitments to collaborate with other agencies and 

organizations to address the needs of migratory children. 

Approximately half the state MEP directors (49 percent) and 40 percent of local/regional MEP 

coordinators had a formal agreement, such as a memorandum of understanding or cost-sharing 

agreement, with an organization or agency to serve migratory children. Among those with formal 

agreements, about half had more than one formal agreement (57 percent or 13 state MEP grantees and 

47 percent of local/regional MEP subgrantees with any formal agreement). 

No one type of agency or organization stood out as frequently being a formal partner for state MEPs. In 

interviews, state MEP directors and staff explained that they often relied on informal agreements with 

agencies and organizations to serve the needs of migratory children. For example, one state had an 

informal agreement with a statewide farmworker health initiative to provide healthcare services to 

migratory families, and another described collaborating with the state’s Early Childhood Division (ECD) 

to include teachers of migratory preschool students in a statewide professional development network. 

Most state MEP grantees and local/regional subgrantees coordinated or collaborated with 

HEP and/or CAMP to provide services to migratory children. 

xvi 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Overall, 69 percent of state MEP directors and 59 percent of local/regional MEP coordinators reported 

collaborating in some way with HEP or CAMP. Most did so to distribute program information to 

migratory children, youth, and families about HEP (83 percent of state MEP directors and 72 percent of 

local/regional MEP coordinators) or CAMP (72 percent and 89 percent); or to share information or data 

on migratory children with HEP (87 percent and 70 percent) or CAMP (69 percent and 87 percent). 

Most state MEP grantees and local/regional subgrantees that directly provided instructional 

and support services to migratory children, including reading and language arts instruction, 

student advocacy services, and dental care, collaborated with other agencies and 

organizations to provide these services. 

For example, of the 11 state MEP directors who reported that the state directly provided reading and 

language arts instruction, nine reported doing so in collaboration with other agencies and organizations. 

Similarly, of the 605 local/regional MEP coordinators who directly provided reading and language arts 

instruction, more than half (54 percent) reported collaborating with other agencies and organizations to 

provide these services to migratory children. 

When they provided support services directly, most state MEP directors and local/regional MEP 

coordinators reported collaborating with other agencies and organizations to do so. Services they 

collaborated to provide included student advocacy services (all seven states that directly provided this 

service and 89 percent of local/regional MEPs); dental care (all five states and 90 percent of 

local/regional MEPs), eye care (all four states and 92 percent of local/regional MEPs), and counseling 

and mental health services (all four states and 83 percent of local/regional MEPs). 

Conclusion 

Most state MEP grantees and local/regional MEP subgrantees have established strategies to identify and 

recruit migratory children, ensure the transfer of student records within and across states, provide 

supplemental instructional and support services to address the needs of migratory children not 

addressed by services available from other federal or non-federal programs, and collaborate with other 

organizations and agencies to respond to the needs of migratory children. Most MEP grantees and 

subgrantees built relationships with schools, communities, and businesses that serve migratory families 

to identify and recruit migratory children. They used MSIX to facilitate MEP participation and the 

transfer of student records to help mitigate the effects of educational disruptions for migratory children 

caused by frequent moves. Most MEPs selected service offerings to meet children’s needs by 

considering funding constraints, outcome data, and other programs available in their area. Most MEP 

grantees and subgrantees that delivered direct services to migratory children also collaborated with 

other organizations, formally and informally, to more fully and comprehensively address the educational 

and health-related needs of migratory children that hinder school success. 

In interviews, some state MEP directors and local/regional MEP coordinators reported implementation 

challenges that might be addressed by technical assistance and resources. For example, they mentioned 

difficulties with locating and recruiting migratory out-of-school youth and sustaining their participation 

in services. They also mentioned areas for improvement in MSIX, observing that not all states used MSIX 

consistently or in the same ways,15 which could lead to gaps in information on migratory children 

moving within and across state lines. One suggested area for improvement was ensuring that states 

15 Nevertheless, participation in MSIX is required. 

xvii 
 

 

 

define student performance as pass/fail to avoid varied and sometimes inaccurate interpretations of 

how grades or percentages translate into course credits. 

The full report provides additional details about MEP implementation, challenges, and accomplishments 

to support program planning and support. 

xviii 
This page intentionally left blank 

xix 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 1. Introduction 

The children of migratory agricultural workers and fishers are extremely disadvantaged and more likely 

than their nonmigratory peers to live in poverty and experience disconnected educational experiences 

that can hinder their educational progress and success (Berger 2014; Quandt et al. 2016; U.S. 

Department of Labor 2017; Wiltz 2016). Congress established the Migrant Education Program (MEP) in 

1966 through an amendment to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA). The goal 

of the program under ESEA, as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 (ESSA), is to help 

meet the unique educational needs of migratory children.

16 

Migratory children face many challenges that impede their ability to stay in school, graduate, and go on 

to college and careers. As described in a 2011 literature review commissioned by the U.S. Department of 

Education’s Office of Migrant Education (OME), these challenges include poor health, limited access to 

healthcare, poverty, language barriers, and social isolation (U.S. Department of Education [USED] 2011). 

A 2013 Housing Assistance Council report described farmworkers, who are largely ethnic minorities or 

immigrants, as among the poorest groups in the nation, often living in “substandard, overcrowded, and 

unaffordable” housing. Moreover, the report described farmworker conditions as “further exacerbated 

by a plethora of legal, cultural, and geographic circumstances that often keeps this population in the 

shadows of American society and contributes to their economic marginalization” (Housing Assistance 

Council [HAC] 2013). In addition, migratory children often lack school-readiness skills and are overage 

for their grade level, having attended school only intermittently (Chavkin and González 2000; USED 

2011). Finally, migratory children’s parents may lack the educational skills to support their children’s 

growth and development and are often disconnected from the larger community and from available 

educational supports and services (USED 2011). For these reasons, many migratory children drop out of 

school before graduation (Human Rights Watch 2000). 

In FY 2018, Congress appropriated $374.8 million for the MEP,

17 with each state’s award based on its 

migratory child count, the number of migratory children receiving summer and intersession services, 

and the average per-pupil expenditure in the state (ESEA Sec. 1301). In FY 2018, 46 states received MEP 

funding,18 and 304,480 migratory children ages 0–21 in the United States were eligible to receive MEPfunded services and support in the 2017–18 performance reporting period.

19 20 The program is intended 

to address the unique needs of the children of migratory agricultural workers and fishers.

21 Specifically, 

16 Appendix A includes the entire statute, including the statutory definition of a migratory child under ESEA. Appendix A is 

available in a separate technical volume at [insert link here]. 

17 States receive MEP allocations each federal fiscal year, which extends from October 1 through September 30. The 

Department currently awards funds to each eligible state educational agency on July 1. States may obligate those funds for an 

initial period of 15 months and an additional 12 months granted by the “Tydings amendment” in section 421(b) of the General 

Education Provisions Act (GEPA). In FY 2019, Congress again appropriated $374.8 million for the MEP. The Department of 

Education reserves up to $10 million of this amount to conduct migrant education coordination activities 

(https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget19/19action.pdf). 

18 Connecticut, Rhode Island, West Virginia, Wyoming, the District of Columbia, and the island territories (e.g., Puerto Rico, 

Guam, etc.) did not apply for or receive MEP grant awards in FY 2018. 

19 Only migratory children ages 3–21 are counted for state funding allocations. However, migratory children ages birth through 

21 are eligible to receive MEP-funded services. 

20 Based on EDFacts data for the 2017–18 performance reporting period (September 1, 2017 – August 31, 2018), the most 

recent year for which data were available. 

21 In addition, migratory agricultural workers and fishers can themselves be recipients of MEP services if they meet the 

definition of a migratory child. 

1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

it is intended to ensure that migratory children stay in school, achieve the same educational standards 

expected of all children, graduate from high school, and go on to college and careers. In particular, the 

MEP seeks to mitigate challenges associated with mobility that may interfere with migratory children’s 

academic success, such as differences in curricular or academic requirements that students encounter as 

they move between states. The MEP is also intended to help migratory children overcome additional 

challenges unique to their migratory status that may impede their educational success, including 

educational disruption, cultural and language barriers, and social isolation (ESEA Sec. 1301). 

States have administrative responsibility for services and activities intended to achieve the goals of the 

MEP, namely, identifying and recruiting often hard-to-find migratory children; prioritizing services for 

children who have moved in the last year and are failing, are at risk of failing, or have dropped out of 

school; conducting comprehensive needs assessments; ensuring the inter- and intrastate transfer of 

student records; providing instructional services and supports that address the identified needs of 

migratory children and that ultimately help them succeed in school; and coordinating and collaborating 

with other organizations and programs to strengthen and expand the array of services and supports 

delivered. 

Study Overview 

Study Purpose 

The purpose of this study of the implementation of the Title I, Part C, Migrant Education Program was to 

examine how state and local/regional MEP-funded programs are addressing the needs of migratory 

children.22 The study addressed four questions: 

1. How do state MEP grantees and local/regional subgrantees identify, recruit, and prioritize 

migratory children for services? 

2. How does the Migrant Student Information Exchange (MSIX) system facilitate the transfer of 

educational and health information to support enrollment, placement, and accrual of credits for 

migratory children? 

3. What services do state MEP grantees and local/regional subgrantees provide to migratory 

children? 

4. How do state MEP grantees and local/regional subgrantees collaborate with other programs and 

organizations to deliver services to migratory children? 

This chapter provides the context for the overall study, including background information on the MEP 

program, the study sample, data collection, analysis, and limitations. 

22 Although the MEP technically serves migratory children and migratory out-of-school youth ages birth through 21, for 

purposes of readability we reference children throughout this report. In addition, out-of-school youth refers to migratory outof-school youth, not out-of-school youth in general. 

2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Educational 

Schools/ 

Projects 

Program Administration 

The MEP aims to improve the educational outcomes of migratory children and youth. States with MEP 

grants can administer MEP-funded services and activities in ways they believe best support the needs of 

the migratory children they serve. This flexibility has yielded a variety of grantmaking strategies and 

local subgrantee types. For example, states may award subgrants to local operating agencies such as 

regional educational service agencies or local educational agency (LEA) consortia, individual LEAs, public 

or private agencies, or to a combination of regional educational service agencies, LEAs, and public or 

private organizations. Regional subgrantees may then deliver services directly or award subgrants to 

LEAs. Finally, state educational agencies may choose to serve migratory children directly (Exhibit 1). 

Exhibit 1. State subgranting and service-delivery structures for the Migrant Education Program 

Distribution of Migratory Children 

In 2017–18, 304,480 migratory children in the United States ages 0–21 were eligible for MEP-funded 

services and support.23 24 The median population of eligible migratory children per state was 1,555, but 

the number varied widely across states. Exhibit 2 presents states by the number of migratory children 

identified as well as the number served. For example, California identified 85,198 eligible migratory 

children in 2017–18 and served 61,483 of them, whereas Nevada identified 106 eligible migratory 

children and served 94 of them. 

As shown in Exhibit 2, three states (Hawaii, New Hampshire, and North Dakota) made no subgrant 

awards and served migratory children directly. Another six states (Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, 

Mississippi, Tennessee, and Vermont) made only one subgrant award, usually to a statewide or regional 

educational service provider. The remaining 37 states awarded a total of 826 subgrants to local school 

districts (716 subgrants), to district consortia (15 subgrants), to statewide or regional educational service 

agencies (81 subgrants), and to nonprofit organizations, including colleges and universities (14 

subgrants). On average, states awarded a total of 18 subgrants, with the number varying widely, from 1 

to 161 subgrantees within a state; the median number of subgrants awarded was 10. 

23 Based on the Department’s EDFacts data for 2017–18, the most recent year for which data were available. 

24 Only migratory children ages 3–21 are counted for state funding allocations. However, migratory children ages birth through 

21 are eligible to receive MEP-funded services. 

3 
 

 

Exhibit 2. Number of migratory children ages 0–21 identified as eligible to receive MEP services 

and number of MEP subgrantees, by state, 2017–18 

State 

Number of eligible 

migratory children 

identified 

Number of eligible 

migratory children 

served 

Number of subgrantees 

School 

districts 

District 

consortia

Regional and statewide 

service agencies 

Nonprofit 

organizations Total 

Total 304,480 216,661 716 15 81 14 826 

California 85,198 61,483 5 0 15 0 20 

Washington 30,798 12,650 59 0 1 0 60 

Texas 30,602 23,265 151 0 10 0 161 

Florida 24,454 23,720 34 2 0 0 36 

Oregon 21,625 11,242 9 0 10 0 19 

Alaska 13,379 9,679 40 0 0 0 40 

Arizona 10,494 6,693 21 4 0 0 25 

Georgia 9,055 6,274 68 0 0 1 69 

Arkansas 5,784 4,491 0 0 4 0 4 

Pennsylvania 5,374 4,822 0 0 4 0 4 

Kentucky 5,368 5,022 34 0 5 0 39 

Colorado 5,365 5,147 0 3 2 0 5 

Michigan 5,258 3,880 24 3 0 0 27 

Nebraska 5,252 3,887 13 0 0 0 13 

North Carolina 5,213 3,852 28 0 0 0 28 

Idaho 5,164 3,634 42 0 0 0 42 

Kansas 4,570 3,724 36 0 3 2 41 

New York 4,550 4,036 0 0 11 0 11 

Iowa 2,532 1062 8 0 0 0 8 

Alabama 2,168 1,879 7 2 0 0 9 

Indiana 1,917 1,848 3 0 0 4 7 

Louisiana 1,814 1,287 19 0 0 1 20 

Hawaii 1,650 1,598 0 0 0 0 0 

Minnesota 1,459 399 10 0 0 0 10 

Tennessee 1,409 1010 0 0 0 1 1 

Illinois 1,310 786 4 0 1 1 6 

Missouri 1295 363 15 0 0 0 15 

New Jersey 1,226 1,102 0 0 2 0 2 

Montana 1,131 1,072 4 0 1 0 5 

Ohio 1,081 673 7 0 3 0 10 

New Mexico 1003 781 11 0 0 0 11 

South Dakota 836 363 2 0 1 0 3 

Wisconsin 794 335 18 0 2 0 20 

Utah 677 617 20 0 0 0 20 

Oklahoma 589 532 10 0 0 0 10 

South Carolina 572 567 2 0 0 3 5 

Virginia 564 549 2 1 2 0 5 

Mississippi 552 528 0 0 1 0 1 

Massachusetts 508 421 0 0 1 0 1 

North Dakota 496 224 0 0 0 0 0 

Maine 388 348 0 0 1 0 1 

Vermont 303 242 0 0 1 0 1 

Delaware 285 269 0 0 0 1 1 

Maryland 174 96 3 0 0 0 3 

New Hampshire 138 115 0 0 0 0 0 

Nevada 106 94 7 0 0 0 7 

Exhibit reads: California had 85,198 eligible migratory children in 2017–18, of whom it served 61,484. 

Source: 2017–18 EDFacts. Consolidated data on number of subgrantees provided by state MEP directors. 

4 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study Design Overview 

To understand program implementation, the study used surveys, site visit interviews, extant data, and a 

literature review. In particular, the study findings reflect: 

1. Surveys of all 46 state MEP directors and 821 local/regional MEP coordinators. All 46 state MEP 

directors and 90 percent of the local/regional MEP coordinators (739) completed the survey. 

The survey for state MEP directors was parallel in structure to that for local/regional MEP 

coordinators, with minor differences based on their expected responsibilities. The questions 

addressed efforts to identify and recruit migratory children, uses of MSIX to improve services 

and supports, the types of instructional and support services MEPs provided to meet the needs 

of eligible migratory children, and whether and how MEPs coordinated and collaborated with 

other programs and organizations to strengthen and expand the reach of the MEP to better 

identify, recruit, and serve migratory children. The two surveys are in Appendices B and C.

25 

2. Site visits to a purposive and nested sample of 10 states, 20 local/regional subgrantees (two per 

state), and 40 schools (approximately four per state) to interview MEP staff members, including 

state, regional, and local MEP administrators and their staff, as well as school-based personnel 

involved with the MEP. The interviews expanded on the survey topics and allowed interviewers 

to probe for the rationale and context underlying the design and administration of the MEP. The 

protocols contained both structured and semi-structured interview questions that could be 

tailored based on individual roles and on background knowledge gleaned from a review of sitespecific documents. The two interview protocols are in Appendices D and E.26 

3. Extant data obtained from the Department of Education website,27 from the Title I, Part C 

portion of the Consolidated State Performance Reports, submitted for ESEA programs, from 

2010–11 through 2016–17, and from EDFacts data for 2017–18. 

4. A literature review (Pratt-Williams, Pilchen, Kistler, Schmidt, and Jonas 2017) summarizing 

information available about MEP services and service partners, including prior literature reviews 

(USED 2011); descriptive, correlational, and casual studies; and recent state evaluation reports 

on MEP-funded services and supports delivered to eligible migratory children. Together, the 

extant data and literature review informed the study questions, sampling approach, instrument 

development, analysis plan, and final report. 

Sample Selection 

Surveys 

The targeted survey respondents comprised the full population of state MEP directors and all 

local/regional MEP coordinators. Surveying the population of all current grantees and subgrantees (867 

respondents) enabled the study team to (1) account for variation in subgrantee strategies within a state 

so the data could capture the full variation in approaches to providing MEP services, (2) efficiently 

encompass the wide variation in the number of MEP subgrantees (and the projects they supported) by 

25 Appendices B and C are available in a separate technical volume by visiting [insert link here]. 

26 Appendices D and E are available in a separate technical volume by visiting [insert link here]. 

27 https://eddataexpress.ed.gov/. 

5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

state rather than designing a complicated sampling frame, and (3) reduce the margin of error based on a 

90 percent response rate. 

Site Visit Sample 

The study team identified a nested sample of 10 states, 20 subgrantees (two per state), and 40 schools 

or projects (approximately four per state) to visit and interview personnel. While not statistically 

representative of the population of MEP grantees and subgrantees, the sample selection enabled site 

visits in states with different sizes of eligible migratory child populations, in different geographic 

regions,

28 and with different numbers of MEP subgrantees. The interviews were intended to provide 

examples of administrative activities and services. 

State-level site visit sample. The study team based the state site-selection criteria on data from ED Data 

Express and data collected from state MEP directors on the number and type of MEPs in their state. A 

review of the data (for 2015–1629) and of the number and type of subgrantees (in 2017–18) revealed 

wide variation in: (1) the size of the state’s migratory child population eligible for MEP-funded services, 

(2) the percentage of the eligible population receiving MEP-funded services, (3) the percentage of 

eligible students identified as Priority for Services (PFS), and (4) the number and type of subgrantees. 

The selected site visit states and their characteristics are shown in Exhibit 3. 

Local-level site visit sample. Once each selected state confirmed its participation, the study team gave 

each state MEP director a preliminary list of subgrantee sites to visit (approximately three to five per 

state). State MEP directors confirmed that the preliminary list reflected the within-state distribution of 

subgrantees by pertinent program characteristics, including service-delivery model, grant size, and 

number of schools or projects serving migratory children. State MEP directors also provided information 

about features to consider in finalizing the list of nominees, such as innovative programmatic initiatives 

or strategies to identify and recruit migratory children. Using this list, the state nominated three 

local/regional MEP subgrantees from which the study team and the Department approved two for the 

site visit sample. 

Local school or project site visit sample. The final stage of the selection process involved choosing a 

sample of 40 MEP-supported local schools or projects based on recommendations from the selected 

local/regional MEP subgrantees. The study team invited each subgrant coordinator to nominate two 

MEP-funded schools or projects that were representative of the (1) size of the population of migratory 

children, (2) service-delivery model (e.g., year-round, summer), (3) school level (i.e., elementary, middle, 

high school), and (4) promising or innovative practices for serving migratory children. 

28 Because Florida and Texas were recovering from hurricanes at the time of data collection, these states were not included in 

the potential sample frame for site visits. 

29 The site visit sample was selected in 2017, at which time 2015–16 data were the most recent data available. 

6 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit 3. Characteristics of site visit states based on 2015–16 data 

Size of eligible 

migratory child 

population 

Geographic 

region 

Total number 

of eligible 

migratory 

children 

Percentage of 

eligible 

migratory 

children served 

Percentage of 

eligible migratory 

children 

identified as PFS 

Number of 

subgrantees 

Small 

(N < 500 children) Northeast 320 High (77%) Low (2%) 1 

Midsize 

(N = 500–1,349 

children) 

West 966 High (91%) High (63%) 5 

West 879 High (90%) Medium 

(20%) 20 

South 724 High (88%) High (81%) 6 

Large 

(N = 1,350–8,000 

children) 

West 5,110 High (86%) High (30%) 5 

South 4,092 High (85%) Low (7%) 39 

Midwest 1,473 Low (29%) Medium 

(19%) 10 

Very large 

(N > 8,000 children) West 96,928 High (66%) Low (6%) 20 

South 8,992 High (64%) Medium 

(17%) 69 

West 19,854 Low (47%) High (37%) 19 

Exhibit reads: The states selected for site visits included a state with a small migratory child population in the 

northeast region. 

Source: 2015–16 ED Data Express and Consolidated State Performance Report. 

Data Collection 

The data collection activities were designed to provide complementary information. The survey 

captured information on the full population of state and local/regional MEP grantees, while the site 

visits produced detailed, nuanced data from a subset of states, regional or local sites, and schools. 

Surveys 

All 46 state MEP directors and 739 of the 821 local/regional MEP coordinators (90 percent) completed 

an online survey between January and March 2018. Email follow-up with nonrespondents began one 

week after the survey launch. The study team continued following up with nonrespondents via email 

approximately once a week for three weeks. For persistent nonrespondents, the study team followed up 

by telephone. 

Site Visits 

The study team conducted site visits to 10 states from January through March 2018. A pair of 

researchers—a senior researcher and one other member of the project team—spent approximately five 

days on site in each state, interviewing between 9 and 28 respondents per state. Types of respondents 

were as follows: 

7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• State personnel (e.g., state director of migrant education, other MEP staff members, other state 

education agency staff members) 

• Directors of other state agencies and organizations collaborating with the state MEP 

• Local/regional MEP personnel (MEP coordinator, other local MEP staff members) 

• Directors of other local or regional agencies and organizations collaborating with the local MEP 

• School or project personnel (e.g., school principals, instructional personnel, counselors, and 

others who provided services to migratory children and youth) 

Before each site visit, team members identified a contact person at each site and requested background 

documents for review, including grant applications, administrative records, and evaluation and 

monitoring reports. This preparation helped the site visitors use time on site efficiently, become aware 

of local terminology and priorities, and more accurately understand respondents’ answers. 

Altogether, the study team interviewed 195 individuals during site visits: 27 state staff members, 18 

directors or staff members of state agencies and organizations collaborating with the MEP, 73 local MEP 

staff members, 36 directors or personnel of other local or regional agencies and organizations 

collaborating with the MEP, and 41 school, project, or other personnel working with the MEP. 

Analysis Methods 

The study team used the survey data collected from state MEP grantees and local/regional MEP 

subgrantees to answer the research questions. The interview data provide illustrative examples of the 

rationale and context underlying MEP administrative activities and services and the ways MEP grantees 

adapted strategies to meet local needs. 

Surveys 

The study team used descriptive techniques including frequencies, means, counts, standard deviations, 

and t tests to analyze the survey data and compare results across demographic and program 

characteristics. As a first step, the team looked at the number of subgrantees across states and flagged 

one state with a disproportionately high number of subgrantees (161), well above the overall mean of 

18 and the median of 10 per state. To determine whether responses from this state’s subgrantees might 

overrepresent the state and underrepresent the other states, the study team applied post-stratification 

weights to the survey responses to determine whether the overall subgrantee survey results might 

change. Because the results yielded no statistically significant differences when comparing the weighted 

versus the unweighted data, using post-stratification weights was deemed unnecessary for this report. 

The next step was defining the demographic and program characteristic variables to use in 

disaggregating the survey results. The study team statistically tested three variables for possible use and 

found no significant differences. The variables tested were: size of the state population of eligible 

migratory children, size of the population of out-of-school migratory youth (categorized as less than a 

third versus more than a third of the total population of eligible migratory children), and size of the 

population of PFS-eligible migratory children and youth (categorized as less than a tenth of the total 

eligible migratory child population versus more than a tenth). In tests of statistical significance for 

8 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

differences between groups, analysts used a significance level of p ≤ 0.05. Because the study team found 

no significant differences in survey responses by demographic and program characteristics, those 

analyses are not included in the report. 

Finally, the same sections of the report and even some sentences often describe the work of state MEP 

grantees and local/regional MEP subgrantees together. The purpose is not to draw comparisons 

between the two. Instead, the goal is to accurately and comprehensively reflect the full array of efforts 

by state and local/regional MEP service providers to serve the needs of migratory children and to 

underscore the point that some state MEP grantees are engaged directly in on-the-ground MEP 

activities, including managing recruiters and directly overseeing the delivery of instructional and support 

services to migratory children. 

Site Visits 

The study team organized and coded the site visit data using the following steps: completed debrief 

guides, participated in a debriefing meeting to discuss commonalities and differences found in the 

interviews, and coded and organized the interview data by survey question, based on initial survey 

analysis. After the initial analysis of survey and interview data, the study team integrated the findings 

from the surveys with illustrative examples from the interviews to address the study questions. 

Study Limitations 

The study findings are based on self-reported survey data that were not independently verified. In 

addition, interview statements about program processes, challenges, and successes represent the 

perspectives of the individuals making them and may not depict the full range of views among state, 

regional, local, and school or project personnel. 

9 
This page intentionally left blank 

10 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 2. Identifying, Recruiting, and Prioritizing

Migratory Children for MEP Services 

“The recruiters are critical because they are the lifeblood of our program. If we don't identify 

students, we can't serve them.” – Local MEP Coordinator 

The extent to which states can adequately serve migratory children’s educational needs depends first on 

whether they can identify the children. Although many migratory children arrive in states in established 

patterns for known harvests, continually changing patterns in agricultural migration and labor practices 

pose a core challenge in finding or identifying migratory children for all MEPs. The identification and 

recruitment (ID&R) process not only establishes eligibility for MEP services, it also provides the basis for 

MEP funding by establishing the authoritative count of eligible migratory children in each state. 

Under section 1304(c)(8) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the 

Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) in 2015, the state is responsible for determining the number of 

migratory children residing in the state. However, states have flexibility to determine whether to 

manage the process on a statewide, regional, or local basis. A migratory child is eligible to receive MEPfunded services if the child: 

• is not older than 21 and is entitled to a free public education through grade 12 in the state or is 

not yet at a grade level at which the LEA provides a free public education (generally, this means 

the individual has not graduated from high school or earned an equivalent diploma);30 

• made a qualifying move in the preceding 36 months as a migratory agricultural worker or 

migratory fisher or did so with or to join a parent, guardian, or spouse who is a migratory 

agricultural worker or a migratory fisher;

31 and 

• moved because of economic necessity from one residence to another and from one school 

district to another.32 

Each time a migratory child completes a qualifying move, as described above, the child’s 36 months of 

MEP eligibility is renewed. 

The ID&R process is complex and labor-intensive. The U.S. Department of Education’s Non-Regulatory 

Guidance for the MEP (2017a) suggests that effective ID&R includes the following strategies: 

• Mapping all areas in the state where migratory families are likely to reside 

• Collecting and maintaining current information on the state’s agricultural and fishing activities 

30 See 34 CFR § 200.103(a). 

31 ESEA section 1309(3). 

32 A ‘‘qualifying move” means a move due to economic necessity from one residence to another residence and from one school 

district to another school district. In a state with only a single school district, however, a qualifying move includes if a child has 

moved from one administrative area to another within the district or if a child resides in a school district of more than 15,000 

square miles and migrates 20 miles or more to a temporary residence. The definition of a “qualifying move” is found in ESEA 

section 1309(5). 

11 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• Developing an ID&R network by coordinating with other organizations and agencies that work 

with migratory populations 

• Developing a recruitment plan 

• Training and guiding recruiters on how to identify and recruit migratory children 

• Deploying and monitoring recruiters to carry out ID&R 

• Implementing quality-control procedures 

As part of a quality-control system, the state reviews eligibility determinations of a representative 

sample of Certificates of Eligibility (COE)33 to ensure consistent application of the statutory and 

regulatory definitions of migratory status and program eligibility. 

This chapter describes how state grantees and local/regional MEP subgrantees managed ID&R, including 

specific strategies to identify and recruit eligible migratory children as well as how they prioritized them 

for MEP services. 

Managing the Identification and Recruitment Process 

Managing the ID&R process requires MEP directors and/or coordinators to hire, train, deploy, and 

supervise qualified recruiters. In addition, because migratory patterns change and new influxes of 

migratory workers can sometimes appear unexpectedly, managing the ID&R process also entails relying 

on data and outside groups, organizations, agencies, and individuals to learn about and stay abreast of 

the migratory patterns and needs in the state. The following describes how states organized their 

management of the ID&R process to ensure that they identified and recruited all eligible migratory 

children in their jurisdiction. 

Most state MEP grantees relied on their local/regional MEP subgrantees and outside 

contractors to manage the identification and recruitment process, including hiring, 

deploying, and supervising MEP recruiters. At the same time, states played a significant 

role in recruiter training, monitoring, and quality control. 

The majority of state MEP directors (74 percent, or 34 of 46) reported relying on local/regional 

coordinators and/or outside contractors or other entities to manage the ID&R process (Exhibit 4), while 

the state maintained oversight responsibilities. Local/regional MEP coordinators confirmed this ID&R 

management structure, with 78 percent reporting that they managed ID&R activities directly. 

In interviews, one regional MEP coordinator described creating a full-time recruitment position to 

manage and deploy recruiters more efficiently and to centralize the effort, which in past years had fallen 

on district staff who had other responsibilities. Another regional MEP coordinator described the ID&R 

process as multilayered, iterative, and ongoing. He described employing a team of recruiters who, when 

needed, also worked across regions to assist during periodic scans in areas where unidentified families 

might be residing. He noted that a critical component of managing ID&R is hiring strong recruiters, and 

33 The Certificate of Eligibility is a form the Department created to document every migratory child’s eligibility for the MEP. “The 

COE serves as the official record of the state’s eligibility determination for each individual child. A child must have an SEA [state 

education agency]-approved COE before MEP services may be provided” (USED 2017b). 

12 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

that to be effective, recruiters must have cultural and linguistic expertise that enabled them to connect 

with children, especially newer immigrants. 

Exhibit 4. State MEP ID&R management structures, 2017–18 

Exhibit reads: Thirty-four state MEP directors (top gray box) reported that they did not manage ID&R activities 

directly but instead relied on their local/regional MEP subgrantees to hire, deploy, supervise, and train MEP 

recruiters. Of those 34 states, 15 relied on their local/regional subgrantees to manage the ID&R process entirely, 

nine relied on their subgrantees as well as on contracts with external organizations or agencies, six relied only on 

contracts, and four relied on other sources to manage ID&R activities. 

Source: State MEP Director Survey, Items 2 and 3 (n = 46). 

In interviews, several state MEP directors explained that the state did not manage ID&R directly because 

there were simply not enough state staff members available to appropriately attend to the many and 

varied ID&R-related MEP requirements. One state director described a staffing scenario that was 

common among the site visit states. He explained that there was only one full-time MEP employee (the 

director) and one part-time MEP data specialist at the state level: “We subgrant out all of the services, 

such as ID&R, and all of the direct services, all of the contracts and special projects. I cannot hire anyone 

for the state office.” Another state MEP director described contracting with a regional service agency to 

carry out the state’s ID&R activities, including training the 65 recruiters working at the state, regional, 

and local levels. Similarly, another state director reported contracting with an external organization to 

13 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

provide ID&R technical assistance to local MEPs as well as to train recruiters, which included developing 

training tools and manuals. 

Although most states relied on their subgrantees or contractors to manage ID&R, about a quarter of 

state MEP directors (12 of 46) reported managing the ID&R process directly. Three reported managing 

the ID&R process exclusively, without support from other sources; three reported managing the process 

along with their local/regional MEP subgrantees; another three managed the process directly as well as 

contracted with an external organization or agency to help; and three worked with their subgrantees 

and with outside contractors to identify and recruit migratory children (Exhibit 4). 

In an interview, one state director described how the state worked together with its ID&R contractor to 

support ID&R for local/regional MEP grantees by participating in identification “blitzes” or “sweeps” in 

areas believed to house unidentified migratory populations. These periodic efforts to canvass locations 

with potentially high numbers of migratory children, youth, and families usually corresponded with 

known or anticipated times of migration or followed observed changes in qualifying activities. As one 

state MEP director indicated, “We are all recruiters. We are all in it together.” 

State MEP directors also described actively assisting and supporting the ID&R process even if they did 

not directly manage recruitment. For example, one state director explained that the state MEP funds 

training and support for local MEP recruiters: “I see my role more as providing [recruiters] with 

professional development and resources on how best to do that identification and recruitment.” 

Another state MEP director reported reviewing and providing feedback on local/regional MEPs’ ID&R 

plans as well as training and providing recruitment tips to new recruiters (e.g., how to approach 

potential migratory families to discuss their eligibility). 

One state MEP director described encouraging his regional MEP subgrant coordinators to support each 

other in the ID&R process. As this state MEP director explained, “We are coming together as a state to 

figure out ID&R.... Resources are not bound by [regional or district] lines.” In this state, all state MEP 

staff members (eight full-time and two part-time) and their regional MEP subgrantees participated in 

ID&R training approximately every seven weeks. 

Finally, all interviewed state MEP directors described their role in reviewing and confirming the accuracy 

of the COEs that recruiters use to document every migratory child’s program eligibility. Several MEP 

directors described their review of COEs as providing important insights into the effectiveness of the 

ID&R process. One described reviewing a sample of COEs every month to identify local MEPs with high 

discrepancy rates that needed to develop corrective action plans as well as to identify and share 

promising ID&R practices across local MEPs. Another state MEP director, who contracted with an 

external organization to manage ID&R, decided to institute ID&R time logs for all recruiters based on his 

review of COEs: 

We decided that recruiters have to devote 60 percent of their time to active recruitment. Twice a 

year they hand in logs of time spent recruiting because, before the logs, the state average was 28 

percent [of recruiter time spent on active recruitment], so no wonder they weren’t finding families. 

Now [the percentage of time spent recruiting is] in the 70s and so people are doing a better job of 

finding migrant families. 

14 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Strategies Used to Identify and Recruit Migratory Children 

Recruiters systematically identify migratory children, determine their MEP eligibility, and seek to enroll 

them in the MEP following the statutory and regulatory requirements such as qualifying work and 

moves. Recruiters may work for the state grantee, for local/regional subgrantees, or for external 

organizations or agencies contracted to conduct ID&R activities on behalf of the state or regional 

educational service agency.34 As stated in the Office of Migrant Education’s (OME) Non-Regulatory 

Guidance (USED 2017a): 

Identification and recruitment are critical activities because the children who are most in need of 

program services are often those who are the most difficult to find ... [and] many migrant children 

would not fully benefit from school, and in some cases would not attend school at all, if [state 

education agencies] did not identify and recruit them into the MEP. 

Recruiters most commonly identified and recruited migratory children using their contacts 

in the schools, communities, and businesses that migratory families frequent. 

Overall, state MEP directors and local/regional MEP coordinators reported that recruiters used an 

average of 6.7 and 5.5 different strategies, respectively, to identify and recruit migratory children. These 

included developing and maintaining contacts: with staff in local schools (100 percent of state MEP 

directors and 96 percent of local/regional MEP coordinators), in places or communities where migratory 

families are likely to reside (100 percent and 83 percent), with employers who hire migratory workers 

(96 percent and 81 percent), and with local businesses and organizations that serve migratory families 

(96 percent and 77 percent). In addition, most state MEP directors and local/regional MEP coordinators 

reported that recruiters identified children through referrals from other agencies and organizations (91 

percent and 71 percent) and by attending community events (80 percent and 75 percent) (Exhibit 5). 

Consistent with the literature (USED 2011), the site visit interview data indicated that the ID&R process 

was not easy. The ever-changing migratory patterns and populations, as well as changes in the 

employers of migratory workers, kept recruiters busy as they quickly adapted, developed new 

strategies, and expanded their searches to new areas where migratory families resided. In an interview, 

one local MEP coordinator described the ongoing challenges associated with identifying the 

whereabouts and the needs of a transient population: “We have to follow the population as it surges 

and decreases. We’re constantly chasing after people wherever they pop up. These are mobile 

populations and we’ve got to be where they are. So, in terms of data, it’s where the kids are ... but 

where are the kids? Where are we growing and where are we shrinking?” 

34 Ultimately, however, the state is responsible for the “proper and timely identification and recruitment of all eligible migrant 

children in the State” (USED 2017a, p. 36). 

15 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

100% 

96% 

96% 

91% 

80% 

46% 

35% 

31% 

Developed and maintained contacts with staff in local 

schools who work directly with migratory families 

Developed and maintained contacts in places/ 

communities where migratory families are likely to reside 

Developed and maintained contact with employers who 

hire migratory workers 

Developed and maintained contact with local businesses 

and organizations that serve migratory families 

Used referrals from other agencies and organizations 

Attended community events to raise awareness about 

the availability of MEP-funded services 

Used social media to raise awareness about the 

availability of MEP services 

Used mass media to raise awareness about the 

availability of MEP services 

Other 

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 

Percentage of state 

MEP directors 

- 31% 

- 28% 

1 9% 

0% 20% 40%60% 80% 100% 

Percentage of local/regional 

MEP coordinators 

Exhibit 5. Strategies state and local/regional recruiters used to identify and recruit migratory 

children, 2017–18 

Exhibit reads: One hundred percent of 46 state MEP directors and 96 percent of local/regional MEP coordinators 

reported that recruiters identified and recruited migratory children by developing and maintaining contacts with 

staff in local schools who work directly with migratory families. 

Source: State MEP Director Survey, Item 5 (n = 46); Local/regional Coordinator Survey, Item 8 (n = 721). 

Nearly universally, recruiters reported that relationship-building with families, agencies, employers, and 

school personnel was key to identifying and recruiting eligible migratory children. As one local 

respondent explained, “I’ve been doing it for 20 years, so the families know me. I get contacts through 

the families, the schools, the outreach programs in all the areas that I work, the reservation schools, the 

Catholic schools ... almost all the schools and the homeless liaisons ... everyone in my network 

understands our MEP [because] I explain to them how people qualify.” Recruiters also leveraged 

relationships with other school staff who regularly talk to families and might know of others who are 

eligible or coming to the community soon, saying to those staff: “We know who’s here, but is anybody 

else coming or anybody else you know of in the area that’s migrant that we haven’t reached?” 

With respect to developing contacts with employers, one local MEP coordinator explained that the MEP 

had relationships with area farmers who let recruiters know when new migratory workers arrived. A 

MEP recruiter in another state described how helpful her relationship with a local employer had been: 

“We have gone to their worker orientation trainings, bothering them, introducing ourselves to the 

[workers], but the managers work very well with us, and they will make sure to tell us when a new 

family has arrived.” In another state, MEP recruiters frequently visited migratory worker camps, 

particularly during the peak season for local crops. Her description also referenced the value of personal 

relationships and word of mouth in identifying migratory children: 

16 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Right now, in the wintertime, I go maybe once a month [to the camps] just to check [things] out and 

make sure that no one new has arrived. I know that people start arriving in late February or early 

March. I know people who work at the camps, like the maintenance guy who goes to my church. 

When I see him, I ask him if [the migratory families have] arrived yet. He told me this Sunday at 

church that [the families] should be coming in the second week of March, so I know that I’ll need to 

start checking more often then. 

Local MEP staff in several states also described the ID&R strategy of working with the local Walmart, 

where many migratory families shop. In one local MEP, Walmart staffers called MEP recruiters to 

introduce them to migratory families while the families were still in the store. In other local MEPs, 

recruiters placed MEP fliers in the local Walmart or waited in the Walmart parking lots and distributed 

MEP fliers to families who might be migratory. In addition to finding families where they shopped, 

recruiters visited the apartment complexes where the majority of migratory workers resided and hung 

posters and fliers describing the MEP in the common areas of the buildings. 

Recruiters working for other local MEP subgrantees revealed locally relevant strategies to locate hardto-find migratory families. In one, recruiters described attending garage sales at the start of the season 

because many families need to pick up furniture or other items as soon as they move to the area. In 

another, MEP recruiters attended the community fair for agricultural workers. As one recruiter 

explained, “We have thousands of agricultural workers participating in this event.... Parents are getting 

information about the resources the community has to offer to them [there], so we’re invited to that, 

and we pass along MEP brochures.” In another local MEP, a coordinator described collaborating with a 

variety of agencies and organizations to identify migratory children: 

We collaborate very closely with job services, migrant health, and all of the other agencies around 

the state, including legal services. When we do intake for individuals for our program, we provide 

food when they come in and gas if they need it to get to the next job. We set up a table with job 

services so that as these parents come in to get food and whatever they need, we catch them and 

then get their kids enrolled. 

Recruiting Eligible Migratory Out-of-School Youth 

In interviews, several local/regional MEP coordinators described how locating and recruiting migratory 

out-of-school youth was becoming increasingly difficult. Farmers no longer granted recruiters access to 

the work sites, and out-of-school youth were unable or unwilling to participate in the MEP because their 

work schedules limited their time to attend school. One coordinator explained, for example, that while 

recruiters had identified and recruited out-of-school youth in the past and provided them with services, 

it was more of a struggle now. 

It’s just that they are not here, or we don’t have access to them if they are here. I have a recruiter 

who is honestly recruiting out of Walmart now, because she's found that a lot of the younger men 

are going to Walmart after hours. Some of them are wiring money from the [grocery store]. So, she 

is trying to pick up out-of-school youth on the streets because she can’t get in the migrant camps. 

One state MEP director explained that recruiting out-of-school youth was challenging at least in part due 

to their lack of interest in the services, particularly with respect to earning a high school diploma. “Outof-school youth are here to work,” explained one state respondent, “and sometimes they just don’t 

want the high school diploma.” However, some recruiters described how they were able to recruit OSY 

17 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

by adapting the services to address their specific needs and interests. For example, one MEP provided 

out-of-school youth with English/Spanish dictionaries (for native Spanish speakers) and first-aid kits that 

included a demonstration of proper treatment for injuries and sunburn. 

MEP coordinators also described the challenges of sustaining the interest of out-of-school youth in the 

program. One MEP coordinator explained that, for example, a recruiter might generate initial 

excitement but then have difficulty finding that person again to participate in future lessons or MEP 

events. 

Prioritizing MEP Services for Qualifying Migratory Children 

After migratory children are identified as eligible for MEP services, MEP staff determine which children 

should be designated for Priority for Services (PFS). Introduced in the 1994 reauthorization of ESEA 

under the Improving America’s Schools Act (IASA), the PFS provision requires state MEP grantees and 

local/regional subgrantees to identify and deliver services to the most recently mobile and academically 

at-risk migratory children before all others. The PFS requirement has remained a significant focus of the 

MEP and was further expanded in the 2015 reauthorization of ESEA by ESSA. The PFS “mobility” factor 

now includes migratory children who have moved within the previous one-year period (rather than 

being limited to children whose education was interrupted during the regular school year). The PFS 

“academic risk” factor now explicitly includes children who have dropped out of school, in addition to 

those who are failing or at-risk of failing to meet the challenging state academic standards. Because 

grantees had only begun implementing the expanded definition of PFS a few months prior to the launch 

of the study survey, they were surveyed only about the criteria they used to define migratory children 

who were failing or at-risk of failing to meet academic standards.35 It is important to note, nevertheless, 

that ESEA requires each state to identify as PFS-eligible migratory children who have made a qualifying 

move within the previous one-year period, and who: (1) are failing or most at risk of failing to meet 

challenging state academic standards or (2) have dropped out of school (ESEA Sec. 1304(d)). 

PFS Eligibility Criteria 

MEP coordinators used both academic performance and academic risk factors to determine 

migratory children’s PFS status. 

State MEP directors and local/regional MEP coordinators used multiple criteria related to migratory 

children’s academic performance to determine the academic risk PFS factor. These criteria included 

scoring below grade level on state assessments (94 percent of state MEP directors and 89 percent of 

local/regional MEP coordinators), being English learners (85 percent and 78 percent), and/or being 

retained in grade for more than a year (80 percent and 71 percent). Many state and local/regional 

coordinators also reported prioritizing MEP services for migratory children based on dropping out of 

school (89 percent and 70 percent), or on academic risk factors such as having changed schools in the 

past year (74 percent and 75 percent), being chronically absent (44 percent and 52 percent), or being 

truant (32 percent and 40 percent) (Exhibit 6). 

35 This decision was based on guidance provided by the study’s technical working group. 

18 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

performance 

Social risk 

factors 

94% Achieving below grade level on state assessments 

89% Dropped out of school - 70% 

85% Limited English Proficiency (English learner) 78% 

80% Retained in grade 71% 

72% Behind in accumulating credits for grade level - 73% 

65% Overage for grade level - 60% 

42% Grade point average (GPA) below 1.5 - 53% 

36% Lack of state assessment data - 50% 

35% Teacher/Staff reports of problems - 45% 

74% Changed schools in the past year - 75% 

44% Chronic absenteeism - 52% 

32% Truancy - 40% 

Discipline incidents - 25% 

In foster care - 27% 

17% Pregnancy/ teen parenthood - 23% 

16% Involvement in the juvenile justice system - 22% 

2% Reports of substance abuse . 17% 

r ,----,----,----,----, 

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 

Percentage of state 

MEP directors 

0% 20% 40%60% 80% 100% 

Percentage of local/regional 

MEP coordinators 

Academic 

performance 

Social risk 

factors 

Exhibit 6. Academic risk criteria state grantees and local/regional subgrantees used to define PFS 

eligibility, 2017–18 

Exhibit reads: Ninety-four percent of 46 state MEP directors and 89 percent of local/regional MEP coordinators 

reported that achieving below grade level on state assessments was among the academic risk criteria they used to 

determine migratory children’s PFS eligibility. 

Source: State MEP Director Survey, Item 6 (n = 46); Local/regional Coordinator Survey, Item 9 (n = 738). 

In response to changes from No Child Left Behind (NCLB) to ESSA, more than half the state 

MEP directors and about a quarter of local/regional MEP coordinators reported making at 

least one change to their program’s PFS eligibility criteria. 

The most common change in the transition from NCLB to ESSA was adding “dropped out of school” to 

the criteria for PFS (reported by 22 percent of state directors and 9 percent of local/regional 

coordinators), directly reflecting ESSA’s addition of dropouts to the PFS eligibility criteria. Further, some 

state grantees and local/regional subgrantees reported eliminating “changing schools during the 

previous or current school year” as a criterion under ESSA (15 percent and 6 percent) (Exhibit 7), also 

reflecting the ESSA change from educational interruption during the regular school year to moves during 

the prior 12-month period. 

19 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit 7. Changes to PFS academic risk eligibility criteria under ESSA, 2017–18 

State criteria 

Percentage 

of state MEP 

directors Local/regional criteria 

Percentage of 

local/regional 

MEP 

coordinators 

Criteria most often 

added under ESSA 

Dropped out of school 22% Dropped out of school 9% 

Pregnancy/teen 

parenthood 

11% 

In foster care 11% In foster care 5% 

Retained in grade 7% 

Lack of assessment data 7% 

Criteria most often 

dropped under ESSA 

Changed schools during 

previous or current 

school year 

15% Changed schools during 

previous or current 

school year 

6% 

Chronic absenteeism 7% Chronic absenteeism 6% 

Teacher/staff reports of 

problems 

7% 

Exhibit reads: Twenty-two percent of 46 state MEP directors and 9 percent of local/regional MEP coordinators 

reported adding “dropped out of school” as an academic risk criterion under ESSA to determine migratory 

children’s PFS eligibility. 

Source: State MEP Director Survey, Item 6 (n = 46); Local/regional Coordinator Survey, Item 9 (n = 738). 

Ensuring That MEP Subgrantees Prioritize Services for PFS-Eligible Migratory 

Children 

Almost all state grantees (93 percent) used one or more strategies to ensure that MEP 

subgrantees prioritized services for PFS-eligible migratory children. The most common 

strategy used among state grantees was to apply a weighted funding formula for MEP 

subgrantees based on the number of identified PFS children (77 percent). 

While the statute does not require states to make subgrants with program funds, if a state chooses to 

do so, ESEA section 1304(b)(5) requires that it take into account the PFS requirement in determining the 

amount of any subgrants awarded. 

Seventy-seven percent of state MEP directors who made subgrants reported allocating MEP funding to 

local/regional subgrantees based on a weighted funding formula tied to the number of identified PFS 

children as a strategy for adhering to the statutory requirement. Other, less common strategies states 

used to ensure that MEP subgrantees prioritized services properly included requiring subgrantees to 

provide a minimum level of instructional services for PFS children, such as a minimum number of hours 

or contacts (23 percent) or basing the selection of MEP subgrantees in the state on the number of 

identified PFS children (14 percent) (Exhibit 8). 

20 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ly a weighted funding formula for MEP subgrantees 

based on the number of identified PFS students 

Requ ire MEP subgrantees to provide a minimum level 

of instructional services for PFS students 

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 

Other 

None of the above 

0% 

77% 

23% 

14% 

7% 

16% 

7% 

T -r -,- -r -, 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 

Percentage of state MEP directors 

Exhibit 8. State strategies used to ensure local/regional subgrantees prioritize services for PFS 

migratory children, 2017–18 

Exhibit reads: Among states that made MEP subgrant awards, 77 percent of 43 state MEP directors reported 

applying a weighted funding formula for MEP subgrantees based on the number of identified PFS children. 

Source: State MEP Director Survey, Item 14 (n = 43). 

In interviews, state directors and local/regional coordinators described the services they provided PFS 

children. For example, one regional MEP provided a four-week summer program of reading, 

mathematics, extracurricular activities, and field trips. Within this program, the most mobile children 

with the greatest academic needs worked in small groups with specialists who provided extra time to 

work on language development and reading. In another state, the family engagement and graduation 

specialists in every local/regional MEP worked with PFS-identified children, tracking their progress and 

entering notes on their interactions in a student database. These specialists kept a running list of 

children most academically at risk and those who had dropped out, which prompted home visits and 

one-on-one check-ins with the children and their families. 

In interviews, state directors and local/regional MEP coordinators described the challenges of 

implementing the statutory requirement that MEPs serve PFS children first. One MEP specialist, for 

example, described the difficulty of serving PFS-identified children at the expense of others who also 

had significant needs but did not meet the PFS eligibility criteria: 

[A]t the migrant education [program], they ask us to prioritize. My target kids are ... the ones that 

have been new arrivals within one year. Those are my priority ones. Those are the ones that I should 

put a lot of my efforts into, but then I also have kids [whose] attendance is not that good. Then I go 

by their grades, because one is related to the other.... [And] then [I look at] the credits [in terms of 

deciding whom to serve]. 

Finally, in interviews several state MEP directors reported that the change in PFS eligibility did not 

require major changes to their program administration, for various reasons. In one state, for example, 

some migratory children who were explicitly added due to ESSA’s changes to ESEA (such as dropouts) 

had always been defined as PFS in their state. MEP directors in several states also noted that their 

population of migratory children was so small they had no need to distinguish between services for PFS 

and non-PFS children; their funding was sufficient to serve all eligible migratory children. As one state 

MEP director explained, “I am going to start by saying because of our numbers we’re not a huge state 

21 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

like Arizona, where we’re having to make decisions about who to serve and who not to serve.... We’ve 

never had to prioritize like that.” 

Chapter Summary 

The extent to which states can adequately serve migratory children’s educational needs depends on 

whether they can identify the children. The ID&R process encompasses many moving parts, and the 

success of the program hinges on states getting that process right. States have wide latitude to manage 

ID&R in the way they deem appropriate. Most states ultimately relied on their local/regional MEP 

subgrantees to hire, deploy, and supervise recruiters. 

Recruiters’ efforts to find eligible migratory children involved an array of strategies, including 

maintaining contacts in the schools, communities, and businesses that migratory families frequent. In 

interviews, MEP coordinators described changes in migratory patterns and populations and in the 

employers who hire migratory workers, which kept them busy as they adapted existing strategies and 

developed new ones, including going to new locations where migratory families might shop, access 

services, and reside. 

Following identification and recruitment, MEPs determine which migratory children are PFS because 

they are the most mobile and they are academically at risk or have dropped out of school. MEP 

coordinators reported using an array of criteria to determine PFS eligibility, including data on whether 

children are achieving below grade level based on state assessments as well as English proficiency 

status. In addition, more than half the state MEP directors and about a quarter of local/regional MEP 

coordinators reported making at least one change to the PFS criteria in response to ESSA’s changes to 

ESEA. The most common change was adding “dropped out of school.” Still, interviews suggested that 

local/regional MEPs decided how to operationalize the PFS requirement and that addressing the needs 

of PFS-eligible migratory children over the needs of non-PFS-eligible migratory children was sometimes 

challenging. 

22 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 3. Using the Migrant Student Information 

Exchange (MSIX) to Improve Services and Supports 

for Migratory Children 

The reauthorization of ESEA under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 authorized the Migrant 

Student Information Exchange (MSIX), a database36 to transfer educational and health information 

across and within states to facilitate timely school enrollment, grade and course placement, accrual of 

course credits, and MEP participation for migratory children.

37 MSIX maintains a Consolidated Student 

Record for each migratory child, including records of the child’s history of school enrollments, high 

school course history, credit accumulation, achievement testing, medical alert, individualized education 

program (IEP), English Learner (EL) status, graduation and Algebra I completion indicators, as well as PFS 

and immunization records flags. MSIX allows for the Consolidated Student Record to be transferred 

within and across states. All MEP grantees are required to upload student information to MSIX. Its 

purpose is to mitigate the effects of educational disruptions for migratory children caused by frequent 

moves within and across states by providing rapid access to data needed to identify, enroll, and place 

migratory children as well as confirm that their health records are complete and that they are neither 

under- nor over-vaccinated. 

All states that receive MEP funds are required to participate in MSIX. Each state system performs regular 

uploads of a minimum set of data elements established by regulation, which are then available to all 

active MSIX users, including recruiters, MEP directors and coordinators, data specialists, and migrant 

advocates and tutors at the state, regional, and local levels. In addition, MSIX supports MEP recruitment 

by incorporating move notifications that MEP staff within the MSIX network can send back and forth to 

alert each other when new families move within or across states. MSIX data can also help recruiters 

determine migratory children’s eligibility for MEP services by recording qualifying moves and providing 

other information needed to make eligibility determinations. 

This chapter describes the use of MSIX by state MEP directors and local/regional MEP coordinators to 

facilitate the sharing of information in support of enrollment, placement, and accrual of credits for 

migratory children and their participation in the MEP. 

Notification of Intra- and Interstate Moves 

More than two-thirds of state MEP directors and local/regional MEP coordinators reported 

that MSIX moderately or substantially improved timely notification when migratory children 

moved across states. 

Among those who said they knew whether MSIX improved timely notifications when migratory children 

moved across states,

38 72 percent of state MEP directors and 70 percent of local/regional MEP 

coordinators agreed that MSIX did improve the timeliness of notification about migratory children 

36 In fact, it is a web-based repository of 76 minimum data elements or MDEs collected and submitted to MSIX by MEP 

grantees. 

37 MSIX is the current version of a records-transfer system that was first introduced in 1969. 

38 About 10 percent of state MEP directors and a quarter of local/regional MEP coordinators did not know whether MSIX 

improved the timeliness of notification when migratory children move across states. 

23 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

of state 

MEP directors 

2% 

Substantially or moderately 

inimally 

~ Not at all 

Percentage of local/regional 

MEP coordinators 

70% 

11% 

Substantially or moderately 

■ Minimally 

'/ Not at all 

moving across states (Exhibit 9). In an interview, one state MEP director described MSIX as useful for 

knowing when migratory children have arrived in their state: “It is nice for the recruiters to go in [to 

MSIX] and say ‘Oh, this kid has moved here’ and see that the kid has been in the [MEP] before.... I know 

the recruiters, all of them, they use MSIX a lot.” Similarly, another state director described MSIX as a 

helpful recruitment tool: “Our recruiters use the system a lot. They log in, they see where the kids are. If 

they have any history of moves from other states that helps [recruiters] determine eligibility in our 

state.” 

Exhibit 9. Extent to which MSIX improved timely notification when migratory children move 

across states, 2017–18 

Exhibit reads: Of those who said they knew, 72 percent of 42 state MEP directors and 70 percent of local/regional 

MEP coordinators reported that MSIX moderately or substantially improved timely notification when migratory 

children move across states. 

Source: State MEP Director Survey, Item 29 (n = 42); Local/regional Coordinator Survey, Item 34 (n = 543). 

Another state MEP director explained how he relied on MSIX to provide notification of interstate moves 

of migratory children, which he shared with recruiters. However, because intrastate moves can be 

somewhat sudden and unpredictable, the director reported that MSIX is less reliable about these moves 

because updating new information can take time. For real-time recruitment updates, he said, he 

considered word of mouth a more reliable source. He explained that, for example, when migratory 

workers arrive in a county seemingly overnight, word of mouth is faster and more reliable than MSIX. As 

another state MEP director explained, while MSIX can be critical for notifying states about interstate 

moves of migratory children, districts are less dependent on the system for the identification and 

recruitment of children making intrastate moves: 

When we have students who move within the state, our districts are really good at going ahead and 

just shooting an email to the staff saying, ‘Hey, my student just moved over to your area. Just 

making sure that you know that he received MEP services.’ The challenge is that districts are 

required to send notifications that the student moved through MSIX, but sometimes it takes a little 

24 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

of state 

MEP directors 

2% 

Somewhat or significantly 

■ Minimally 

~ Not at all 

Percentage of local/regional 

MEP coordinators 

82% 

4% 

Somewhat or significantly 

■ Minimally 

'l Not at all 

while to get all of that and try to reach out to the families. A simple email from the district to just me 

would be much faster in being able to sign the student up for the Migrant program. 

Facilitating Interstate Student Records Transfers 

Most state MEP directors and local/regional MEP coordinators reported that MSIX facilitated 

interstate migratory student records transfers. 

Among those who said they knew,39 more than three-quarters of state MEP directors (76 percent) and 

four-fifths of local/regional MEP coordinators (82 percent) reported that MSIX somewhat or significantly 

facilitated migratory student records transfer across states (Exhibit 10). 

Exhibit 10. Extent to which MSIX facilitated migratory student records transfer across states, 

2017–18 

Exhibit reads: Of those who said they knew, 76 percent of 46 state MEP directors and 82 percent of local/regional 

MEP coordinators reported that MSIX somewhat or significantly facilitated migratory student records transfer 

across states. 

Source: State MEP Director Survey, Item 27 (n = 46); Local/regional Coordinator Survey, Item 32 (n = 735). 

In interviews, state and local/regional MEP staff described MSIX as valuable for expediting the 

enrollment process because it provides critical information that sending states40 normally supply 

through other means but that is often delayed, incomplete, erroneous, or out of date. One state MEP 

director explained that using MSIX expedited school enrollment for interstate moves “because 

[students’] data are readily available” rather than arriving slowly from the sending school district. 

39 About a quarter of local/regional MEP coordinators did not know whether MSIX had facilitated migratory student records 

transfer across states. 

40 A “sending state” is the state where a migratory child was previously enrolled in school, i.e., from which the child was sent. A 

“receiving state” is the state to which the child moves and enrolls in school, i.e., is received. 

25 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

51% 

49% 

46% 

40% 

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 

Percentage of state 

MEP directors 

Facilitation of course credit accrual 

Appropriateness of course placements 

Appropriateness of grade placements 

Timeliness of school enrollment 

Reduction in unnecessary immunizations 

- 62% 

- 63% 

- 63% 

- 59% 

- 53% 

0% 2 0% 40% 60% 80% 100% 

Percentage of local/regional 

MEP coordinators 

State MEP directors also described relying on relationships with sending states to strengthen the quality 

of data transfers across states outside of or in addition to MSIX. One state MEP director, for example, 

described building relationships by attending a conference on secondary credit accrual held in a sending 

state and which many staff from receiving states also attend: “It’s a way of knowing what other states 

are doing and how to coordinate with [the sending state] counselors,” he explained. This formal 

collaboration also built the relationships necessary for more informal collaboration throughout the year: 

“Most of the [migratory] students don’t have the necessary documentation for us to continue their 

education when they arrive, so having that network already established [with the sending state] helps 

me get the student records or be able to talk to a counselor so that we can place the kid as fast as we 

can and eliminate some of the interruptions.” 

Improving Practices Intended to Mitigate Educational Disruptions for 

Migratory Children 

The majority of local/regional MEP coordinators and about half the state MEP directors 

reported that MSIX had moderately or substantially improved other practices intended to 

mitigate the effects of educational disruptions for migratory children, such as the 

appropriateness of course placements and the timeliness of school enrollment. 

Of those local/regional MEP coordinators who said they knew,41 the majority reported that MSIX 

moderately or substantially improved the facilitation of course credit accrual (62 percent), 

appropriateness of course placements (63 percent), appropriateness of grade placements (63 percent), 

timeliness of school enrollment (59 percent), and reduction in unnecessary immunizations (53 percent) 

(Exhibit 11). 

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 

Exhibit reads: Of those who said they knew, 54 percent of 41 state MEP directors and 62 percent of local/regional 

MEP coordinators reported that MSIX moderately or substantially improved the facilitation of course credit 

accrual. 

Source: State MEP Director Survey, Item 29 (n = 41); Local/regional Coordinator Survey, Item 34 (n = 542). 

41 About 7 percent of state MEP directors and a quarter of local/regional MEP coordinators did not know whether MSIX had 

improved other practices intended to mitigate the educational disruptions for migratory children, such as the appropriateness 

of course placements or the timeliness of school enrollment. 

26 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Local MEP coordinators reported in interviews that MSIX had improved over the years so that MEP staff 

could now access migratory children’s grades and course-taking records, as well as learn where 

migratory children last attended school. As one local MEP staff member explained: 

MSIX has gotten better. When it was first introduced, it was supposed to have provided a variety of 

information on migratory students but could only really generate information about which states 

migrant students were coming from and nothing more. Now we’re getting the schools that migrant 

students come from as well as their grades and coursework. For example, if you have a high school 

student that's coming in and they aren’t sure whether they had taken Algebra 1 or Algebra 2, you 

can look in the MSIX and, if they're coming from a school in the United States, you can see, ‘Okay, 

yeah, here's where they are.’ 

Half or fewer state MEP directors agreed that MSIX had moderately or substantially improved practices 

intended to mitigate educational disruptions for migratory children such as the facilitation of course 

credit accrual (54 percent), appropriateness of course placements (51 percent), appropriateness of 

grade placements (49 percent), timeliness of school enrollment (46 percent), and reduction in 

unnecessary immunizations (40 percent). Among those interviewed, one state director said that MSIX 

had helped schools quickly identify what services and supports a student might need based on the 

child’s previous academic performance and other nonacademic data (e.g., disciplinary incidents). 

Another said he used MSIX “constantly” to help with validity checks and confirm data accuracy. “In fact, 

sometimes I will go to MSIX to find errors in the system because I believe that MSIX has better filters in 

catching data [errors].” In another state, the contractors who manage the identification and recruitment 

(ID&R) process explained that MSIX can sometimes be the only source of student data for facilitating the 

school enrollment process, particularly in the summer months when the sending district might be 

closed: 

[MSIX] is a good way of looking at an incoming student and whether he or she had been migrant or 

is migrant and then looking at where to place them correctly and start facilitating that 

communication using that tool. Sometimes when we have our students come here, [the sending 

state] school district might be closed so we rely on MSIX. 

Another state MEP director explained that before use of MSIX, migratory children were sometimes 

inoculated two or three times if a district or state did not have their immunization records: “Remember, 

families were moving all the time. There were many health risks.... That’s why we developed the health 

record [for MSIX].” 

On the other hand, state MEP directors and local/regional MEP coordinators also described some 

challenges in the use of MSIX. State MEP directors, whose staff managed MSIX data verification and 

data-entry requirements, observed that not all states used MSIX consistently or in the same ways. One 

state director, for example, noted that while one state might use MSIX regularly, another state might 

not, which could lead to gaps in information about migratory children. These information gaps can lead 

to delays in school enrollment and in the delivery of educational services to migratory children: 

... there is a whole comment box [in the MSIX database] that's usually empty. We give any 

information that we possibly can [about a family’s impending move], but often, sending states just 

give us ‘[STATE] to [STATE],’ and that's where I think some of the students may be falling through the 

cracks, because when they get here, they either don’t know to tell us that they have previously been 

qualified for migrant, or they don’t even know that we have a migrant program. 

27 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Another state director pointed out other data challenges, such as one state entering letter grades while 

another uses percentages or numbers, which can cause inconsistencies in how states awarded credits. 

“How do you translate [into] letter grades when the school district might give one, two, three, and 

four?” the director asked. She suggested that MSIX provide information about whether migratory 

children passed or failed a course: “Then nobody needs to interpret whether a grade translated into 

course credit.” 

A state director in another state cited intrastate data-entry discrepancies as a problem, saying that 

school registrars, who are “on the front lines” of student enrollment, might not know, for example, that 

most migratory families have a surname comprising two separate names (e.g., Alvarez Leon) and that 

recording both is important: “You can’t pick which one you like better and record that last name; you 

need to record both last names [or we cannot find that student in the system],” she said. Finally, one 

state MEP director pointed to issues arising from receiving states’ data-use practices, saying that states 

undercut the benefits of MSIX if they did not accept incoming children’s credits or grades awarded by 

the sending states: “I feel that that’s delaying the process for our students to graduate, and when you 

delay the process, then students get discouraged, they give up, they don’t have hope.” 

Additionally, not all state MEP directors who were interviewed believed that MSIX improved or 

expedited the enrollment process for migratory children. One state director, for example, explained that 

her state was largely uninterested in accessing student records from sending states because local school 

districts would conduct their own needs assessments to validate those records: “Otherwise, the 

instructional services or support services we provide won’t be very precise and targeted. So, we think 

there is a lot of duplication of effort [with MSIX], which may not be necessary.” 

At the local level, one MEP coordinator explained that while much of their information came from MSIX, 

it was usually a semester old (e.g., it lacked spring semester data for migratory children arriving in the 

summer), thereby limiting its utility. The MEP coordinator instead contacted school counselors with 

whom he maintained personal relationships. As one contractor in charge of ID&R explained: 

MSIX is only as good as [the data] entered ... students coming here at the end of May or early June 

are all exiting [the sending state at the same time]. That’s a lot of data entry, and there is a lag time 

between what [coursework] they completed in the spring and how soon that information gets into 

the system, so we can’t rely solely on the MSIX. It will tell us if they pass things in the first part of the 

year, but the spring [grades and test scores] will not always be in there yet, and so we really rely on 

that one-on-one communication. 

Chapter Summary 

Most state MEP directors and local/regional MEP coordinators reported that having MSIX improved 

timely notification when migratory children moved across states and facilitated interstate migratory 

student records transfers. Interviews with state directors and local coordinators, however, highlighted 

areas in which MSIX had some room for improvement, particularly concerning consistency and accuracy 

in data-entry practices, including consistent entry of family names and course grades, and timeliness of 

data entry. 

28 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 4. Providing MEP Services to

Eligible Migratory Children 

The Migrant Education Program (MEP) is designed to provide supplemental instructional and support 

services to help mitigate the negative impacts of mobility on school success for migratory children. 

Indeed, mobility has a sweeping and significantly negative impact on student outcomes, including test 

scores, grades, graduation rates, behavior, and nonacademic outcomes such as community involvement 

and accessing local resources (Rumberger 2011; Reynolds, Chen, and Herbers 2009; USED 2011). A 2003 

study found that the educational disruption and adjustment caused by frequent moves can derail the 

educational progress of migratory children, requiring up to four to six months for them to “recover 

academically” (Walls 2003; USED 2011). Finally, frequent mobility is specifically associated with 

significantly lower reading and mathematics achievement (Reynolds, Chen, and Herbers 2009). 

States and their MEP subgrantees have considerable flexibility “to determine the [services] to be 

provided with funds, except that such funds first shall be used to meet the identified needs of migratory 

children that result from their migratory lifestyle, to permit [migratory] children to participate 

effectively in school.”42 Guiding the design of MEP-funded activities, state grantees complete a planning 

process that includes a Comprehensive Needs Assessment and Service Delivery Plan (SDP) conducted in 

consultation with migratory parents. The plan identifies the unique needs of migratory children and 

specifies how states and their MEP subgrantees will address those needs. Each state plan must show 

how the MEP is integrated and coordinates with other federally funded programs, addresses the unique 

needs of migratory children, and does not supplant other federally funded education programs. 

Ultimately, as part of the planning process, the MEP must ensure that migratory children have an 

opportunity to meet the same challenging state academic standards that all children are expected to 

meet. States review and revise the plans as needed to ensure they remain current. 

Required SDP elements include performance targets for all migratory children that align with the state’s 

performance targets (e.g., achievement, graduation rates, and English learner progress) for all children 

established in the consolidated state plan for implementing the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) 

(which reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 [ESEA] in 2015); needs 

assessment results that identify the unique educational needs of migratory children; Measurable 

Program Outcomes (MPOs) in reading, mathematics, high school graduation, and early-childhood 

education that the MEP will achieve statewide through specific educational or educationally related 

services; and a plan for evaluating the services provided. Additional elements may include the state’s 

plan for determining priority for services (PFS) and serving PFS students, a parent involvement plan that 

describes state consultation with parents in a language and format they can understand, an 

identification and recruitment plan, and a student records plan that describes the state plan for 

requesting and using migratory student records. 

Within the SDP, state MEP grantees use their broad flexibility to provide services that are intended to 

address common areas of concern for migratory children that include, but are not limited to, the 

following, as defined by the Office of Migrant Education (OME) (excerpted from OME’s Comprehensive 

Needs Assessment Toolkit43): 

42 ESEA 1305 b.1 [20 U.S. CSCSC.6395]. 

43 https://results.ed.gov/cna-toolkit/article/2-c-list-of-resources-and-tools-for-step-2/common-areas-of-concern-handout. 

29 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• Educational Continuity. Because migratory children often are forced to move during the regular 

school year, children tend to experience a lack of educational continuity. Efforts to overcome 

this pattern are needed to strengthen educational continuity. 

• Instructional Time. Mobility also impacts the amount of time children spend in class and their 

attendance patterns. Developing ways to ameliorate the impact of family mobility and delays in 

enrollment procedures are essential. 

• School Engagement. When children are not engaged in school, they may be at risk for school 

failure. Migratory children need avenues that ensure they are valued and have the opportunities 

that more stable children have. 

• English-Language Acquisition. Since many migratory children have a home language other than 

English, migrant programs must find avenues to alleviate the difficulties faced by migratory 

children in English-language acquisition that arise due to their unique lifestyle, while not 

supplanting Title III program activities. 

• Educational Support in the Home. While many migratory parents value education for their 

children, they may not always know how to support their children in a manner consistent with 

school expectations nor have the means to offer an educationally rich home environment. 

Efforts to inform families are crucial. 

• Health. Families often need assistance in addressing health problems that interfere with their 

children’s ability to learn. 

• Access to Services. Since they are not perceived as permanent residents, migratory families may 

have difficulty obtaining services. 

This chapter describes how state and local MEPs identified and addressed the unmet educational needs 

of migratory children. It first describes the sources of influence on the services selected to meet 

migratory children’s needs, including evidence of effectiveness and progress on MPOs, student 

performance on state assessments, and student graduation rates. Next, it describes the types of 

supplemental instructional, support, and referral services that states and local/regional MEPs directly 

provided to migratory children in 2017–18, drawing particular attention to efforts to help migratory outof-school youth complete their high school equivalency. 

Selecting Services to Meet Migratory Children’s Needs 

State grantees and local/regional subgrantees have substantial flexibility to decide which instructional 

and support services to provide, and they draw on a range of data sources and strategies to make their 

service determinations. This section describes how state MEP directors and local/regional coordinators 

use data to inform the planning and delivery of MEP-funded services. 

30 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

assessments of migratory students 

Amount of MEP funds available 

Migratory student outcomes data 

Availability of services from other programs 

State policy priorities 

Research evidence on migratory students 

LEA policy priorities 

Social service agency priorities 56% 

84% 

78% 

73% 

100% 

98% 

98% 

93% 

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 

Percentage of state MEP directors 

Sources of Influence in the Selection of Services 

Most state MEP directors considered multiple data sources and factors in determining what 

services to provide or fund for migratory children. 

The vast majority of state MEP directors identified four factors as important in determining what 

services to provide or fund for migratory children: results of the needs assessments of migratory 

students (all the state MEP directors), the amount of MEP funding available (98 percent), migratory 

student outcome data (98 percent), and availability of services from other programs (93 percent) 

(Exhibit 12). 

Exhibit 12. Sources of influence on state MEP grantees’ determination of specific services for 

migratory children, 2017–18 

Exhibit reads: One hundred percent of 45 state MEP directors reported that needs assessments of migratory 

students were an important or very important influence in their determination of the services and supports 

provided or funded to meet the needs of migratory children. 

Source: State MEP Director Survey, Item 7 (n = 45). 

Interviews suggested that state directors also used other information sources to determine what 

services would best address their migratory children’s needs. For example, one state MEP director 

described visiting 80 to 100 schools a year, particularly the schools with the largest number of migratory 

children. He described using these visits to consult with local/regional MEP coordinators, meet with 

parents, and interview principals and students to identify the instructional and support services that 

migratory children need: 

Some states only have 12 people on their committees, and I said, I want as big a number as 

possible.... I want everybody in leadership to, as much as possible, engage in the dialogue and the 

decision-making so that when it’s a completed project, they have buy-in. They know why we chose 

what we chose; they’ve seen the data. They’ve argued which direction to go, and their programs are 

stronger because of that. 

31 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Another state’s MEP director described working with counselors in their migratory children’s sending 

state and schools to determine how their MEP-funded summer program could best serve these 

children’s needs. The counselors determined that because these children stayed in the director’s state 

only briefly during the summer, it made more sense to design their services around the academic 

standards of the sending state. Using this information, local MEP staff created individualized study plans 

that addressed the academic and credit requirements the children would face upon returning to their 

sending state. The MEP director pointed out the added value of this approach: “Your average state 

summer school program is not going to know anything about [another state’s standards].” 

Finally, one state MEP director reflected upon the overall quality of services delivered to migratory 

children and described prevailing on MEP subgrantees to focus on providing more intensive, longerduration instructional supports across all academic subject areas rather than continue offering limited 

supports lasting only one or two days:

44 

You're not going to learn with a one-day intervention, which is a problem I have with the funding 

formula, because it provides funding on the basis of a service, but it doesn’t say how long the service 

has to [last]. So, I am constantly battling with all the subgrantees, because they want to offer a twoday service ... but it doesn't meet the students’ academic needs, necessarily. 

While state MEP directors lead the development of the Service Delivery Plan and determine the general 

types of services to provide, local/regional coordinators also consider various factors when selecting 

from the menu of services defined in the Service Delivery Plan. Like state MEP directors, most 

local/regional MEP coordinators reported that the important or very important sources of influence on 

their determination of specific services for migratory children were needs assessments of migratory 

students (95 percent of local/regional MEP coordinators), the amount of MEP funding available (93 

percent), and migratory student outcomes data (91 percent). Local/regional MEP coordinators also 

reported that state (92 percent) and local (74 percent) policy priorities were an important or very 

important source of influence on their determination of services for migratory children. 

Using Evidence and Data to Inform the Selection of MEP-Funded Services 

Most state MEP directors review and consider at least one data source in selecting the instructional and 

support services that they deem best suited to their migratory children’s educational needs. 

About two-thirds of state MEP directors used at least one source of information, such as the 

U.S. Department of Education’s Institute for Education Science’s What Works 

Clearinghouse or Johns Hopkins University’s Evidence for ESSA websites, to select 

evidence-based instructional and support services for migratory children. No one source, 

however, garnered use among a majority of state MEP directors. 

44According to the Non-Regulatory Guidance (USED 2017a), “’Services’ are those educational or educationally related activities 

that: (1) directly benefit a migrant child; (2) address a need of a migrant child consistent with the SEA’s comprehensive needs 

assessment and service delivery plan; (3) are grounded in scientifically based research or, in the case of support services, are a 

generally accepted practice; and (4) are designed to enable the program to meet its measurable outcomes and contribute to 

the achievement of the State’s performance targets” (Section A1, p. 53). 

32 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fewer than half the state MEP directors reported using resources from the What Works Clearinghouse 

(WWC)45 (45 percent), Evidence for ESSA46 (39 percent), the Regional Educational Laboratories47 (34 

percent), or the Comprehensive Centers Program48 (32 percent) as sources of information for selecting 

evidence-based instructional and support services for migratory children. A few state MEP directors (7 

percent) reported using the National Registry of Evidence-based Programs and Practices, a searchable 

online registry of mental health and substance-abuse interventions. It is important to note, however, 

that the survey did not ask whether any of these sources offered information on evidence-based 

instructional and support services for migratory children. Indeed, about a third of state MEP directors 

(34 percent) reported using none of the information sources listed in the survey, and six states reported 

using other sources of information to select evidence-based instructional and support services, including 

research organizations, regional educational service centers, and school district staff. Most 

local/regional MEP coordinators (75 percent) reported that the state MEP director or other state MEP 

staff members were their preferred sources when selecting evidence-based instructional and support 

services for migratory children. 

Finally, to inform the planning and delivery of MEP-funded services, most state MEP directors and 

local/regional coordinators used progress on Measurable Program Outcomes (93 percent of state 

directors and 75 percent of local/regional coordinators), student performance on state assessments (93 

percent and 87 percent), or student graduation rates (84 percent and 71 percent). In an interview, one 

state MEP director described his decision to expand statewide access to a middle school camp based on 

one district’s graduation rates: 

We have one district that ... had 27 [migratory students], and all of them are graduating and all of 

them are going on to college. So, you have to stop and look at that and ask, ‘What are [they] doing 

that's making that so?’ They started sending their middle school kids to camp and getting them 

motivated to not only graduate, but to make the most of middle school.... So, they’ve been doing 

that consistently over the last five or six years.... So now it’s a statewide camp; we provide that 

option for all the programs because we see the bang for the buck in it. 

In another state, a local/regional MEP coordinator recognized that a growing population of migratory 

youth spoke indigenous languages and was not progressing academically, so they began to provide 

additional support services for those students. “When we started focusing more on that population, we 

noticed that [children] had shown almost no growth at all [over three years]. That wasn't right. So, we 

started providing more services for them, so they can at least show some growth per year.” 

45 The WWC reviews research on education programs, products, practices, and policies to help educators make evidence-based 

decisions. 

46 The Center for Research and Reform in Education at Johns Hopkins University provides an online resource at 

www.evidenceforessa.org, to help schools identify reading and mathematics programs based on ESSA-required evidence 

standards. 

47 Administered by the Department’s Institute for Education Sciences, Regional Educational Laboratories (RELs) work in 

partnership with states, districts, and other educational stakeholders to produce and use evidence-based strategies to improve 

student outcomes. 

48 Administered by the Department’s Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, the Comprehensive Centers Program 

awards discretionary grants that support 22 comprehensive centers to help increase state capacity to assist districts and 

schools in meeting student achievement goals. 

33 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

performance 

Social risk 

fadDrs 

97% Limited English Proficiency (English learner) 92% 

87% 

87% 

85% 

82% 

69% 

67% 

66% 

62% 

50% 

37% 

22% 

6% 

3% 

0% 

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 

Percentage of state 

MEP directors 

Dropout status 

Changed schools in the past year 

Scores on state assessments 

Cohort graduation rates 

Retention in grade 

Attendance 

Course grades 

Overage for their grade level 

Truancy and chronic absenteeism 

Discipline incidents 

Involvement with social services 

Involvement with juvenile justice 

Reports of substance abuse 

Pregnancy 

85% 

- 62% 

- 70% 

- 41% 

llll2s% 

. 16% 

- 20% 

90% 

0% 20% 40%60% 80% 100% 

Percentage of local/regional 

MEP ooordinators 

Academic 

performance 

Social risk 

factors 

Most state MEP directors and local/regional MEP coordinators reported that their state 

information systems permitted the disaggregation of student performance data by 

migratory status, which they used to help select instructional and support services to offer 

migratory children. 

Most state MEP directors (85 percent) and local/regional MEP coordinators (91 percent) reported being 

able to disaggregate various data for migratory students. Of those, most reported being able to 

disaggregate English learner status (97 percent of state MEPs and 92 percent of local/regional MEPs), 

dropout status (87 percent and 76 percent), whether they had changed schools during the previous or 

current school year (87 percent and 84 percent), state assessment scores (85 percent and 85 percent), 

and cohort graduation rates (82 percent and 62 percent) by migratory status (Exhibit 13). 

Notably fewer state MEP directors and local/regional MEP coordinators reported being able to 

disaggregate nonacademic dropout-risk factors such as involvement with social services (22 percent of 

state MEPs and 41 percent of local/regional MEPs), involvement with the juvenile justice system (6 

percent and 25 percent), reports of substance abuse (3 percent and 16 percent), and pregnancy or teen 

parenthood (0 percent and 20 percent). 

Exhibit 13. Percentage of state MEP grantees and local/regional subgrantees that could 

disaggregate various types of data by students’ migratory status, 2017–18 

Exhibit reads: Ninety-seven percent of 39 state MEP directors and 92 percent of local/regional MEP coordinators 

reported being able to disaggregate migratory student data by their limited English proficiency (English learner) 

status. 

Source: State MEP Director Survey, Item 24 (n = 39); Local/regional Coordinator Survey, Item 29 (n = 596). 

34 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sometimes the ability to disaggregate data by students’ migratory status, however, was limited by the 

data available in the system. For example, because migratory students are often absent when state 

testing occurs, one local MEP coordinator instead collected his own twice-yearly teacher ratings on 

migratory students’ performance on state standards. 

In interviews, local/regional MEP coordinators also described using qualitative data sources for decisions 

on planning and delivery of services, such as talking to MEP participants and their families to collect 

their impressions of the benefits of program activities. One local MEP coordinator explained that yearly 

interviews with parents, students, teachers, and community members provided the most informative 

data for planning purposes: “Honestly, to me, the most important part of the [process] is not finding out 

whether students are high or low academically, it’s figuring out why they’re high or low academically.... 

We can’t know that stuff unless we’re out there in the field talking to those folks.” Another MEP 

coordinator described using information collected from counselors at students’ home-base school to 

create individualized study plans that not only were aligned with students’ academic history, but also 

prepared students for the academic requirements they would face when they returned home. 

Serving the Instructional and Support Needs of Migratory Children 

The primary purpose of the MEP is to help mitigate the negative impacts of mobility on school success.49 

The following describes the types of instructional and support services state and local/regional MEPs 

provided to migratory children to help them succeed in school. Each section begins by describing the 

varied administrative structures states created to deliver both instructional and support services to 

migratory children. As explained earlier in the report, the purpose of describing these administrative 

structures is to accurately and comprehensively reflect the full array of state and local/regional MEP 

service providers and to underscore the point that some state MEPs are engaged directly in on-theground MEP activities, including overseeing the delivery of instructional and support services to 

migratory children. 

Instructional Services 

State MEP grantees and local/regional subgrantees provided migratory children a variety of 

supplemental instructional services intended to help them stay in school, achieve to the same 

educational standards expected of all students, graduate from high school, and go on to college and 

careers. Types of supplemental instructional services included academic instruction, such as reading and 

language arts instruction, mathematics instruction, English as a Second Language (ESL) instruction, and 

online courses; academic support, such as academic guidance and advocacy, diagnostic evaluations of 

educational needs, and other online education supports; support for college and career preparation, 

49 ESEA section 1301 describes the purposes of the MEP as: “(1) support[ing] high-quality and comprehensive educational 

programs for migratory children to help reduce the educational disruptions and other problems that result from repeated 

moves; (2) ensur[ing] that migratory children who move among the states are not penalized in any manner by disparities 

among the states in curriculum, graduation requirements, and state academic content and student academic achievement 

standards; (3) ensur[ing] that migratory children are provided with appropriate educational services (including supportive 

services) that address their special needs in a coordinated and efficient manner; (4) ensur[ing] that migratory children receive 

full and appropriate opportunities to meet the same challenging state academic content and student academic achievement 

standards that all children are expected to meet; (5) design[ing] programs 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 do well in school, and prepar[ing] such children to make a successful transition to postsecondary 

education or employment; and (6) ensur[ing] that migratory children benefit from state and local systemic reforms." 

35 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

that 

directly provide 

instructional 

services 

States that do not 

directly provid 

instructional services 

State administrative structures for providing direct instructional 

services to migratory children 

.. 

.. 

.. 

............ 

~ 

~ ---. -:· 

Number of 

states 

• • 

• •••• ••••• 

• •• ••• 

• 

•••••• • ••••• ••••• 

••••• ••••• 

such as graduation planning, career exploration and guidance, preparation for postsecondary transition, 

or credit-recovery programs; and preschool or early-childhood education. 

More than a third of state MEP grantees (19 of 46) directly provided supplemental 

instructional services and other academic supports to migratory children. 

Nineteen state MEP directors reported that their state provided direct instructional services to 

migratory children (Exhibit 14, top blue box). Of these, two state directors reported that their state was 

the sole instructional service provider to migratory children, with no help from subgrantees or 

contractors; 10 reported that their state provided direct services but that local/regional MEP 

subgrantees also provided instructional services; six reported relying on their local/regional subgrantees 

as well as on outside contractors to serve the instructional needs of migratory children; and one state 

MEP director reported that the MEP provided direct services as well as relied on their outside 

contractors, but not on local/regional subgrantees, to serve the instructional needs of migratory 

children. 

The remaining 27 state MEP grantees (Exhibit 14, bottom gray box) did not provide direct instructional 

services, but rather relied on their subgrantees to provide these services. Of these, 17 relied solely on 

their subgrantees, and another 10 relied on both their subgrantees and outside contractors to serve the 

instructional needs of migratory children. 

Exhibit 14. State MEP structures for providing instructional services to migratory children, 

2017–18 

Exhibit reads: Nineteen state MEP directors (top blue box) reported that their state provided direct instructional 

services to migratory children. 

Source: State MEP Director Survey, Items 2 and 9 (n = 46). 

36 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Among the 19 states that provided direct instructional services to migratory children, most 

reported providing college and career supports and academic instruction. 

In states that provided instructional services directly to migratory children, state MEP directors reported 

providing an average of six types of instructional services and other academic supports to migratory 

children. Common types of instructional services and other academic supports states provided directly 

to migratory children included career exploration and guidance (69 percent), high school graduation 

planning and assistance (63 percent), reading and language arts instruction (58 percent), mathematics 

instruction (53 percent), credit-recovery programs (53 percent), and preparation for the postsecondary 

transition (53 percent). (Exhibit 15). 

In interviews, several state MEP directors noted that the direct instructional services and other 

academic supports they provided included special events, like college visits or summer camps. One state 

MEP director explained that the regional and local MEPs provided more traditional instructional services 

such as tutoring in reading and language arts or mathematics, whereas the state sponsored special 

activities such as the College Experience Days program through which migratory students visited a 

college and learned about the college application process. In addition, the state ran five separate 

residential one- to three-week summer camps at a state university that helped middle and high school 

migratory students develop their literacy, writing, and leadership skills. Similarly, another state MEP 

director described having run a statewide speech and debate program and an annual leadership 

institute in the past.50 Finally, one state MEP director described the impact of a leadership institute that 

the state contracted with a local university to provide to migratory high school students. As the state 

MEP director described it, the program had been effective in helping migratory children stay in school, 

graduate, and go on to college and careers: 

We have a high school leadership institute [camp] that started in 2009, and students today who 

weren’t even planning on going to college are now going to graduate [from high school], go to 

college, and make a difference in their lives. We had been sending nine students from each 

subgrantee site to the leadership institute, but this year we’re expanding that to 18, and next year it 

will be 27. When we ask seniors to what they owe the fact that they are graduating, they give us 

three answers: (1) they went to a high school camp, which turned their life around; (2) their parents 

sacrificed everything to get them an education; or (3) a mentor or teacher pulled them aside and said 

they were going to be somebody. 

The vast majority of local/regional MEP subgrantees directly provided supplemental 

instructional services and academic supports to migratory children, the most common of 

which included reading and language arts instruction, mathematics instruction, and 

academic guidance and advocacy. 

The vast majority of local/regional MEP subgrantees (93 percent) directly provided migratory children an 

array of instructional services and other academic supports to mitigate the learning challenges caused 

by education disruptions that migratory children regularly experience.51 On average, local/regional 

MEPs reported providing nine types of services and supports to migratory children. Local/regional MEP 

coordinators most commonly reported providing reading and language arts instruction (84 percent), 

50 The state now provides additional funding to subgrantees to offer these programs. 

51 The remaining seven percent provided instructional services through their sub-subgrantees or contracted with external 

organizations or agencies to do so. 

37 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

instruction 

Academic [ 

support 

Support 

for 

college 

and 

career 

58% 

53% 

53% 

69% 

37% 

26% 

47% 

42% 

26% 

63% 

53% 

37% 

22% 

16% 

Reading/language arts instruction 

Math instruction 

Credit-recovery programs - 60% 

English as a Second Language instruction - 58% 

Online courses - 41% 

84% 

82% 

Academic 

instruction 

Academic guidance and advocacy 

Diagnostic evaluations of educational needs - 51% 

Other on line educational support - 50% 

80%] Academic . 

support 

Career exploration and guidance 75% 

Graduation-planning assistance 76% 

Preparation for postsecondary transition 

Career and technical skills training - 43% 

High School Equivalency Diploma classes - 21% 

Adult education classes - 18% 

Support 

for 

college 

and 

career 

Preschool Preschool 

or earlychildhood [ 47% Preschool or early-childhood education 

education r--rorearly69% ] childhood 

~~-~-~~-~ education 

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 

Percentage of state 

MEP directors 

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 

Percentage of local/regional 

MEP coordinators 

mathematics instruction (82 percent), academic guidance and advocacy (80 percent), graduationplanning assistance (76 percent), and career exploration and guidance (75 percent) (Exhibit 15). 

Exhibit 15. MEP-funded instructional services that state grantees and local/regional subgrantees 

provided directly to migratory children 2017–18 

Exhibit reads: Of those who directly provided instructional services, 58 percent of 19 state MEP directors and 84 

percent of local/regional MEP coordinators reported providing reading and language arts instruction (e.g., tutoring, 

remedial education, or other instructional services) directly to migratory children. 

Source: State MEP Director Survey, Item 9 (n = 19); Local/regional Coordinator Survey, Item 12 (n = 736). 

In interviews, local/regional MEP coordinators described the reading and mathematics instruction they 

directly provided to migratory children. One local MEP coordinator, for example, described providing inhome reading and developmental support to eligible preschool-age migratory children. Another local 

coordinator ran an after-school program for migratory children in grades K–5. Three days a week, 

credentialed teachers from the district provided supplemental English-language arts or mathematics 

instruction for migratory children, and two days a week two outside organizations contracted by the 

district provided enrichment instruction, including STEM lessons combined with soccer drills and artists 

teaching visual and performing arts. One teacher described the benefits of the after-school support: 

“These kids need something to come and do after school, and it’s great that they’re getting more oneon-one time with teachers.” 

38 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One local MEP coordinator described enrolling his district’s migratory children in a statewide MEP 

program that hired college students from across the state — particularly former migratory students 

interested in pursuing careers in education — to tutor the migratory students. According to one 

principal, the benefits of the program are notable: 

[The tutors provide] exposure to a role model, a Latino student who’s enrolled in college and is 

staking out a career path.... They need to see that: ‘Oh, this person has a background like me, and 

grew up like me, and sat in these seats, and now they’re going to college and they’re on a career 

path,’ and they need to see that because there’s probably not too many people in their family that 

have been to college. 

In interviews, local/regional MEP coordinators also described a range of approaches to helping 

migratory children stay in school and prepare for college and career. One local MEP coordinator, for 

example, identified credit accrual as the number one challenge because the children’s biannual moves 

make it difficult to obtain and transfer credits from state to state. Accordingly, this local MEP focused its 

services on credit recovery and planning for graduation. Another local MEP coordinator described 

offering a STEM-focused career exploration program for high-school-age migratory youth that consisted 

of eight Saturday sessions followed by two experiential learning events, including a Code Day Hack-athon and an overnight trip to visit tech companies to “see the careers in action.” 

Other approaches to helping migratory children prepare for college and career included graduation 

advocates and college visits. In interviews, for example, a regional MEP coordinator described creating a 

program that provided a graduation advocate in each area of the state where large concentrations of 

migratory children attended school. The advocates delivered instructional support services including 

tutoring and after-school help. Another local MEP hosted a College Day event to help migratory children 

learn about postsecondary educational options and how to apply to and prepare for college. As one 

respondent explained: “I encourage the students, as well as their parents, to attend [College Day] 

because they also learn about the dual enrollment program and how they can take college-level classes 

and earn up to an associate degree without actually going to college.” 

Finally, local MEP coordinators described using online courses for a variety of purposes, including skill 

reinforcement, credit accrual, and credit recovery. For example, one local MEP coordinator explained 

that the MEP had just begun offering an online reading program for migratory sixth graders that helped 

them develop their reading fluency and comprehension skills: “There are 29 different reading levels with 

30 different books at each level that they can [work on] online...it’ll give them their fluency and check 

for comprehension.” A local MEP coordinator in another state described providing one migratory out-ofschool youth with access to online programs that allowed him to “come in, get his credits, do his core 

content, and then get out there and go to work.” Finally, a local MEP coordinator in a third state 

explained that the Migrant Education Program offered an afterschool online credit-recovery program: 

“[Migratory children] come in, and if they failed a class, and they need to make up the credits, they are 

able to take the [online credit accrual program] online. They have a range of subjects, [including] 

English, health, and some math courses.” 

Helping Migratory Out-of-School Youth Complete High School 

The Office of Migrant Education (OME)-commissioned literature review (USED 2011) identified schoolbased strategies to meet the needs of out-of-school youth, such as offering flexible credit accrual 

options, pre–high school equivalency diploma (HSED) and HSED instruction, health education, life-skills 

39 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

arts instruction 55% 

Math instruction 52% 

English as a Second Language instruction 

Online courses - 30% 

Academic guidance and advocacy 59% 

Diagnostic evaluations of educational needs 35% 

Other on line educational support - 33% 

Graduation planning 

Career exploration and guidance 

Preparation for postsecondary transition 

Credit-recovery programs 

Career and technical skills training - 29% 

High School Equivalency Diploma classes - 19% 

Adult Education Classes - 16% 

0% 20% 40% 

55% 

60% 80% 

] 

Academic 

instruction 

] 

Academic 

support 

College 

and career 

100% 

Percentage of local/regional MEP directors 

courses, advocacy, and transportation. The review also noted that services for out-of-school youth 

should focus on job training and career preparation, such as programs that promote work-based 

learning, connect out-of-school youth to future job opportunities with employers, and educate them 

about the culture of work, including dress, communication, and attendance. This section describes the 

types of instructional services that state MEP directors and local/regional MEP coordinators reported 

providing to out-of-school youth. 

Local/regional MEP coordinators also reported providing instructional services and other 

academic supports to out-of-school youth, the most common of which were academic 

guidance and advocacy, reading and language arts instruction, career exploration and 

guidance, and mathematics instruction. 

Among the local/regional MEP coordinators reporting providing direct instructional services and other 

academic supports to migratory children, more than half reported providing direct instructional services 

specifically to out-of-school youth, including academic guidance and advocacy (59 percent), reading and 

language arts instruction (55 percent), career exploration and guidance (55 percent), and mathematics 

instruction (52 percent). 

Exhibit 16. Percentage of local/regional subgrantees that provided various instructional services to 

migratory out-of-school youth, 2017–18 

Exhibit Reads: Of the 736 local/regional MEP coordinators who reported providing direct reading and Englishlanguage arts instruction to any migratory children, 55 percent reported providing the service to migratory out-ofschool youth in particular. 

Source: Local/regional Coordinator Survey, Items 12 and 14 (n = 736). 

40 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In interviews, some local/regional MEP coordinators explained that the services made available for outof-school youth reflected their needs, interests, and access to other sources of support. For example, 

one MEP coordinator explained that program staff delivered services at locations and times convenient 

for out-of-school youth, such as at the library, the youth’s residence, or another central location. 

Another local MEP coordinator explained that the program focused primarily on tailoring MEP services 

to address the expressed needs of out-of-school youth, which meant connecting them to ESL classes and 

providing them with work supplies, such as water bottles and first-aid kits. A MEP coordinator in another 

state described providing migratory out-of-school youth with MP3 players so they could “practice and 

learn English...when they are at home or maybe, if they are allowed to, in the field so they can learn 

while they are working.” 

Most local/regional coordinators reported using partner agencies and recruiters to serve the needs of 

migratory out-of-school youth. Most local MEPs collaborated with other organizations and agencies (70 

percent) and used recruiters to provide out-of-school youth with on-demand support, such as referrals, 

support materials, and supplies (78 percent). In addition, they used recruiters or MEP staff to help outof-school youth enroll in a classroom or online credit-recovery program (64 percent) or to refer them to 

ESL programs (61 percent). 

Support Services 

State grantees and local/regional MEP subgrantees also provided migratory children an array of support 

services to address the social, emotional, and health issues that migratory children regularly experience 

that can impact their ability to attend and fully focus at school. Types of support services included: 

school supports, such as school supplies, transportation, language support, and leadership development 

programs; health supports, such as health, dental, and eye care, as well as counseling and mental health 

services; home supports, such as housing guidance/assistance, clothing, and child care; or personal 

guidance supports, such as individual advocacy and mentoring supports. 

The majority of state MEP directors (28 of 46) reported relying completely on local/regional 

subgrantees and outside contractors to provide support services to migratory children. 

However, more than a third (18 of 46) reported that their states directly provided at least one 

support service to migratory children. 

Eighteen state MEP directors reported that their state directly provided support services to migratory 

children (Exhibit 17, top blue box). Of these, one state director reported that the state MEP was the sole 

support service provider to migratory children, with no help from subgrantees or contractors; nine 

reported that their state provided direct support services but also relied on their subgrantees to do so; 

seven reported providing direct services but also relying on their local/regional subgrantees as well as 

on outside contractors to serve the support needs of migratory children; and one state reported 

providing direct services as well as relying on outside contractors, but not on local/regional subgrantees, 

to serve migratory children. 

The remaining 28 state MEPs (Exhibit 17, bottom gray box) did not directly provide any support services 

to migratory children, but rather relied on their MEP subgrantees to do so. Of these, 18 relied solely on 

their subgrantees, and another 10 relied on both their subgrantees and outside contractors to serve the 

support needs of migratory children. 

41 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

that 

directly provide 

support services 

States th at do not 

directly provide 

support services 

State administrative structures for providing direct support 

services to migratory children 

.. 

-­

.. 

... 

..........., 

~ 

.... . . · . 

Number of 

states 

• 

••••• •••• 

• ••• ••• 

• 

•••••• •••••• •••••• 

••••• ••••• 

Exhibit 17. State MEP structures for providing support services to migratory children, 2017–18 

Exhibit reads: Eighteen state MEP directors (top blue box) reported that their state directly provided support 

services to migratory children. 

Source: State MEP Director Survey, Items 2 and 13 (n = 46). 

Eighteen states directly provided support services to migratory children, the most common 

of which were leadership development and language supports. 

On average, state MEP directors reported providing four types of support services to migratory children. 

The most common services were leadership development programs (58 percent of states), language 

support (i.e., translation or interpretation services not otherwise provided) (50 percent), transportation 

not otherwise provided (39 percent), and individual student advocacy services (39 percent) (Exhibit 18). 

The least common support services states provided directly were related to home supports, including 

housing guidance and assistance (16 percent), clothing (11 percent), and child care (11 percent). 

Almost all local/regional MEP subgrantees directly provided support services to migratory 

children, the most common of which included distribution of school supplies, language 

supports (e.g., translation or interpretation services), and individual student advocacy 

services. 

The vast majority of local/regional MEP subgrantees (92 percent) directly provided support services to 

address the social, emotional, and health issues that sometimes prevent migratory children from 

attending school.52 On average, local/regional MEP coordinators reported providing six types of support 

services to migratory children, including school supplies (82 percent), language support (74 percent), 

52 The remaining eight percent provided support services through their sub-subgrantees or contracted with external 

organizations or agencies to do so. 

42 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leadership development programs - 42% 

s,0001 [ 50% Language support 74% 

supports l Xru»I 39% Transportation - 57% supports 

28% School supplies 82% 

28% Health care - 19% 

Heal~ [ 

28% Dental care 16% ] Health 

supports 22% Eye care . 18% supports 

22% Counseling/mental health services - 27% 

16% Housing guidance/assistance - 19% Ho~[ 11% Clothing - 51% ]Home supports supports 

11% Child care 14% 

Advocacy [ 39% Individual student advocacy services - 65% ] Advocacy 

and and 

mentoring 28% Mentoring - 61% mentoring 

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 0% 20% 40%60% 80% 100% 

Percentage of state Percentage of local/regional 

MEP directors MEP coordinators 

individual student advocacy services (65 percent), mentoring (61 percent), transportation (57 percent), 

and clothing (51 percent) (Exhibit 18). 

Exhibit 18. MEP-funded support services state MEP grantees and local/regional MEP subgrantees 

provided directly to migratory children, 2017–18 

Exhibit Reads: Of those who directly provided support services, 58 percent of 18 state MEP directors and 42 

percent of local/regional MEP coordinators reported providing leadership development programs directly to 

migratory children. 

Source: State MEP Director Survey, Item 11 (n = 18); Local/regional Coordinator Survey, Item 12 (n = 737). 

In an interview, one regional MEP coordinator described MEP staff working creatively to address 

migratory children’s needs through support services. For example, upon learning that some migratory 

children were avoiding school because they had no clean clothes, MEP staff worked with a community 

foundation to have a washing machine and dryer donated to the elementary school. In addition, they set 

up a clothing bank so that migratory children could have a clean change of clothes upon arriving at 

school and while washing their clothes. In another local site, the MEP staff helped families apply for 

Medicaid, food stamps, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. 

Local/regional MEP coordinators also described providing advocacy services for migratory children and 

their families. Staff in one regional MEP, for example, conducted home visits to migratory families: “As a 

recruiter, I go and find the families. But then as an advocate, I go and see what their needs are and then 

basically find whatever it is that they need, transport them to wherever they need to go, and be an 

advocate for their students at the school for whatever it is that the student may need as far as their 

education or their health.” In a local MEP in another state, a recruiter described focusing her work on 

increasing parents’ engagement in their child’s education. Specifically, the recruiter traveled from home 

to home and used Facebook to connect with parents to educate them about academic credits, 

43 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

healthcare, or other information such as immigration services. Another local MEP helped migratory 

children enroll in school and helped families navigate the enrollment process, for example, by helping 

them obtain proper immunization records, a prevalent enrollment obstacle. As one respondent 

explained: 

One of the girls was having trouble enrolling in high school, and I literally felt like if I was not there, 

she would [not] have been able to enroll. It took me two weeks to get that girl enrolled. I had to 

pretty much go to the superintendent and look at the [state] laws and just be like, ‘This girl needs to 

be in school.’ I felt like the parent would have believed that their child really can’t be in school. 

While local/regional MEP coordinators provided most of the support services directly, 8 percent also 

contracted with external organizations and agencies to provide services. In interviews, one local 

coordinator described contracting with a local family services agency to provide two therapists for oneon-one or family counseling and mental health services for migratory children. The therapists reported 

working with migratory children to address a wide variety of needs and challenges, including fear and 

anxiety about family separations and deportation, domestic violence, substance abuse, homelessness, 

and more general behavioral and relational difficulties. 

Referral Services 

To help migratory children stay and succeed in school, MEPs include in their Service Delivery Plans 

referrals to non-MEP-funded programs and organizations that can fulfill a need. 

Fourteen state MEP grantees and the majority of local/regional MEP subgrantees referred 

migratory children to other organizations for services, including language support, 

healthcare, and eye care. 

Twenty-eight percent of state MEP grantees referred migratory children for at least one instructional or 

support service. State MEP directors most frequently reported referring migratory children for language 

support (71 percent), healthcare (64 percent), eye care (64 percent), and meal or nutrition programs (64 

percent). 

Among local/regional MEP subgrantees, 91 percent referred migratory children to other organizations 

for at least one instructional or support service, including school supplies (79 percent), language support 

(75 percent), healthcare (73 percent), clothing (73 percent), and eye care (71 percent) (Exhibit 19). 

In interviews, local/regional MEP coordinators described some of these referrals. One local/regional 

MEP coordinator, for example, helped families not qualifying for federal aid (e.g., Medicaid), by referring 

them to doctors and dentists who worked on a sliding scale, adjusting their cost of service in accord with 

families’ ability to pay. Local MEP staff also described referring migratory families for housing services 

and supports. For example, a local MEP subgrantee provided beds through the local university’s Build a 

Bed project: MEP staffers completed an application to the program and identified the number of beds 

needed; if selected, all or some of the migratory children received a bed built by college students, along 

with a comforter and sheets. In another state with severe housing shortages in its urban areas, 

migratory high school students were often technically homeless. One local MEP coordinator described 

addressing the problem: “We have a good connection with the food banks and the shelters, but for the 

families, especially our homeless kids, the shelters are not safe, and we have a program ... that we can 

refer the kids to, which is really good at getting them the mental [health] help that they need, because 

when they’re homeless they are worried about everything.” 

44 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

71% 

Language support 

School 57% School supplies 79% l School supports 50% Transportation not otherwise provided supports 

43% Adult education classes - 58% 

64% Health care 73% 

Heal~ [ 

64% Eye care 

] Health 

supports 64% Dental care supports 

43% Counseling/mental health services 

Sodal [ 64% Meal or nutrition programs 69% ] Sodal services 50% Child care - 45% services 

and other and other 

supports 43% Clothing 73% supports 

Other [ ] Other 

50% Flexible service delivery - 48% 

43% Mentoring - 63% 

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 

Percentage of state Percentage of local/regional 

MEP directors MEP coordinators 

Exhibit 19. Services for which the state MEP grantees or local/regional subgrantees referred 

eligible migratory children to others, among referring MEPs, 2017–18 

Exhibit Reads: Of those who referred migratory children for services, 71 percent of 14 state MEP directors and 75 

percent of local/regional MEP coordinators reported that their MEP referred migratory children for language 

support. 

Source: State MEP Director Survey, Item 13 (n = 14); Local/regional Coordinator Survey, Item 20 (n = 692). 

Chapter Summary 

Nearly all state MEP directors and local/regional MEP coordinators used data to inform the planning and 

delivery of MEP services, including progress on Measurable Program Outcomes, student performance on 

state assessments, and student graduation rates. In interviews, local/regional MEP coordinators also 

described using qualitative data sources for planning and delivery of services, such as talking to MEP 

participants and their families, which one MEP coordinator described as helping administrators 

understand not only whether migratory children were succeeding or failing, but also why. 

MEPs provided migratory children an array of instructional and support services that most commonly 

included reading and language arts instruction, mathematics instruction, and academic guidance and 

advocacy, as well as leadership development programs, language support, school supplies, and 

graduation planning and assistance. 

45 
This page intentionally left blank 

46 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 5. Collaborating to Deliver Services to 

Eligible Migratory Children 

Migrant Education Program (MEP) grantees and subgrantees not only identify needs and provide 

services to migratory children, but the Department of Education’s Non-Regulatory Guidance for the MEP 

(2017a) also recommends that they identify other agencies and organizations that might provide a 

service that addresses a recognized need. Coordinating and collaborating with other federal and nonfederal programs is both a practical necessity and a statutory requirement for efforts to meet the 

educational needs of migratory children. As a 2004 study of MEP implementation asserted, program 

partnerships “can address problems that lie beyond any single agency’s purview” (Salinas and Fránquiz 

2004). The law specifies that state MEPs and the programs and projects they support must coordinate 

and jointly plan with other federal programs operating within each state. Section 1308 of the 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) directly supports coordination of MEP activities across 

and within states. The Non-Regulatory Guidance recommends that MEP grantees, particularly states, 

coordinate and collaborate “in a way that leverages other program funds and optimizes the use of MEP 

funds for the unique needs of migrant children” (USED 2017a, p. 70) and to remain in close contact with 

organizations to “strengthen cross-program planning and tap into different resources regarding the 

location and needs of migrant families” (p. 72) to ensure that migratory children receive services 

required to address their needs. 

The potential benefits of collaboration are well documented. The 2011 literature review (USED 2011), 

for example, noted that collaborations can be leveraged to expand funding and programming options 

and that coordination with other agencies and service providers is critical to identifying and recruiting 

migratory families into programs. Other studies have demonstrated that schools and communities can 

work closely together to create more opportunities for parents and families of migratory children to 

connect with teachers, administrators, other migratory families, and the local community (Torrez 2014; 

St. Clair, Jackson, and Zweiback 2012). 

This chapter describes how MEPs developed and formalized collaborative relationships with other 

organizations and programs. In addition, because other Office of Migrant Education (OME)-administered 

programs such as the High School Equivalency Program (HEP) and the College Assistance Migrant 

Program (CAMP), could provide specific opportunities to strengthen and expand the array of services 

and supports provided to migratory children, it discusses ways in which MEPs collaborated with those 

programs. Finally, this chapter describes the types of instructional and support services that MEPs 

partnered with other agencies and organizations to provide to migratory children. 

Developing and Formalizing Collaborations with Other Agencies and 

Organizations 

The following discusses the advocacy and outreach efforts of state directors and local/regional MEP 

coordinators to develop formal and informal partnerships with other agencies and organizations to 

serve the needs of migratory children. It then describes coordination and collaboration with other OME 

programs, including HEP and CAMP, as these programs can offer a potentially seamless set of services 

and supports specifically targeted to high-school-aged and out-of-school youth. 

47 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advocacy and Outreach 

Given that collaborations with other agencies and organizations can strengthen the continuity of 

instructional and support services provided for migratory children, it is important to understand how, 

through advocacy and outreach, MEPs identify potential collaborative partners and forge collaborative 

relationships with other organizations and agencies to serve the needs of migratory children. 

Most state MEP directors and local/regional MEP coordinators participated in outreach 

activities to engage with other agencies and organizations in supporting the needs of 

migratory children. 

Most state MEP directors and local/regional MEP coordinators reported delivering or attending 

presentations (89 percent of state directors and 61 percent of local/regional coordinators) and 

attending in-person meetings (87 percent and 83 percent), as well as disseminating materials such as 

informational letters, brochures, or briefs (80 percent and 78 percent) as part of their outreach efforts 

to other organizations (Exhibit 20). In an interview, one state MEP director described how twice a year 

the state team brought together all the agencies across the state that worked with migratory children, 

including migrant health services, housing services, and HEP and CAMP projects. During these meetings, 

participants described the services they provided, the barriers they encountered, and how they would 

like to collaborate. Similarly, another state MEP director described holding quarterly meetings to confer 

about the needs of migratory children and the agencies that could meet them: 

We sent invitations to as many community agencies that we could think of who could potentially 

touch the lives of a migrant family. We brought them together and created a vision for our 

collaboration ... we came up with an annual migrant support conference. The conference started 

around building partnerships and coordinating services. The group meets quarterly to discuss any 

community agency initiatives or new projects of interest to migrant families, as well as changes 

among the migrant population either under way or anticipated [as related to an influx of refugees]. 

As a result, [the group is identifying] new organizations who felt they were missing the educational 

lens of working with the migrant population [and are supporting those needs now]. 

48 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

87% 

80% 

69% 

33% 

11% 

2% 

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 

Percentage of state 

MEP directors 

Presentations 

In-person meetings 

Dissemination of materials 

Workshops 

Taskforce(s) 

Other 

None of the above 

- 61% 

- 41% 

1 12% 

Is% 

17% 

0% 20% 40%60% 80% 100% 

Percentage of local/regional 

MEP coordinators 

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 

Exhibit reads: Eighty-nine percent of 45 state MEP directors and 61 percent of local/regional MEP coordinators 

reported using presentations to engage with other agencies and organizations to support the needs of migratory 

children. 

Source: State MEP Director Survey, Item 17 (n = 45); Local/regional MEP Coordinator Survey, Item 22 (n = 739). 

Formal Agreements 

The Non-Regulatory Guidance suggests that collaborations between MEPs and other organizations 

might result in a formal agreement, memorandum, or “letter of understanding” that “specifies the 

services that each program will provide” (USED 2017a, p. 71). For example, a 21st Century Community 

Learning Center (21st CCLC) program might agree to reserve slots for migratory children. Formal 

agreements help enforce delivery of services because they enumerate each partner’s expectations and 

obligations and sometimes provide for legal remedies when promises are breached. 

Half or fewer state MEP grantees and local/regional MEP subgrantees had formal 

agreements articulating their commitments to collaborate with other agencies and 

organizations to address the needs of migratory children. 

Approximately half the state MEP directors (51 percent) and 40 percent of local/regional MEP 

coordinators had at least one formal agreement, such as a memorandum of understanding (MOU) or 

cost-sharing agreement, in place with an organization or agency to serve the needs of migratory 

children. 

Among those that reported having a formal agreement, about half had one formal agreement (43 

percent of state directors and 53 percent of local/regional coordinators), while the other half had more 

than one (57 percent of state MEP grantees and 47 percent of local/regional MEP subgrantees). 

No one type of agency or organization was reported as a frequent formal partner for MEPs. For 

example, state directors and local/regional coordinators most commonly reported having formal 

49 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

16% 

1S% 

9% 

7% 

4% 

2% 

* 

* 

r- --,- r---7 

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 

Percentage of state 

MEP directors 

Nonprofit organizations 

Institutions of higher education (IHEs) 

Other districts in the state that do not have an MEP 

subgrant 

Other state/local government agencies 

State/local parent associations or committees 

State/local health departments 

State/local department of child and family services 

Local school boards 

Local businesses 

1 14% 

111% 

19% 

Is% 

Is% 

111% 

Is% 

1 12% 

Is% 

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 

Percentage of local/regional 

MEP coordinators 

collaboration agreements with nonprofit organizations (16 percent of state MEP directors and 

14 percent of local/regional coordinators) and institutions of higher education (IHEs) (16 percent and 

11 percent), but the frequency of formal agreements with these partners was low. Other organizations 

and agencies with which MEPs had formal collaboration agreements included districts in the state 

without MEP subgrants (15 percent and 9 percent), and other state or local government agencies 

(9 percent and 8 percent) (Exhibit 21). 

Exhibit 21. Types of organizations and agencies with which state grantees and local/regional 

subgrantees had at least one formal agreement to collaborate, 2017–18 

Exhibit reads: Sixteen percent of 45 state MEP directors and 14 percent of local/regional MEP coordinators 

reported having at least one formal agreement to collaborate with nonprofit organizations. 

* Items not included on the State Director Survey. 

Source: State MEP Director Survey, Item 20 (n = 45); Local/regional MEP Coordinator Survey, Item 25 (n = 640). 

In interviews, state MEP directors and staff described forging both formal and informal agreements with 

agencies and organizations to serve the needs of migratory children. For example, one state had an 

MOU with a sending state to administer the sending state’s assessments when children arrived near the 

end of the school year. Another state had an MOU with the state’s Child Development Center (CDC) to 

provide preschool services for many local MEPs within the state. In addition, the MOU required local 

MEPs to meet with local CDCs to identify ways in which to collaborate. A third state had an MOU with 

the state Migrant and Seasonal Head Start program to share recruitment efforts: “When we go 

recruiting, they go recruiting; when we go to a migrant camp, they go to a migrant camp,” explained the 

state MEP director. “They say, ‘I’ll take the cabins on the right. If you find one of my kids, we’ll meet in 

an hour and coordinate information.’” Also, at the state level, one statewide MEP subgrantee 

coordinated with a statewide migratory farmworker health initiative that provided health and dental 

services for seasonal and farmworker adults and children. The subgrantee had an informal agreement 

with the farmworker health initiative to work at all levels across the state to provide access to basic and 

emergency healthcare providers, including doctors and dentists. The subgrantee also coordinated, 

50 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

informally, with Migrant Legal Aid, special education, adult education, Head Start programs, as well as 

with local colleges and universities. In this state, representatives from state agencies served together on 

state-level committees, and they spoke at each other’s trainings and conferences (e.g., staff for the 

McKinney-Vento Homeless Education Program and Indian Education programs had spoken at MEP 

events) to build awareness of student needs, services, and shared opportunities for recruitment. At the 

local/regional level, one regional MEP coordinator described an MOU with the local schools requiring 

school staff to inform MEP recruiters about any potentially eligible migratory children attending the 

school and to help register students for the MEP. 

Several state MEP directors noted that ESEA, as amended, offers opportunities to coordinate funding for 

different programs. For example, in one state, the MEP and Migrant and Seasonal Head Start programs 

shared one eligibility specialist, so both programs had an expert with whom to consult on questions 

about migratory child eligibility. In another state, the MEP director described encouraging local MEPs to 

work with the local coordinators of Title I, Part A, the McKinney-Vento Homeless Education Program, 

and foster-care programs to coordinate funds and services. Finally, one state MEP director described 

collaborating with the Early Childhood Division (ECD), also in the state department of education, to 

include teachers of preschool migratory children in a statewide professional development network. The 

ECD worked with MEP leaders to identify topics relevant to teaching migratory children (e.g., duallanguage learners, social-emotional learning, parent engagement, classroom management), and then 

offered additional professional development sessions — through statewide preschool professional state 

leaders’ trainings and technical assistance — on those topics specifically for teachers of preschool 

migratory children across the state. 

Collaborating with HEP and CAMP 

The Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended in 2013 under PL 113-67, authorizes the CAMP and the 

HEP, both administered by OME. These programs present opportunities for state and local/regional 

MEPs to expand the array of services available to high-school-age migratory children, migratory children 

who have dropped out of school, and migratory children who have graduated from high school and are 

in their first year of college. CAMP awards competitive grants to institutions of higher education or other 

private, nonprofit organizations to recruit and provide academic and financial support to help migratory 

and seasonal farmworkers and members of their immediate families complete their first year of college 

and continue in postsecondary education programs. CAMP services can include academic testing and 

special academic, career, and personal counseling; tutoring and supplementary instructional services; 

and other essential support services to ensure the success of CAMP participants.53 

HEP seeks to help migratory and seasonal farmworkers and members of their immediate families obtain 

a high school equivalency diploma that meets the guidelines for high school equivalency and gain or 

upgrade employment or placement in postsecondary education or training via competitive grants to 

institutions of higher education and nonprofit organizations. 54 

It is important to note that the CAMP and HEP programs are small, serving approximately 2,500 and 

5,000 students nationwide, respectively, each year, and they do not operate in all states, regions, or 

school districts. 

53 https://www2.ed.gov/programs/camp/index.html. 

54 https://www2.ed.gov/programs/hep/index.html. 

51 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

72% 

86% 

69% 

70% 

70% 

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 

Percentage of state 

MEP directors 

HEP m cAMP 

Agreed to work together to distribute program 

information to students, youth, and families 

Agreed to share information/data on migratory 

students 

Agreed to work together to identify and contact 

eligi ble high school students 

Participated in an interagency task force or 

committee for migratory students 

~ % 89% 

llfflnn% 

87% 

llfflirn 89% 

-

3% 

76% 

0% 20% 40%60% 80% 100% 

Percentage of local/regional 

MEP coordinators 

■ HEP ll] CAMP 

Most state MEP grantees and local/regional subgrantees coordinated or collaborated with 

HEP and/or CAMP to provide services to migratory children. 

Overall, 69 percent of state MEP directors and 59 percent of local/regional MEP coordinators reported 

collaborating with HEP or CAMP. Of those, most collaborated by distributing program information to 

migratory children, youth, and families about HEP (83 percent of state MEP directors and 72 percent of 

local/regional MEP coordinators) or CAMP (72 percent and 89 percent). They also coordinated to share 

information or data on migratory children with HEP (86 percent and 70 percent) or CAMP (69 percent 

and 87 percent), and to identify and contact eligible high-school-aged migratory children about HEP (70 

percent and 68 percent) or CAMP (70 percent and 89 percent). Some also participated in an interagency 

task force or committee for migratory children with HEP (60 percent and 63 percent) or CAMP (55 

percent and 76 percent) (Exhibit 22). 

Exhibit 22. Ways in which state MEP directors and local/regional MEP coordinators coordinated 

and collaborated with HEP or CAMP, 2017–18 

Exhibit reads: Eighty-three percent of 29 state MEP directors and 72 percent of local/regional MEP coordinators 

who collaborated with HEP reported that their MEP agreed to work together with HEP to distribute program 

information to migratory children, youth, and families. 

Source: State MEP Director Survey, Item 17 (n = 29); Local/regional MEP Coordinator Survey, Item 21 (n = 408). 

In interviews, MEP coordinators described how collaborating with HEP and CAMP extended the MEP’s 

reach to provide more and varied services to high-school-age migratory children. One state MEP 

director, for example, reported that CAMP increased the number of migratory children receiving 

services because CAMP has different eligibility requirements and serves children who are not eligible or 

are no longer eligible for MEP services. Another state MEP director described relationships with the HEP 

and CAMP programs that, together with MEP, essentially guaranteed that migratory children in their 

state would receive services from at least one OME-administered program from pre-K through college. 

52 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

of state 

MEP directors 

84% 

• 

Colla borated to provide at least one 

instructional or support service 

■ Did not collaborate 

Percentage of local/regional 

MEP coordinators 

Collaborated to provide at least one 

instructional or support service 

■ Did not collaborate 

Collaborating with Other Agencies and Organizations 

For MEPs, collaboration with other agencies and organizations must leverage other program resources 

that can serve the needs of migratory children. In addition, collaborating with other agencies and 

organizations may help identify and recruit MEP-eligible migratory children into the program. 

The survey data show that state MEP directors and local/regional MEP coordinators took seriously their 

charge to collaborate: 84 percent of state MEP directors and 90 percent of local/regional MEP 

coordinators that directly provided services reported collaborating with other agencies and 

organizations to provide at least one instructional or support service to migratory children (Exhibit 23). 

In interviews, MEP coordinators regularly referenced the programs, agencies, and organizations with 

which they worked closely to knit together a comprehensive set of services and supports intended to 

enable migratory children to succeed in school. 

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 

Exhibit reads: Eighty-four percent of 18 state MEP directors and 90 percent of local/regional MEP coordinators 

that directly provided services reported collaborating with other agencies and organizations to provide at least one 

instructional or support service to migratory children. 

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). 

These findings provide some context for interpreting the results presented in Chapter 4 — serving the 

instructional and support needs of migratory children — further underscoring the notion that to meet 

migratory children’s needs, MEPs must work closely with other programs in a way that maximizes the 

menu of services and supports that migratory children receive. 

The following describes the types of instructional and support services that MEPs collaborated with 

other agencies and organizations to provide to migratory children. 

53 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Collaborating to Provide Instructional Services 

Most state MEP grantees that directly provided instructional services and other academic 

supports to migratory children collaborated with other agencies and organizations to do so. 

In the 11 states that directly provided reading and language arts instruction, for example, 91 percent of 

MEP directors reported collaborating with other agencies and organizations to provide these services. 

Similarly, in the eight states that directly provided academic guidance and advocacy services, 89 percent 

of directors reported collaborating with others, and 100 percent of directors in the seven states 

providing career and technical skills training participated in collaborations. In addition, 89 percent of the 

directors in the eight states providing preschool or early-childhood education collaborated with others 

to offer these services (Exhibit 24). 

Like state MEP grantees, most local/regional MEP subgrantees collaborated with other 

agencies and organizations to provide instructional services and other academic supports 

to migratory children. 

The majority of local/regional MEP coordinators who provided instructional services to migratory 

children reported collaborating with other agencies and organizations to provide these services. For 

example, among the local/regional subgrantees that provided English as a Second Language instruction, 

61 percent of MEPs reported coordinating with other agencies and organizations to provide that type of 

instruction. Other instructional services and academic supports provided by local/regional subgrantees 

in collaboration with other entities included support for college and careers, the most common of which 

were adult education classes (69 percent of the local/regional MEP subgrantees that provided this 

service collaborated with other agencies and organizations to do so), high school equivalency diploma 

classes (68 percent), career and technical skills training (67 percent), and career exploration and 

guidance (66 percent). Local/regional MEP coordinators also reported collaborating with other agencies 

and organizations to provide preschool or early-childhood education programs (69 percent), academic 

guidance and advocacy services (62 percent), credit-recovery programs (60 percent), and online courses 

(60 percent) (Exhibit 24). 

54 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

instruction 

91% 

90% 

86% 

80% 

80% 

Academic [ 

support 

89% 

88% 

60% 

Support 

for 

college 

and 

career 

100% 

85% 

83% 

80% 

67% 

60% 

Preschool 

orearlychildhood [ 89% 

education .---.-----r--""T"""--,----, 

Reading/language arts instruction 

Math instruction 

English as a Second Language 

Credit recovery 

Online courses 

Academic guidance and advocacy 

- 54% 

- 53% 

- 61% 

- 60% 

- 60% 

- 62% 

Academic 

instruction 

Diagnostic evaluations of educational needs - 52% 

Other online educational support ■■■■■ 57% 

]

Academic 

support 

Career and technical skills 

Career exploration and guidance 

Graduation planning assistance 

Preparation for postsecondary transition - 65% 

Support 

for 

college 

and 

career 

Adult education classes 69% 

High School Equivalency Diploma classes 

Preschool or early-childhood education 

68% 

Preschool 

or early69% ] childhood 

education ---~----- 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 0 % 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 

Percentage of state 

MEP directors 

Percentage of local/regional 

MEP coordinators 

Exhibit 24. Collaboration among state MEP grantees, local/regional subgrantees, and other 

agencies and organizations to directly provide instructional services to migratory 

children, 2017–18 

Exhibit reads: Ninety-one percent of 13 state MEP directors and 54 percent of local/regional MEP coordinators 

that directly provided reading/language arts instruction reported collaborating with other agencies and 

organizations to provide those services to migratory children. 

Source: State MEP Director Survey, Item 18 (n=13); Local/regional Coordinator Survey, Item 23 (n = 605). 

In an interview, a local MEP coordinator reported that collaborating with other agencies and 

organizations presented an opportunity to avoid duplicating services, thereby stretching scarce MEP 

resources further: “So, if there is a computer class in [the nearby town], we’re not going to offer a 

computer class, we’ll offer something else. We also refer students to the adult education classes in [the 

nearby town]. Those are very effective programs that are offering classes in the morning and in the 

evening.” 

Interview responses offered examples of how collaborating with other agencies expanded their 

program’s ability to provide instructional services. For example, to help migratory children prepare for 

the postsecondary transition, one local MEP collaborated with local colleges to host financial-aid 

workshops for migratory parents as well as college visits for migratory students. Similarly, another local 

MEP subgrant coordinator collaborated with a center affiliated with a nearby university to provide free 

school supplies, training, and curriculum packages to any teacher in the state serving migratory children. 

One community college respondent described the benefits of the collaboration: 

55 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We make connections, I think, as we expose [migratory] students to other opportunities they might 

not be aware of. We expose them to fields of study in which they can make a very good living. One of 

the cool things is that we have asked alumni who were former migrant students to speak to the 

prospective students about their journey. 

Another local MEP coordinator described bolstering the literacy supports delivered to migratory children 

by working closely with their local 21st CCLC program to ensure that the 21st CCLC’s mobile after-school 

reading program included the neighborhoods where migratory families live. 

Collaborating to Provide Support Services 

As with instructional services and other academic supports, nearly all the state MEP 

grantees that directly provided support services to migratory children collaborated with 

other agencies and organizations to provide those services. 

When they provided support services directly, most state MEP directors reported collaborating with 

other agencies and organizations to do so. Services they collaborated to provide included leadership 

development programs (100 percent), eye care (100 percent), dental care (100 percent), housing 

guidance/assistance (100 percent), and individual student advocacy services (100 percent). 

Like state MEP grantees, most local/regional MEP coordinators that directly provided 

support services to migratory children reported collaborating with other agencies and 

organizations to provide those services. 

Most local/regional MEP coordinators reported collaborating with other agencies and organizations to 

provide support services, including eye care (92 percent), dental care (90 percent), individual student 

advocacy services (89 percent), and counseling/mental health services (83 percent) (Exhibit 25). 

56 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leadership development programs 74% l XOOol 

School 80% School supplies 

supports 78% Language support - 62% supports 

57% Transportation - 63% 

[1-

Eye care 

··1 Health lOO% Dental care 90% Health 

supports 100% Counseling/mental health services 83% supports 

100% Health care 69% 

Housing guidance/assistance [1- 83%] Home 0 Child care 0 Home 

supports lOO% 67% supports 

50% Clothing 80% 

and 

Advocacy [ lOO% Individual student advocacy services 89%] Advocacy 

mentoring 80% 

100% 80% 60% 40% 20%0% 

Percentage of state 

MEP directors 

Mentoring - 63% 

0% 20% 40%60% 80% 100% 

Percentage of local/regional 

MEP coordinators 

and 

mentoring 

Exhibit 25. Collaboration between state MEP grantees, local/regional subgrantees, and other 

agencies and organizations to directly provide support services to migratory children, 

2017–18 

Exhibit reads: All 11 state MEP directors and 74 percent of local/regional coordinators who provided leadership 

development programs to migratory children reported collaborating with other agencies and organizations to 

provide this service to migratory children. 

Source: State MEP Director Survey, Item 19 (n = 11); Local/regional Coordinator Survey, Item 24 (n = 598). 

In interviews, local MEP coordinators described how they coordinated with other agencies and 

organizations to provide support services to migratory children. One local MEP coordinator, for 

example, described regularly meeting with agencies and organizations serving migratory populations 

and informally determining, together, how to address the needs of migratory children: 

[We have] the Migrant and Immigrant Council and that meets four times every year. That would be 

various churches, the [County] Health Department, [Migrant and Seasonal Head Start, Legal Aid, and 

others]. They give us information about what camps are open and how many people they’ll hold. 

Rural Health not only does the dental, but they also do clinics at the camp. They’ll go in a couple of 

nights and they’ll just do screenings, they’ll do TB [tuberculosis] and blood pressure and diabetes and 

all of that. The Lions Club will do vision screenings for children during the health fair that we have 

during summer school. 

Several local MEP coordinators described working closely with other agencies and organizations to 

assemble the supports migratory children need, particularly access to healthcare services. One MEP 

coordinator, for example, described partnering with a community health organization (CHO) that 

provided dental and medical health services. A CHO representative described the collaboration and its 

benefits: 

57 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We saw where a lot of the [migratory] kids were missing their [medical] appointments. The parents 

couldn’t take off from work.... Through the outreach program we do, you name it, we do it. We help 

with medical, dental. We help with prescriptions, transportation. If we cannot [see the child], we will 

refer them to a specialist [in another area]. 

Another local MEP coordinator described how their MEP collaborated with local nonprofit organizations 

to provide migratory children with backpacks full of food, school supplies, and other needed materials. 

They also collaborated with Migrant Health to offer migratory families basic medical checkups, and they 

worked with local nonprofits to connect families to shelters as well as food and clothing banks. The local 

MEP coordinator described how these collaborations not only benefited migratory families but also 

strengthened and expanded the network through which MEP staff identified and recruited migratory 

children: “So now, if a doctor’s office knows that we are well intentioned and that families thrive with 

our support, they are going to spread that word.” 

Finally, one local MEP staff member described three factors that affected the ability of their MEP to 

coordinate with organizations and agencies to serve the needs of migratory children: 

• The willingness and capacity of partners (e.g., one county’s public health department was willing 

to collaborate whereas another was not, due to lower staff capacity) 

• The availability of partners (e.g., one county had a clothing bank that migratory families could 

benefit from; the other county did not) 

• The requirements of organizations for their clients (e.g., most food banks in one county required 

Social Security numbers) 

Chapter Summary 

Coordinating and collaborating with other programs and organizations is a statutory requirement and 

practical necessity for MEPs to address the often unmet educational and health-related needs of 

migratory children that create barriers to school success. MEP coordinators described their efforts to 

develop collaborative relationships with other organizations and programs, including participating in 

advocacy and outreach activities to engage with other agencies and organizations in supporting the 

needs of migratory children. While the interview responses suggested that MEPs have collaborative 

relationships with many organizations and programs, the survey data suggested that few MEPs 

formalize these collaborations through MOUs or cost-sharing agreements. Even without formal 

agreements, nearly all state (84 percent) and local/regional MEPs (90 percent) that directly provided 

instructional and support services to migratory children collaborated with other agencies and 

organizations to do so. Types of services that they collaborated to provide included supplemental 

reading and language arts instruction, mathematics instruction, career exploration and guidance, career 

and technical skills training, preschool or early-childhood education programs, English as a Second 

Language instruction, individual student advocacy services, dental care, eye care, and counseling and 

mental health services. 

58 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 6. Conclusion 

Congress established the Migrant Education Program (MEP) in 1966, through an amendment to the 

1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), to address the significant barriers that prevent 

the children of migratory agricultural workers and fishers (some of whom are migratory agricultural 

workers and fishers themselves) from staying in school or meeting the same educational standards 

expected of all students. The goal of the program is to help meet the unique educational needs of 

migratory children.

55 

This study of the implementation of the Title I, Part C Migrant Education Program examined how states 

and their subgrantees were serving the needs of migratory children in 2017–18. This report describes 

implementation of four key components of the MEP: identification and recruitment of migratory 

children; the use of MSIX for records transfer within and across states to improve services and supports 

for migratory children; provision of supplemental instructional and support services that address the 

educational needs of migratory children not addressed by services available from other federal or nonfederal programs; and coordination and collaboration with other organizations and programs serving 

migratory populations. 

Migratory children must first be identified to ensure that they gain access to the support to which they 

are entitled. The identification and recruitment (ID&R) process, as established in ESEA and further 

explicated in the program regulations and Non-Regulatory Guidance, has very specific requirements, and 

while states have wide latitude in how to manage ID&R, they ultimately bear the responsibility for 

ensuring that all migratory children in the state are identified. Most of the 46 state grantees relied on 

their local/regional MEP subgrantees to manage the ID&R process, including hiring, deploying, and 

supervising recruiters. However, the interview responses suggested that even when states were not 

directly involved in ID&R, they still played a significant role in recruiter training, monitoring, and quality 

control. 

Recruiters’ efforts to find eligible migratory children entailed an array of strategies, including 

maintaining key contacts in the schools, communities, and businesses that migratory families frequent. 

In interviews, state MEP directors and local/regional MEP coordinators explained that changing 

migratory patterns and populations, as well as changes in the employers who hire migratory workers, 

has kept recruiters active as they adapted and developed new strategies and searched new areas where 

migratory families reside, shop, and obtain other services. 

Interviews also suggested that local/regional MEPs decided how to operationalize the MEP requirement 

to give priority for services (PFS) to the most mobile and most at-risk migratory children and that 

addressing the needs of PFS-eligible migratory children over the needs of non-PFS-eligible migratory 

children was sometimes challenging. 

Most state MEP directors and local/regional MEP coordinators agreed that MSIX improved timely 

notification when migratory children moved across states and that it facilitated interstate migratory 

student records transfers. In addition, the majority of local/regional MEP coordinators and about half 

the state MEP directors agreed that MSIX had moderately or substantially improved practices intended 

55 Appendix A includes the statute for the Migrant Education Program under ESEA, as amended by the Every Student Succeeds 

Act (ESSA) of 2015, including the statutory definition of a migratory child. Appendix A is available in a separate technical volume 

by visiting [insert link here] 

59 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

to mitigate educational disruptions for migratory children, such as the facilitation of course credit 

accrual, appropriateness of course placements, appropriateness of grade placements, timeliness of 

school enrollment, and reduction in unnecessary immunizations. Among those interviewed, one state 

director said that MSIX had helped schools quickly identify what services and supports a child might 

need based on the child’s previous academic performance and other nonacademic data (e.g., 

immunizations). Interviews with state directors and local coordinators, however, identified data 

consistency, data-use consistency, and accuracy as areas in which MSIX could be improved. 

The next step in serving the needs of migratory children is to identify their needs and determine a 

suitable set of instructional and support services to meet those needs. Most MEP coordinators used 

progress on Measurable Program Outcomes (MPOs), student performance on state assessments, and 

student graduation rates to inform the delivery of MEP services. In interviews, local/regional MEP 

coordinators also described using qualitative data sources to inform planning and delivery of services, 

such as talking to MEP participants and their families, which one MEP coordinator described as helping 

administrators understand not only whether migratory children were succeeding or failing, but also why. 

After identifying needs, MEP coordinators provided migratory children an array of instructional and 

support services which most commonly included supplemental reading and language arts instruction, 

mathematics instruction, academic guidance and advocacy, school supplies, language support, and 

individual student advocacy services. 

Finally, coordinating and collaborating with other programs and organizations is a statutory requirement 

for MEPs to address the often unmet educational and health-related needs of migratory children that 

create barriers to school success. State MEP directors and local/regional MEP coordinators described 

their efforts to develop collaborative relationships with other organizations and programs, including 

participating in outreach activities, to support the needs of migratory children. While the interview 

responses suggested that MEPs had collaborative relationships with many organizations and programs, 

the survey data suggested that few MEPs articulated these collaborations through formal agreements 

such as MOUs or cost-sharing agreements. Despite not having formal agreements, nearly all state and 

local/regional MEPs that directly provided instructional and support services to migratory children 

reported that they collaborated with other agencies and organizations to do so. The types of services 

that they collaborated to provide included supplemental reading and language arts instruction, 

mathematics instruction, career exploration and guidance, career and technical skills training, preschool 

or early-childhood education programs, English as a Second Language instruction, individual student 

advocacy services, dental care, eye care, and counseling and mental health services. 

This study examined how state grantees and local/regional subgrantees implemented the Title I, Part C, 

Migrant Education Program and addressed the needs of migratory children. The study identified both 

common and unique program strategies to identify and recruit migratory children, implement 

instructional and support services, and coordinate and collaborate with other agencies to better meet 

the needs of migratory children and youth. The findings can be useful to MEP grantees and subgrantees 

and to the Department as a tool to describe the Migrant Education program and the children it serves to 

educators, legislators, and others who may be unfamiliar with the MEP. The findings may also be used to 

inform program planning and support by state MEP grantees, local/regional MEP subgrantees, and the 

Department. 

60 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References 

Berger, J. 2014 (August 7). “Long Days in the Fields, Without Earning Overtime.” New York Times. 

Retrieved January 22, 2019, from https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/08/nyregion/in-harvestseason-endless-hours-with-no-overtime-for-new-york-farmworkers.html. 

Chavkin, N., and J. González. 2000. “Mexican Immigrant Youth and Resiliency: Research and Promising 

Programs.” ERIC Digest. https://www.ericdigests.org/2001-3/mexican.htm. 

Housing Assistance Council (HAC). 2013. Housing Conditions for Farmworkers. Washington, DC: Housing 

Assistance Council. 

Human Rights Watch. 2000. Fingers to the Bone: United States Failure to Protect Child Farmworkers. 

New York, NY: Human Rights Watch. 

Pratt-Williams, J., A. Pilchen, H. Kistler, R. Schmidt, and D. Jonas. 2017. Evaluation of the ESEA Title I– 

Part C Migrant Education Program: Literature Review. Washington, DC: SRI International. 

Quandt, S.A., G. Trejo, C.K. Suerken, C.A. Pulgar, E.H. Ip, and T.A. Arcuri. 2016. “Diet Quality among 

Preschool-Age Children of Latino Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers in the United States.” Journal 

of Immigrant Minor Health 18(3). Doi:10.1007/s10903-015-0304-z. 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26514151. 

Reynolds, A., C. Chen, and J. Herbers. 2009. “School Mobility and Educational Success: A Research 

Synthesis and Evidence on Prevention.” Paper presented at the Workshop on the Impact of Mobility 

and Change on the Lives of Young Children, Schools, and Neighborhoods. National Research Council 

Board on Children, Youth, and Families, June 29–30, 2009, Washington, DC. 

Rumberger, R. 2011. “Student Mobility and Academic Achievement.” Appleseed Today. St. Louis, MO: 

National Campaign for Public School Improvement. 

Salinas, C., and M.E. Fránquiz, eds. 2004. Scholars in the Field: The Challenges of Migrant Education. 

Charleston, VA: ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools/AEL. ISBN 1-891677-23-3. 

St. Clair, L., B. Jackson, and R. Zweiback. 2012. “Six Years Later: Effect of Family Involvement Training on 

the Language Skills of Children from Migrant Families.” School Community Journal 22(1): 9–19. 

Torrez, J.E. 2014. “’Teachers Should Be like Us!’: Bridging Migrant Communities to Rural Michigan 

Classrooms.” Multicultural Education, suppl. Special Issue: Family, School, & Community Partnerships 

21(3/4): 39–44. 

USED (U.S. Department of Education). 2011. Literature Review: Migrant Education. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Education. 

USED (U.S. Department of Education). 2017a. Non-Regulatory Guidance for Title I, Part C, Education of 

Migratory Children. Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and 

Secondary Education, Office of Migrant Education. 

http://www.ed.gov/programs/mep/legislation.html. 

61 
 

USED (U.S. Department of Education). 2017b. “National Certificate of Eligibility [COE] instructions.” 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. 

https://ww2.ed.gov/programs/mep/coepdf2017.pdf. 

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2017. “Agricultural Workers.” Occupational 

Outlook Handbook, 2016–2017. Retrieved January 22, 2019, from 

https://www.bls.gov/ooh/farming-fishing-and-forestry/agricultural-workers.htm. 

Walls, C.A. 2003. Providing Highly Mobile Students with an Effective Education. ERIC Clearinghouse on 

Urban Education. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED482918.pdf. 

Wiltz, T. 2016 (May 2). “States Struggle to Provide Housing for Migrant Farmworkers.” Washington, DC: 

Pew Charitable Trusts. Retrieved January 22, 2019, from https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/researchand-analysis/blogs/stateline/2016/05/02/struggle-to-provide-housing-for-migrant-farmworkers. 

62