ESEA: Migrant State Agency Progra

FY 2007 Program Performance Report

Strategic Goal 2
Formula
ESEA, Title I, Part C
Document Year 2007 Appropriation: $386,524
CFDA 84.011: Migrant Education_State Grant Program

Program Goal: To assist all migrant students in meeting challenging academic sta
school (or a GED program) with an education that prepares them f
productive employment.
Objective 1 of 2: Along with other federal programs and state and local reform efforts, the Migra
school performance of migrant children.
Measure 1.1 of 12: The number of states meeting an annually set performance target in reading at the elementary
increase) 1085
Actual
Year Target
(or date expected)
1997 4 Measure not in
1998 7 Measure not in
1999 2 Measure not in
2000 5 Measure not in
2001 6 Measure not in
2002 8 8 Target Met
2003 10 11 Target Exceede
2004 14 19 Target Exceede
2005 16 23 Target Exceede
2006 18 27 Target Exceede
2007 20 (December 2008) Pending
2008 22 (December 2009) Pending
2009 24 (December 2010) Pending
Source. U.S. Department of Education, Consolidated State Performance Report.
Frequency of Data Collection. Annual
Data Quality. Information that directly measures the impact of the Title I, Migrant Education Program was
not available. However, each state had its own assessment to measure and determine student
proficiency. Student achievement across the states could not be compared directly, but the results for
migrant students could be tracked over time, providing the state proficiency levels and assessments'
content remained consistent and the disaggregation of assessment data by subgroup was accurate. This
measure will have greater validity and reliability over time as state assessment systems stabilize, include
all migrant students in testing, and properly disaggregate and report results.
Explanation. The annually set state targets for 2002 through 2009 project the number of states that
attain a performance threshold of 50 percent or more of elementary school level migrant students at the
proficient or advanced level in reading. Once 80 percent of all states have met the performance threshold
of 50 percent of migrant students at or above the proficient level, the performance threshold will be raised
in increments of 5 percent and the annually set state targets will project an increase in the number of
states meeting the new threshold. The progress of states in moving toward a target can be viewed by
examining the number of states that have increased the percentage of migrant students at the proficient
or advanced level in reading in 2005 upward from the previous year (2004). In that regard, 16 out of 27

U.S. Department of Education 1 11/02/2007

states demonstrated a positive increase in the percent proficient or above in grade three, 16 out of 31
states in grade four, and 19 out of 25 states in grade five.

Measure 1.2 of 12: The number of states that reported results for reading proficiency of elementary school migran
Actual
Year Target
(or date expected)
1997 15 Measure not in p
1998 18 Measure not in p
1999 19 Measure not in p
2000 26 Measure not in p
2001 23 Measure not in p
2002 27 29 Target Exceeded
2003 32 41 Target Exceeded
2004 36 46 Target Exceeded
2005 38 46 Target Exceeded
2006 40 48 Target Exceeded
2007 45 (December 2008) Pending
2008 47 (December 2009) Pending
2009 49 (December 2010) Pending
Source. U.S. Department of Education, Consolidated State Performance Report.
Data Quality. Each state had its own assessment to measure and determine student proficiency. This
measure will have greater validity and reliability over time as state assessment systems stabilize, include
all migrant students in testing, and properly disaggregate and report results.
Explanation. The annually set state targets for 2002 through 2009 project an increase in the number of
states that report state assessment results in reading for migrant students in elementary school.

Measure 1.3 of 12: The number of states meeting an annually set performance target in reading at the middle scho
increase) 1087
Actual
Year Target
(or date expected)
1997 3 Measure not in p
1998 6 Measure not in p
1999 4 Measure not in p
2000 2 Measure not in p
2001 7 Measure not in p
2002 9 6 Did Not Meet Ta
2003 11 10 Made Progress
2004 15 10 Did Not Meet Ta
2005 17 14 Made Progress
2006 19 19 Target Met
2007 21 (December 2008) Pending
2008 23 (December 2009) Pending
2009 25 (December 2010) Pending
Source. U.S. Department of Education, Consolidated State Performance Report.

U.S. Department of Education 2 11/02/2007

Data Quality. Information that directly measures the impact of the Title I, Migrant Education Program was
not available. However, each state had its own assessment to measure and determine student
proficiency. Student achievement across the states could not be compared directly, but the results for
migrant students could be be tracked over time, providing the state proficiency levels and assessments'
content remained consistent and the disaggregation of assessment data by subgroup was accurate. This
measure will have greater validity and reliability over time as state assessment systems stabilize, include
all migrant students in testing, and properly disaggregate and report results.
Explanation. The annually set state targets for 2002 through 2009 project the number of states that
attain a performance threshold of 50 percent or more of middle school level migrant students at the
proficient or advanced level in reading. Once 80 percent of all states have met the performance threshold
of 50 percent of migrant students at or above the proficient level, the performance threshold will be raised
in increments of 5 percent and the annually set state targets will project an increase in the number of
states meeting the new threshold. The progress of states in moving toward a target can be viewed by
examining the number of states that have increased the percentage of migrant students at the proficient
or advanced level in reading in 2005 upward from the previous year (2004). In that regard, 9 out of 17
states demonstrated a positive increase in the percent proficient or above in grade six, 15 out of 20 states
in grade seven, and 19 out of 35 states in grade eight.

Measure 1.4 of 12: The number of states that reported results for reading proficiency of middle school migrant stud
Actual
Year Target
(or date expected)
1997 15 Measure not in p
1998 18 Measure not in p
1999 18 Measure not in p
2000 23 Measure not in p
2001 21 Measure not in p
2002 25 27 Target Exceeded
2003 29 43 Target Exceeded
2004 32 44 Target Exceeded
2005 34 45 Target Exceeded
2006 36 48 Target Exceeded
2007 45 (December 2008) Pending
2008 47 (December 2009) Pending
2009 49 (December 2010) Pending
Source. U.S. Department of Education, Consolidated State Performance Report.
Frequency of Data Collection. Annual
Data Quality. Each state had its own assessment to measure and determine student proficiency. This
measure will have greater validity and reliability over time as state assessment systems stabilize, include
all migrant students in testing, and properly disaggregate and report results.
Explanation. The annually set state targets for 2002 through 2009 project an increase in the number of
states that report state assessment results in reading for migrant students in middle school.

Measure 1.5 of 12: The number of states meeting an annually set performance target in
mathematics at the elementary school level for migrant students. (Desired direction: increase)
1089

U.S. Department of Education 3 11/02/2007

 Actual
Year Target Status
(or date expected)
1997 5 Measure not in place
1998 9 Measure not in place
1999 6 Measure not in place
2000 7 Measure not in place
2001 10 Measure not in place
2002 12 7 Did Not Meet Target
2003 14 16 Target Exceeded
2004 18 19 Target Exceeded
2005 20 26 Target Exceeded
2006 22 31 Target Exceeded
2007 24 (December 2008) Pending
2008 26 (December 2009) Pending
2009 28 (December 2010) Pending
Source. U.S. Department of Education, Consolidated State Performance Report.
Data Quality. Information that directly measures the impact of the Title I, Migrant Education Program was
not available. However, each state had its own assessment to measure and determine student
proficiency. Student achievement across the states could not be compared directly, but the results for
migrant students could be tracked over time, providing the state proficiency levels and assessments'
content remained consistent and the disaggregation of assessment data by subgroup was accurate. This
measure will have greater validity and reliability over time as state assessment systems stabilize, include
all migrant students in testing, and properly disaggregate and report results.
Explanation. The annually set state targets for 2002 through 2009 project the number of states that
attain a performance threshold of 50 percent or more of elementary school level migrant students at the
proficient or advanced level in mathematics. Once 80 percent of all states have met the performance
target of 50 percent of migrant students at or above the proficient level, the performance threshold will be
raised in increments of 5 percent and the annually set state targets will project an increase in the number
of states meeting the new threshold. The progress of states in moving toward a target can be viewed by
examining the number of states that have increased the percentage of migrant students at the proficient
or advanced level in mathematics in 2005 upward from the previous year (2004). In that regard, 18 out
of 24 states demonstrated a positive increase in the percent proficient or above in grade three, 20 out
of 31 states in grade four, and 18 out of 25 states in grade five.

Measure 1.6 of 12: The number of states that reported results for mathematics proficiency of
elementary school migrant students. (Desired direction: increase) 1090
Actual
Year Target Status
(or date expected)
1997 15 Measure not in place
1998 18 Measure not in place
1999 19 Measure not in place
2000 25 Measure not in place
2001 23 Measure not in place
2002 27 29 Target Exceeded
2003 32 42 Target Exceeded
2004 36 46 Target Exceeded
2005 38 46 Target Exceeded

U.S. Department of Education 4 11/02/2007

 2006 40 48 Target Exceeded
2007 45 (December 2008) Pending
2008 47 (December 2009) Pending
2009 49 (December 2010) Pending
Source. U.S. Department of Education, Consolidated State Performance Report.
Data Quality. Each state had its own assessment to measure and determine student proficiency. This
measure will have greater validity and reliability over time as state assessment systems stabilize, include
all migrant students in testing, and properly disaggregate and report results.
Explanation. The annually set state targets for 2002 through 2009 project an increase in the number of
states that report state assessment results in mathematics for migrant students in elementary school.

Measure 1.7 of 12: The number of states meeting an annually set performance target in
mathematics for middle school migrant students. (Desired direction: increase) 1091
Actual
Year Target Status
(or date expected)
1997 3 Measure not in place
1998 7 Measure not in place
1999 4 Measure not in place
2000 2 Measure not in place
2001 4 Measure not in place
2002 6 4 Did Not Meet Target
2003 8 9 Target Exceeded
2004 12 10 Made Progress From Prior Year
2005 14 14 Target Met
2006 16 15 Made Progress From Prior Year
2007 18 (December 2008) Pending
2008 20 (December 2009) Pending
2009 22 (December 2010) Pending
Source. U.S. Department of Education, Consolidated State Performance Report.
Data Quality. Information that directly measures the impact of the Title I, Migrant Education Program was
not available. However, each state had its own assessment to measure and determine student
proficiency. Student achievement across the states could not be compared directly, but the results for
migrant students could be be tracked over time, providing the state proficiency levels and assessments'
content remained consistent and the disaggregation of assessment data by subgroup was accurate. This
measure will have greater validity and reliability over time as state assessment systems stabilize, include
all migrant students in testing, and properly disaggregate and report results.
Explanation. The annually set state targets for 2002 through 2009 project the number of states that
attain a performance threshold of 50 percent or more of middle school level migrant students at the
proficient or advanced level in mathematics. Once 80 percent of all states have met the performance
threshold of 50 percent of migrant students at or above the proficient level, the performance threshold will
be raised in increments of 5 percent and the annually set state targets will project an increase in the
number of states meeting the new threshold. The progress of states in moving toward a target can be
viewed by examining the number of states that have increased the percentage of migrant students at the
proficient or advanced level in mathematics in 2005 upward from the previous year (2004). In that
regard, 9 out of 18 states demonstrated a positive increase in the percent proficient or above in grade
six, 14 out of 17 states in grade seven, and 25 out of 38 states in grade eight.

U.S. Department of Education 5 11/02/2007

 Measure 1.8 of 12: The number of states that reported results for mathematics proficiency of
middle school migrant students. (Desired direction: increase) 1092
Actual
Year Target Status
(or date expected)
1997 15 Measure not in place
1998 18 Measure not in place
1999 18 Measure not in place
2000 22 Measure not in place
2001 20 Measure not in place
2002 24 27 Target Exceeded
2003 28 43 Target Exceeded
2004 32 45 Target Exceeded
2005 34 45 Target Exceeded
2006 36 48 Target Exceeded
2007 45 (December 2008) Pending
2008 47 (December 2009) Pending
2009 49 (December 2010) Pending
Source. U.S. Department of Education, Consolidated State Performance Report.
Frequency of Data Collection. Annual
Data Quality. Each state had its own assessment to measure and determine student proficiency. This
measure will have greater validity and reliability over time as state assessment systems stabilize, include
all migrant students in testing, and properly disaggregate and report results.
Explanation. The annually set state targets for 2002 through 2009 project an increase in the number of
states that report state assessment results in mathematics for migrant students in middle school.

Measure 1.9 of 12: The number of states meeting an annually set performance target for
dropout rate for migrant students. (Desired direction: increase) 1093
Actual
Year Target Status
(or date expected)
2004 Set a Baseline 15 Target Met
2005 BL+1 23 Target Exceeded
2006 BL+2 (December 2008) Pending
2007 18 (December 2009) Pending
2008 19 (December 2010) Pending
2009 20 (December 2011) Pending
Source. U.S. Department of Education, Consolidated State Performance Report.
Frequency of Data Collection. Annual
Data Quality. Information that directly measures the impact of the Title I, Migrant Education Program was
not available. However, each state was required to report an annual dropout rate for students leaving
school. Variation in the calculation of dropout rates may limit the validity of comparisons across the states.
However, the results for migrant students can be tracked over time, provided that state procedures for
calculating dropout rates remain consistent and the disaggregation of dropout data by subgroup is
accurate. This measure will have greater validity and reliability over time as state procedures for
calculating and reporting dropout rates stabilize, include all migrant students appropriately in the
calculations, and properly disaggregate and report results.

U.S. Department of Education 6 11/02/2007

Explanation. The annually set state targets for 2004 through 2009 project the number of states that
attain a performance threshold of 50 percent or fewer migrant students who dropout of school. Once 80
percent of all states have met the performance threshold of 50 percent or fewer migrant students who
dropout of school, the performance threshold will be decreased in increments of 5 percent and the
annually set state targets will project an increase in the number of states meeting the new threshold.

Measure 1.10 of 12: The number of states that reported results for dropout rate of migrant
students. (Desired direction: increase) 1094
Actual
Year Target Status
(or date expected)
2004 Set a Baseline 16 Target Met
2005 BL+1 25 Target Exceeded
2006 BL+2 (December 2008) Pending
2007 19 (December 2009) Pending
2008 20 (December 2010) Pending
2009 21 (December 2011) Pending
Source. U.S. Department of Education, Consolidated State Performance Report.
Data Quality. Each state was required to report an annual dropout rate for student leaving school. This
measure will have greater validity and reliability over time as state procedures for calculating and
reporting dropout rates stabilize, include all migrant students appropriately in the calculations, and
properly disaggreagate and report results.
Explanation. The annually set state targets for 2004 through 2009 project an increase in the number of
states that report dropout rates for migrant students.

Measure 1.11 of 12: The number of states meeting an annually set performance target for high
school graduation of migrant students. (Desired direction: increase) 1095
Actual
Year Target Status
(or date expected)
2004 Set a Baseline 13 Target Met
2005 BL+1 15 Target Exceeded
2006 BL+2 (December 2008) Pending
2007 16 (December 2009) Pending
2008 17 (December 2010) Pending
2009 18 (December 2011) Pending
Source. U.S. Department of Education, Consolidated State Performance Report.
Frequency of Data Collection. Annual
Data Quality. Information that directly measures the impact of the Title I, Migrant Education Program was
not available. However, each state was required to report an annual graduation rate for students who
graduate from a public high school with a diploma. This measure will have greater validity and reliability
over time as state procedures from disaggregating and reporting all migrant students who graduate
stabilize.
Explanation. The annually set state targets for 2004 through 2009 project the number of states that
attain a performance threshold of 50 percent or more migrant students graduating from high school. Once
80 percent of all states have met the performance threshold of 50 percent or more migrant students

U.S. Department of Education 7 11/02/2007

graduating from high school, the performance threshold will be increased in increments of 5 percent and
the annually set state targets will project an increase in the number of states meeting the new threshold.

Measure 1.12 of 12: The number of states that reported results for high school graduation of
migrant students. (Desired direction: increase) 1096
Actual
Year Target Status
(or date expected)
2004 Set a Baseline 21 Target Met
2005 BL+1 21 Target Exceeded
2006 BL+2 (December 2008) Pending
2007 23 (December 2009) Pending
2008 25 (December 2010) Pending
2009 26 (December 2011) Pending
Source. U.S. Department of Education, Consolidated State Performance Report.
Frequency of Data Collection. Annual
Data Quality. Each state was required to report an annual graduation rate for students who graduate
from a public high school with a diploma. This measure will have a greater validity and reliability over time
as state procedures for disaggregating and reporting all migrant students who graduate stabilize.
Explanation. The annually set state targets for 2004 through 2009 project an increase in the number of
states that report graduation rates for migrant students.

Objective 2 of 2: Along with other federal programs and state and local reform efforts, the
Migrant Education Program (MEP) will contribute to improved school
performance of migrant children.
Measure 2.1 of 1: The percentage of migrant student records that are consolidated when school
enrollment has occurred in more than one state. (Desired direction: increase) 2063
Actual
Year Target Status
(or date expected)
2007 50 (December 2008) Pending
2008 75 (December 2009) Pending
2009 100 (December 2010) Pending
Source. U.S. Department of Education contractor evaluation report.
Frequency of Data Collection. Annual
Data Quality. Each state will be required to provide minimum education and health data for migrant
students who enroll in more than one state so that the records of migrant students may be consolidated
and shared in a timely fashion. Information will be consolidated in three phases starting with basic student
information in phase one, including assessment results in phase two, and finally, collecting created
accrual information in phase three. This measure will have greater validity and reliability over time as
state procedures for collecting and providing the minimum data elements stabilize.

U.S. Department of Education 8 11/02/2007