Detailed Information on the
Migrant State Agency Program Assessment

Completing the national audit of State child eligibility determinations

Implementing specific corrective actions to eliminate migrant child eligibility problems

Implementing and collecting performance information for the efficiency measure for the Migrant Student Information Exchange records system (MSIX).

Implementing a strategy for using performance information from the Department's EDFacts system to support higher performance.

Measure: The number of States that reported results for reading proficiency of elementary school migrant students.

Explanation:Targets for 2006 and 2007 will be adjusted when 2004 data are available.

Measure: The number of States that reported results for reading proficiency of middle school migrant students.

Explanation:Targets for 2005, 2006, and 2007 will be readjusted when 2004 data are available.

Measure: The number of States that reported results for mathematics proficiency of elementary school migrant students.

Explanation:Targets for 2005, 2006, and 2007 will be readjusted after 2004 data are available.

Measure: The number of States that reported results for mathematics proficiency of middle school migrant students.

Explanation:Targets for 2005, 2006, and 2007 will be adjusted after 2004 data are available.

Measure: The number of States meeting an annually set performance target in reading at the elementary school level for migrant students.

Explanation:The end goal performance target is that all States will meet their proficiency targets by 2013-14, and the mid-point target is that 50 percent will meet their targets by 2008. Targets will be adjusted when 2004 data are available.

Measure: The number of States meeting an annually set performance target in reading at the middle school level for migrant students.

Explanation:The end goal performance target is that all States will meet their proficiency targets by 2013-14, and the mid-point target is that 50 percent will meet their targets by 2008. Targets may be revised when 2004 data are available.

Measure: The number of States meeting an annually set performance target in mathematics at the elementary school level for migrant students.

Explanation:The end goal performance target is that all States will meet their proficiency targets by 2013-14, and the mid-point target is that 50 percent will meet their targets by 2008. Targets may be revised when 2004 data are available.

Measure: The number of States meeting an annually set performance target in mathematics at the middle school level for migrant students.

Explanation:The statutory performance target is that all States will meet their proficiency targets by 2013-14, and the mid-point target is that 50 percent will meet their targets by 2008. Targets will be revised when 2004 data are available.

Measure: The percentage of migrant student records that are consolidated when school enrollment has occurred in more than one State.

Explanation:Measures increases in the proportion of consolidated records in the new migrant student records transfer system (MSIX) providing a complete record of students' past schooling, and health information (such as inoculations).

Measure: The percentage of migrant students at the fourth grade level that area classified as proficient or advanced in reading.

Explanation:This is a new measure in 2008 that provides a national snapshot of reading achievement in elementary school of migrant students. Because it's a new measure, targets are still being set.

Measure: The percentage of migrant students at the fourth grade level that are classified as proficient or advanced in mathematics.

Explanation:This is a new measure in 2008 that provides a national snapshot of reading achievement in elementary school of migrant students. Because it's a new measure, targets are still being set.

Measure: The percentage of migrant students at the eighth grade level that are classified as proficient or advanced in reading.

Explanation:This is a new measure in 2008 that provides a national snapshot of reading achievement in middle school of migrant students. Because it's a new measure, targets are still being set.

Measure: The percentage of migrant students at the eight grade level that are classified as proficient or advanced in mathematics.

Explanation:This is a new measure in 2008 that provides a national snapshot of math achievement in middle school of migrant students. Because it's a new measure, targets are still being set.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The purpose of the Migrant Education Program (MEP) is to assist State educational agencies in helping all migrant students reach challenging academic standards and graduate with a high school diploma (or complete a GED) that prepares them for responsible citizenship, further learning, and productive employment. Migrant children who are failing, or most at risk of failing, to meet State academic standards and whose education has been interrupted during the regular school year receive priority for program services.

Evidence: ESEA Title I, Sections 1301, 1302, and 1304(d).

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: The program helps migrant children overcome educational disruption that results from repeated moves, cultural and language barriers, social isolation, various health-related problems, and other factors that inhibit their academic achievement. The poverty and mobility (and often limited English proficiency) of migrant children and youth combine to result in a need for educational services that goes well beyond services traditionally supported with State and local education budgets. Migrant children, by definition, move across school district and State boundaries, and this movement, connected to the production of agricultural and fishing commodities distributed in interstate commerce, provides a classic rationale for Federal intervention. Since no single school district or State is responsible for the education of these children, without Federal legislation and support school districts have historically been unlikely to: (1) find and enroll migrant children; (2) provide the appropriate range of services to children who live in their communities and attend their schools for brief periods of time; or (3) grapple with either the school interruption problems faced by migrant children or their needs for special summer programs.

Evidence: Data from the National Agricultural Workers Survey, 2000-03 indicate that: over half of migrant families have incomes below the Census poverty level; only 13 percent of migrant youth farmworkers complete 12th grade or higher and about 62 percent drop out at the end 8th grade; only about 14 percent of children aged 3-5 years are enrolled in preschool, and about 9 percent of preschoolers are left home alone, presumably with older siblings, while their parents work. Preliminary 2003-2004 MEP program information shows that about 42 percent of migrant children lack proficiency in oral English to the extent that it interferes with their classroom work, and about 6 of every 10 school-age migrant students move during the regular school year. These highly mobile students are more likely to be retained in grade and to demonstrate lower academic achievement than their more stable counterparts (Student Mobility in Rural Communities, North Central Regional Educational Laboratory, 2002).

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: The MEP is the only Federal program focused on the academic achievement and school completion of school-age migrant children and youth, and the only program that supports coordination strategies across State and school district boundaries to lessen the educational disruptions for highly mobile participants. With those objectives, there is no real duplication with State and local programs. So that MEP funds can be used to meet the special needs of migrant school-aged children and youth that interfere with their educational progress and school completion, the program statute stresses ensuring that migratory children receive services available under other Federal programs, such as in-school services available through ED's Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies program, and support for migrant and seasonal farmworker families in other Federal agencies.

Evidence: Different Federal programs provide services to migrant seasonal and farmworker populations in areas such as employment, food stamp benefits, and health and social services. For example, such services are available through ED's Vocational Rehabilitation Administration, and the Departments of Labor, Agriculture, and Health and Human Services. While different Federal programs serve young children from migrant families including MEP, eligibility rules differ from program to program. Also see ESEA Title I, Sec. 1304(b) for elements that States are required to address with response to joint planning, coordination, and integration of Federal, State, and local resources.

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: The program is generally designed to meet its goals. For example, the program statute includes several different components to address mobility and special needs of migrant children and youth, including State formula grants that support direct services for participants in all States and a requirement that SEAs conduct comprehensive needs assessment to help them define effective and efficient plans for services; a set-aside for inter- and intra-State coordination activities that requires, among other things, "coordination incentive grants" to encourage State collaboration on services, and a requirement to link diverse State systems for the electronic transfer of migrant student records and other activities to facilitate educational continuity. However, there are some problems and inefficiencies in the program statute that ED might address during the next reauthorization of the program, especially with regard to the formula provisions that are cumbersome and difficult to interpret.

Evidence: ESEA Sections 1306 (needs assessment); 1308 Coordination activities (facilitating links between State migrant student records transfer systems; encouraging inter-State coordination with incentive grants); Section 1303 (State allocations).

Is the program design effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries?

Explanation: To effectively target resources and tailor activities that address the fluctuations in the migrant population and their educational needs, the program targets resources through a Federal-to-State allocation formula that distributes funds proportionately based on State counts of migrant children eligible for services, aged 3-21, while also providing flexibility for State educational agencies to operate programs directly or through local operating agencies and to collaborate on service delivery not just within States but also across State borders. However, there have been recent problems with States' identification of eligible migrant students, which may limit the effectiveness of the targeting requirements.

Evidence: Preliminary performance data for 2003-04 indicate that about 10,158 project sites offered services to about 488,274 migrant children during the regular school year and almost 354,117 migrant children at 1,494 summer or intersession programs. Services included supplemental instruction in reading, math, and other academic areas, as well as support services such as counseling, health services, and (especially in summer) transportation. Also, see item 3.3 under Section 3 - Program Management for discussion of targeting issues.

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: The central long-term outcome measures for the program reflect the statutory goal that all students, including migrant students, will reach proficiency in reading and mathematics by year 2013-2014. Specifically, the measures assess increases in the number of States whose migrant students meet annual performance targets for proficiency in reading and mathematics at the elementary and middle-school levels.

Evidence: Annual program plans published by the Department's performance measures database (PPMD). Performance measures and targets are published on the Department's web site in performance plans for individual programs in advance of each fiscal year. These plans are subject to subsequent updates.

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: The targets for the long-term outcome measures call for 50 percent or more of migrant students in all States to meet the proficient or advanced levels in elementary and middle-school reading and mathematics. Once 80 percent of all States have met the established long-term performance targets, targets for future years will be reset to increase incrementally to attain the goal of full proficiency for all migrant students by year 2013-2014.

Evidence: See Measures section at the end of this PART.

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: The program's annual performance measures focus on: (1) the number of States reporting disaggregated achievement data in reading and mathematics for migrant students, and (2) the number of States reporting that 50 percent or more of migrant students are meeting the proficient or advanced levels in elementary and middle-school reading and mathematics.

Evidence: See Measures section at the end of this PART.

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: The program has baselines and ambitious targets for tracking States' annual progress toward the statutory goal for all students, including migrant students, to reach academic proficiency in reading and mathematics by 2013-2014. These annual targets take into consideration the proportion of States that have set 50 percent or more of their migrant students achieving proficiency in reading and mathematics at the elementary and middle-school levels as a State performance target. To further support the targets, the program also established an output measure to track States that are not yet fully reporting data for the targets toward the long-term performance goal.

Evidence: The Department collected baseline data for the student achievement measures for the 2001-2002 school year from State ESEA accountability plans, and data on States' progress has been collected annually since 2002.

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: States and their subgrantees are implementing migrant programs based on plans included in Consolidated State Applications submitted to, and negotiated with, ED, and approved accountability plans. These plans are the basis for State monitoring and subgrantee activities. Comparisons of annual consolidated State performance reports since 2002 show significant changes in the timeliness, quality, and completeness of assessment data. For example, the number of States reporting achievement data disaggregated for migrant students almost doubled from 2002 to 2003. State reporting for 2003-2004 show that almost all States are reporting at least some data supporting the long-term outcome measures.

Evidence: Consolidated State Applications, State ESEA accountability plans and related State submissions; Measures section at the end of this PART.

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: No recent independent evaluation has been conducted of the MEP. However, a longitudinal study of Title I programs is examining some program aspects, including targeting and resource allocation of MEP funds. In addition, annual performance data collected on migrant student achievement will help determine the program's effects and impact.

Evidence:

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: The program cannot tie funding levels to achievement of specific outcomes. However, the budget materials for the program show the full cost of administering the program.

Evidence: Annual Congressional Justifications.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: Strategic planning for the MEP is aligned with annual and long-term performance goals, as reflected by the performance data collected from States. Program staff revised the Consolidated State Performance Report (CSPR) to collect data on key program outputs and outcomes (e.g., data on the inclusion of migrant students in State assessments, number of migrant students who received priority for services because they are failing, or most a risk of failing to achieve state standards and who have had their education interrupted during the regular school year, number of migrant children identified who moved within last 12 months, etc.). Program staff provided guidance on key program implementation issues and results expected to the State directors of migrant education and solicited feedback from the State directors. In addition, program staff regularly communicate with States through quarterly contacts, program monitoring, and annual national meetings and conferences about the attainment of key implementation issues and results and about ED's new system to centralize the collection, reporting, and retrieval of performance data to support strategic goals [EDFACTS Network].

Evidence: Procedures are documented in program monitoring reports and audit resolution materials. These information sources are also used to identify key program implementation deficiencies and initiate program-wide action. Program staff provide guidance and technical assistance to improve the inclusion of migrant students in State assessments, improve implementation of comprehensive needs assessments and the priority-for-services provisions, and improve the quality of related reporting on these program elements.

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: Since 2002, the program has collected performance information from all State educational agencies that are program grantees through annual consolidated performance reports that provide core data for multiple ED formula programs. Beginning in 2006, ED will collect and utilize performance information from a web-based performance reporting system. The Department uses the performance information to help inform program management and consultation with State directors of migrant education on program priorities, issues, and progress. For example, the collection of performance information helped the program (Office of Migrant Education) identify, and provide guidance to, States that are not yet reporting disaggregated data on migrant student achievement. This prompted examination of other information related to achievement, including State assessment inclusion rates. Data are also used to assess the level of services provided to students with priority for services and the percentage of students receiving core educational or supportive services, and to identify the user base of the forthcoming Migrant Student Information Exchange.

Evidence: In 2006 migrant performance data will be available through the ED EDFACTs system, a web-based performance reporting system that reduces burden on States and makes it easier for ED and SEA staff to use performance data to manage and improve the program. The program recently aligned the MEP performance measures with new measures developed for the ESEA Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies program. Baseline data for the measures were used to set both annual and mid-term targets toward long-term goal achievement goals for migrant students.

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: This is a provisional "no" pending only final review of some of the documentation of the explanation and evidence for this answer. As part of the President's Management Agenda, ED has implemented an agency-wide system that links employee performance to progress on strategic planning goals. Performance agreements hold managers accountable for meeting established deadlines for awarding grants and for managing their programs through monitoring, technical assistance, and data collection activities that are designed to focus on raising and measuring performance. OME staff review grantee activities to ensure program partners (States) are performing on 10 "integrity measures" that are the focus of program monitoring and accountability.

Evidence: This program is one of a few for which ED has taken concrete steps to hold partners accountable and promote specific corrective actions to eliminate problems. Program monitoring identifies priorities for immediate action and assistance; consistent focus on the 10 integrity areas helps surface problems in a timely manner and holds States accountable for providing evidence to documenting State progress and results, particularly with regard to the strategic plan and performance.

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner, spent for the intended purpose and accurately reported?

Explanation: Funds are obligated within the time frames established by ED schedules and generally spent for the intended purpose. While recent examinations of State determinations with regard to migrant child eligibility by the OIG and program office have revealed inaccuracies in the identification and counting of eligible migrant students in a number of States, the program office has taken action to examine and correct instances of improper migrant child eligibility determinations by putting in place a national examination process to evaluate the integrity of State child eligibility determinations in all States. A majority of States that have completed their reassessments have detected only small levels of error, but the levels have been significantly higher in several others. State changes in counts are likely to result in adjustments in FY 2006 formula allocations for all States and possibly reallocations for prior years. (OMB needs to review the action plan for addressing the 2006 and prior year formula allocations in order for ED to retain a "yes" on this answer.)

Evidence: The program initiated a national "re-interviewing initiative" in 2004, in which almost all States voluntarily participated, to determine and eliminate defective child eligibility. This action focused attention on recruiting, counting, and serving only eligible children, activities that are central to ensuring the accuracy of State-directed MEP-funded services and Federal formula allocations. States with more than 98 percent of migrant children and youth have completed re-evaluations of their migrant counts to assess inaccuracies. Department action relative to allocation adjustments is contingent on the results from final State reassessments. Although State reporting is not yet complete, States are beginning to make voluntary corrections in their processes for identifying and counting eligible children. Final reports from OIG audits concerning eligibility determinations at locations in two States and Puerto Rico are available at the following web site: http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oig/areports.html See ED-OIG/A04F0011 (Georgia), ED-OIG/A06F0013 (Oklahoma), and ED-OIG/A02-E0019 (Puerto Rico).

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: The program recently established an efficiency measure associated with the transfer of migrant student records, but since the the system (MSIX) has not yet been implemented, there are no baselines and targets for the measure. The new measure will focus on the use of the MSIX to increase the consolidated records available to States over a four-year period from FY 2006 until FY 2009. The MSIX integrates procedures designed to achieve efficiencies and cost reductions by linking separate State and local efforts to transfer health and education records into a single system that can be used within and across all States. The efficiency measure will assess annual increases in the percent of actively migrating students for which the system has consolidated records that reflect a complete history of school and health information, especially for the most mobile migrant students who move frequently. Also, another program feature, coordination incentive grants, are awarded annually to States based on proposed strategies for inter-State collaboration to more effectively provide services to migrant children. Finally, the program monitoring plan requires MEP staff to identify, among other things, potential cost efficiencies through ongoing reviews of each State's comprehensive needs assessment, service delivery plan, and strategies for achieving instructional continuity for highly mobile migrant students.

Evidence: Several procedures are used to measure the program's cost effectiveness and achieve efficiencies in the development of the Migrant Student Information Exchange (MSIX). These procedures include: 1) an IT business case that documents how MSIX will improve efficiency, 2) a feasibility study and cost-benefit analysis that examines the alternatives for achieving cost effectiveness, and 3) competitive sourcing of two performance-based incentive contracts. Procedures are documented in program records, including the application for coordination incentive grants, the request for proposals for a new MSIX records transfer system, and monitoring plans. Currently, as part of monitoring, the program depends on staff judgment and experience in reviewing cost efficiency.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: Several formal structures to encourage coordination and collaboration help address educational disruption and mobility issues that make the migrant population especially hard-to-serve.

Evidence: Binational coordination: The program has a lead in managing coordination activities under a Memorandum of Understanding on Education, signed by the top-ranking officials in the Departments of Education in the U.S. and Mexico, to facilitate sharing of information between educators of migrant students in the two countries. Inter-State coordination: The program awards Coordination Incentive Grants to State education agencies that participate in consortium arrangements with other States on programs for highly mobile migrant children. Interagency coordination: Program staff represent ED on the Federal Migrant Interagency Committee, composed of 8 Federal agencies and a group of nonprofit organizations, that meets 4 times a year to share information. Other: In addition, MEP collaborates with other Department programs that provide services to disadvantaged populations, including Title I and Title III, on issues pertaining to accountability and assessment requirements and educational services for limited-English proficient and disadvantaged students, including migrant children.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: Recent agency-wide audits have not identified deficiencies in the financial management of this program. The Department undertakes fiduciary monitoring of States, including monitoring the GAPS system for drawdowns and States' determinations of eligibility for services.

Evidence: An OME staff member coordinates the process of monitoring the expenditure of MEP grant funds and closing out grants, and provides MEP grant monitoring teams with copies of GAPS reports on a regular basis to facilitate staff monitoring of State funds, and timely action with States that are not drawing funds on a regular basis. In addition, staff closely monitor State processes that are central to the program's financial integrity, including activities to recruit, count, and serve only eligible children so that States direct MEP-funded services only to those children, and Federal formula allocations accurately reflect each State's share of funds.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: Since 2002, OME has focused on three management areas to lay the groundwork for overall program emphasis on accountability for results: (1) developing and field testing a process for conducting and implementing highly reliable State comprehensive needs assessments, (2) timely and proper identification and recruitment of eligible migrant children, and (3) linking diverse State migrant student record systems into a single system. Needs assessment initiative: OME promoted and field tested a process for developing a State needs assessment, and provided tools to help States formulate and analyze their own assessments. Linking system for transfer of migrant students records: Over the past few years, ED defined specifications for a records exchange system, including the minimum data elements that States must collect, and user and system requirements. In 2006 ED solicited proposals for the records transfer system (MSIX) with the aim of selecting a contractor to test, deploy, monitor, and maintain a system starting in late 2006. Identification and recruitment of eligible migrant children: In 2003, OME initiated a re-interviewing initiative to identify and eliminate defective eligibility determinations in one State, and in 2004, after several OIG audits identified improper migrant child eligibility determinations in a few locations, OME instituted a national re-interviewing initiative with all States that responds to OIG concerns regarding limitations in certain SEA quality control processes. State re-interviewing is not yet complete, and results are not yet available.

Evidence: Descriptions of the OME initiatives relating to comprehensive needs assessments, records exchange, and identification and recruitment are available at the following web site: http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oese/ome/index.html

Does the program have oversight practices that provide sufficient knowledge of grantee activities?

Explanation: Program oversight of State grant activities is accomplished through program monitoring, reporting requirements, and improvement initiatives involving State partners.

Evidence: Components of program oversight include: (1) review of each State's annual performance reports, Parts I & II, (2) participation in the EDFACTS Network to centralize data collection and retrieval for multiple formula programs, (3) onsite and telephone monitoring of program implementation, (4) implementation of a national initiative to ensure child eligibility for the MEP, (5) functions of an OME audit and complaint resolution team, (6) regular monitoring of Grants Administration and Payments System (GAPS) Reports, and (7) frequent contact with program managers.

Does the program collect grantee performance data on an annual basis and make it available to the public in a transparent and meaningful manner?

Explanation: The program collects and publishes grantee performance data annually in State-by-State profiles that are available in an annual publication and on the program's web site. (OMB would like ED to explore whether it is possible to translate State-by-State performance data into a national proficiency estimate for Migrant students, leading to 100% proficiency by 2013-14. This may be difficult as the same students are counted in different States.)

Evidence: SEA data reported to ED on an annual basis include: migrant population data, academic data, MEP participation data, school data (regular school year and summer/intersession), and MEP project data (type of MEP projects and key MEP personnel). The information that State education agencies provide each year on the MEP is summarized in an annual compilation entitled "State Title I Migrant Participation Information" published on ED's web site.

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: The program is on track to meet the long-term performance goals for its measures of State migrant academic achievement. Data show upward progress in the number of States meeting their reading proficiency goals for 4th grade migrant students, mathematics proficiency for 4th grade migrant students, and mathematics proficiency goals for 8th grade migrant students. Academic achievement fell short of target in the area of State progress on raising migrant students achievement to proficiency in 8th grade reading.

Evidence: See Measures section.

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: The program is exceeding annual performance targets for State reporting on migrant student achievement. About 85 percent of States reported results for 2003, compared to only about 44 percent in 2001. The program is currently achieving most of its annual performance targets toward long-term goals for State progress on migrant student achievement, as explained above.

Evidence: See Measures section.

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: While the program has achieved efficiencies in the development of the Migrant Student Information Exchange (MSIX), it is too soon to measure the results against the proposed new efficiency measure associated with the implementation of the MSIX. The new efficiency measure will assess annual increases in the percent of actively migrating students for which the system has consolidated records that reflect a complete history of school and health information for the most mobile migrant students. However, since the MSIX will not begin operation until late 2006, data for the measure will not be available until 2007.

Evidence: Education and health records for migrant students are often not available to local school administrators when those students move into their districts, which results in enrollment delays and accurate placement of students. The new MSIX is designed to address those problems by providing centralized access to basic school, academic, and health information for all migrant students, especially highly mobile students. ED anticipates that the system will achieve efficiencies in the timeliness, completeness, and quality of consolidated student records that will provide, among other things, course credit accrual information necessary for high school graduation for highly mobile secondary migrant students.

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: No comparable program focuses on overcoming factors, such as educational disruption, poverty, limited-English proficiency, and social isolation that inhibit academic achievement of school aged youth. However, the program's performance in serving migrant children can be compared to the results of other programs that serve a similar student population. For example, migrant students are now performing at a higher level on state assessments than limited English proficient (LEP) students. In reading and mathematics, migrant students are performing better than LEP students in approximately 67% of the States reporting assessments scores in reading and mathematics for both elementary grade migrant and LEP students. Similar results (in math) or better results (in reading) results are documented at the middle school level.

Evidence: 2002 and- 2003 annual State performance reports

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: No recent independent evaluation has been undertaken of the State Migrant Education program.

Evidence: