Search

Until recently, there was no information on U.S. schools attended by migrant children and their characteristics. Migrant children and youth often were excluded from major educational studies because of the lack of a nationally reliable sampling frame of schools or districts enrolling migrant children. In an effort to fill this gap, the U.S. Department of Education embarked on a project to develop a database of schools that enroll migrant children. In Spring 1997, state Migrant Education Program directors were asked to list public schools and other sites serving migrant children during the regular or summer term. Information from 49 states (excepting Hawaii), the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico was used to create a data file of public schools serving migrant children. In addition, data on 140 private schools and 522 other organizations serving migrant students were used to create a separate data file. Following information on database limitations and availability, this paper provides summary statistics on public schools serving migrant children. In 1997, 22,225 schools enrolled migrant children during the regular school year, the summer term, or both. California reported the greatest number of migrant schools, while Alaska reported the largest percentage of public schools enrolling migrant students. In comparison to nonmigrant schools, migrant schools tended to be larger and poorer and to enroll larger proportions of minority students. Data tables and figures detail school characteristics and provide information for each state. Internet version provides links to the database. (SV)

This report summarizes participation and achievement data provided by state education agencies on the Chapter 1 Migrant Education Program (MEP) for 1992-93. The 1992-93 school year was marked by modest growth in the number of MEP participants. In both regular and summer terms, migrant participants were more likely to receive reading and mathematics than any other instructional service. Of 541,122 participants reported as an unduplicated count of regular and summer terms, 80 percent were Hispanic and 11 percent were White, not Hispanic. Fifty-seven percent were formerly migrant, 30 percent were currently migrant interstate, and 13 percent were currently migrant intrastate. Participation increased 2 percent overall, decreased 3 percent in the regular term, and increased 8 percent in the summer term. Four percent of participants were disabled, and 25 percent were limited-English-proficient. States reported achievement data in basic and advanced reading and mathematics for students in grades 2-12 using various norm-referenced models (one point in time, two points in time, and pretest/posttest models). Federal funding for Chapter 1 MEP was approximately $308.3 million, up 5 percent from the previous year. The allocation per participant was $570. Extensive data tables detail information for regular and summer terms on number, race or ethnicity, migrant status, age, gender, disability, and English proficiency of participants; services provided; full-time equivalent teachers and other staff; achievement results; and funding allocations by year and state. Appendices discuss program evaluation requirements, reporting problems, and methodology. (SV)

Information submitted by state education agencies in a survey concerning limited-English-proficient (LEP) populations and available educational services in 1991-92 is summarized. The report contains data in tabular and graphic form with some narrative analysis. An introductory section describes the national study and state surveys, data limitations, and report's structure. Subsequent sections detail the enrollment of LEP students in elementary and secondary schools, the educational condition of this population (retention and dropout rates, academic test performance, and data limitations), methods and criteria used for identification of LEP students, and educational programs for LEP students at the federal, state, and local levels, including enrollment data. Appended materials include the state survey data review procedures, supplementary tables by state, and the survey form. (MSE)

This report summarizes the participation and achievement information provided by state educational agencies (SEAs) on the Chapter 1 Migrant Education Program (MEP) for 1989-90. Data were obtained through State Performance Reports completed by participating SEAs. The first of four chapters provides an overview of program participation, including ethnicity, gender, year of birth, migrant status, and the frequency of disability. Chapter 2 presents program descriptive information by term (summer and regular), including the number and percentage of participants by grade and service area and the number of full-time equivalent staff funded by the MEP. Achievement information in reading and math and other program outcome measures are provided in Chapter 3. Chapter 4 provides funding information for the MEP. Information covers: (1) an overview of the 1989-90 data; (2) changes from 1988-89 to 1989-90; (3) trend data from 1984-90; and (4) state highlights. In addition, grade and service information is displayed by migrant status, and patterns in Chapter 1 MEP participation and program information are compared to Chapter 1 local educational agencies program participation and enrollment. Appendices, making up the greater part of this document include: (1) a brief description of the methodology used to review the State Performance Report; (2) state-level participation and staffing information; (3) descriptions of other instructional and support services provided in programs; (4) selected state-level achievement information for regular term participants; (5) other outcome measures reported by states; and (6) a sample copy of the State Performance Report. This report contains numerous statistical tables and figures. (LP)

This volume summarizes information provided by state education agencies on student achievement in Chapter 1 Migrant Education Programs. For the regular term, 34 states (out of 48) provided statewide achievement information using norm-referenced tests (29 states), criterion-referenced tests (8 states), and locally developed instruments (1 state). For the summer term, 14 states (out of 47) provided statewide achievement information. Several underlying factors affect the assessment of achievement outcomes in migrant education programs. The most important are the lack of standardized reporting requirements for achievement, tendency for currently migrant students to be underrepresented due to mobility and language deficits, incompatibility of standardized test schedules with the short-term nature of many migrant projects or the cyclical patterns of migrant movement, and a poor match between testing and services received. This report presents summary findings for those states reporting regular-term achievement results, expressed in normal curve equivalent scores, using a pre- and posttest norm-referenced model. Such data were reported for about 30,000 migrant students in 16 states tested on an annual cycle in reading and for slightly over 17,000 tested in mathematics, and for over 2,800 students in 9 states tested on a fall-spring test cycle in reading and for slightly over 2,000 students in 10 states tested similarly in mathematics. Following summary information, individual state information includes enrollments, services provided, and achievement results. Includes extensive data tables. (SV)

This volume summarizes information provided by state education agencies on participation in the Chapter 1 Migrant Education Program for the 1988-89 school year. Of 382,394 total unduplicated program participants in 1988-89, 77 percent were Hispanic and 11 percent were White not Hispanic. As classified by migrant status, 50 percent of participants were settled out (formerly migrant), 34 percent were interstate migrant, and 16 percent were intrastate migrant. Almost 4 percent were children of migratory fishers. Males comprised 52 percent of participants and females 48 percent. There were 333,042 participants in the regular term, up 8 percent from the previous year, and 125,427 participants in the summer term, up 19 percent. Participation increased in all grade spans, with the largest increases in grades 7-9 and the smallest increases in prekindergarten and kindergarten. In the regular term, attendance and guidance services were provided to 64 percent of participants, reading to 40 percent, other supporting services to 39 percent, health services to 33 percent, and mathematics to 30 percent. In the summer term, 78 percent of participants received attendance and guidance services, 62 percent received reading, and 58 percent received other instructional services. Migrant education programs funded 11,065 full-time equivalent staff in the regular term and 10,529 in the summer term. About three-quarters of total staff were teachers and teacher aides. The ratio of participants to teachers and teacher aides combined was 43.1 in the regular term and 16.9 in the summer. Numerous data tables compare present and previous year data and provide participation and staffing information by state. Includes the state reporting form, form instructions, and a glossary. (Author/SV)

This report summarizes the participation and achievement information provided by state educational agencies (SEAs) on the Education Consolidation and Improvement Act (ECIA) Chapter 1 Migrant Education Program, for the 1987-88 school year. The report provides information on the number of participants (by gender, year of birth, ethnic group, migrant status, and grade), the types of services provided, and the number of staff. Information is provided for both the regular and summer terms. The document presents the national participation and staffing information in three ways: (1) for 1987-88; (2) changes from 1986-87 to 1987-88; and (3) trend data from 1984-85 to 1987-88. In addition, Migrant participation patterns are compared to Chapter 1 Basic participation and total enrollment. A description of the methodology used to review the State Performance Report information for 1987-88 is presented in Appendix A. State level participation and staff information for the 1987-88 is provided in Appendix B, while Appendix C displays year-to-year changes by state from 1986-87 to 1987-88. Appendix D provides tabular descriptions of the other instructional services, other supporting services, and other staff reported by each state for both the regular and summer terms. Appendix E contains the reporting form and Questions and Answers for the ECIA Chapter 1, Migrant Program State Performance Reports. This document contains numerous data tables and figures. (KS)

This report summarizes the achievement information provided by state educational agencies for the Migrant Education Program, 1986-87. Of the 34 states submitting achievement information for the regular term, 27 used norm-referenced tests, 9 used criterion-referenced tests, and 2 used locally developed instruments. Of the 15 states submitting achievement information for the summer term, 6 used norm referenced tests, 8 used criterion referenced tests, and 2 used locally developed instruments. All states that submitted data tested reading and mathematics; 24 tested language arts; and 4 or fewer tested English as second language, Spanish or native language arts, science, social studies, spelling, reference skills, and elementary skills. Several factors preclude a precise national estimate of the achievement of migrant education participants: (1) the variety of test types and range of test measures used; (2) under-testing of currently migrant students because of their mobility and language deficits; (3) incompatibility of standardized testing with the short-term basis of many migrant projects or the cyclical patterns of migrant movement; and (4) the inadequacy of reading and mathematics tests as measures of the impact of highly diversified programs. Individual sections for the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and all states except Hawaii describe the services delivered to migrant students, and, where applicable, provide information on achievement testing and tables of test results. Appendices describe the methodology used, and summarize data for about 50,000 migrant students in 17 states using a pretest/posttest norm referenced model and expressing achievement results in normal curve equivalent scores. This report contains 83 tables. (SV)

This report summarizes the participation information provided by state educational agencies for the Migrant Education Program, 1986-87, the third year in which data was submitted in a prescribed format. The District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and all states except Hawaii submitted data on program participation by ethnic group, migrant status, gender, and year of birth; on participation patterns by grade and service area for regular and summer terms; and on staffing for regular and summer terms. Of the 343,269 total participants: (1) 75% were Hispanic and 12% were white; (2) 53% were formerly migrant, 30% were currently interstate migrant, and 17% were currently intrastate migrant; (3) 52% were male and 48% were female; and (4) 12% were born 1981-87, 49% were born 1975-80, 36% were born 1969-74, and 3% were born 1964-68. Participants totaled 300,674 in the regular term and 104,751 in the summer term, down 7% from 1985-86 in each case. The most frequent category of service provided was attendance and guidance services (71% of regular term participants, 79% of summer term participants), followed by reading (44% regular term, 66% summer term), and mathematics (32% regular term, 65% summer term). The Migrant Education Program funded 10,770 full-time equivalent staff in the regular term and 10,427 in the summer term. About 75% of total staff in both terms were teachers and teacher aides. This report contains 44 tables, 11 figures, and a description of methodology used. (SV)

This document summarizes State Education Agencies' (SEA) 1985-86 State Performance Reports for Chapter 1. These reports provide data on Local Education Agency (LEA) and State Agency Neglected or Delinquent compensatory education programs, in terms of the size of the population of educationally deprived students served, the characteristics of that population and its achievement rates, staffing utilized, mix of services provided, and funding. Two major changes are reflected in this year's reports. First, as a result of the impact of the Aguilar v. Felton decision, there has been a dramatic drop--31 percent--in the number of nonpublic school students served by the LEA programs, from over 184,000 the previous year to 127,922. This decrease covered every grade span nationwide. Aggregate declines were reported by 46 states and the District of Columbia, and in 16 states dropoffs of 50 percent or more were reported. Second, all public participation and staffing figures for the years 1978-80 through 1985-86 have been revised to account for California's inclusion of data on students enrolled in the state's own compensatory education programs. Despite Aguilar V. Felton, the total number of Chapter 1 participants increased slightly. Information on the following aspects of Chapter 1 are provided: (1) services rendered; (2) staff; (3) participant composition; (4) achievement; (5) funding; and (6) State Agency Neglected or Delinquent program participants. Appendices discuss the methodology and provide additional data. Data are presented on 63 tables and figures. (BJV)

This report summarizes participation and achievement data provided by state education agencies on the Chapter 1 Migrant Education Program for the 1990-91 school year. Of the 437,363 migrant students reported as an unduplicated count of regular and summer term participants, 79% were Hispanic, 11% were White, and 2-4% each were Black, American Indian/Alaska Native, and Asian/Pacific Islander. Participants were formerly migrant (52%), interstate currently migrant (35%), and intrastate currently migrant (13%). Participation increased 6% from 1989-90 to 1990-91, with 33 states reporting increases. In the regular term, about 33% of participants received reading services; nearly 25% received mathematics services; 43-50% received guidance and counseling services or other supporting services; about 20% received health services or social work/outreach services; and less than 10% received dental, nutrition, or transportation services. Achievement information for currently migrant participants was reported by 34 states using a norm-referenced, point-in-time assessment model. For regular term formerly migrant participants, 31 states provided some form of achievement data using a norm-referenced pretest and posttest model, and 14 states provided sustained gain information in the required format. In general, migrant participants performed better in mathematics than in reading. Overall federal funding for the program increased 4%, but funding per participant decreased to $646 from $660 the previous year. Numerous data tables detail information (total and by state) on: (1) participation by race and ethnicity, type of migrant status, gender, year of birth, percentage with disabilities, type of service, and regular and summer term; (2) teachers, teacher aides, and other staff; (3) various types of achievement results for regular term by grade; (4) other outcome measures; and (5) federal funding. (SV)

This report presents national summaries and state-by-state descriptions of the types and results of achievement information submitted by state educational agencies on the Education Consolidation and Improvement Act (ECIA) Chapter 1 Migrant Education Program for the 1987-88 school year. Thirty-six states (out of 49) provided statewide achievement information for the regular term, using various types of test results. Norm-referenced tests were used in 30 states, while nine states used criterion-referenced tests, and two states used locally-developed instruments. In the summer term, 17 states (out of 46) provided statewide achievement information. Although the format for presenting data varies, states provided data by school term, grade, subject area, and testing schedule. Appendix A presents the methodology used to review the 1987-88 State Performance Reports submitted by the states. Appendix B provides state-level tabular displays of achievement information, by grade, for those states reporting regular-term achievement results, expressed in normal curve equivalent scores, using a pretest-posttest norm-referenced model. Appendix C provides a brief description of norm- and criterion-referenced testing. This report contains numerous tables and figures. (KS)