ESEA:Migrant State Agency Program(OESE)

ESEA: Migrant State Agency Program (OESE)

FY 2011 Budget Service Program Performance Report (System Print Out) Strategic Goal 1 Formula ESEA, Title I, Part C Document Year 2011 Appropriation: $ CFDA 84.011: Migrant Education_State Grant Program

Program Goal: To assist all migrant students in meeting challenging academic standards and achieving graduation from high school (or a GED program) with an education that prepares them for responsible citizenship, further learning, and productive employment.

Objective 1 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 1.1 of 16: The number of states meeting an annually set performance target in reading at the elementary school level for migrant students. (Desired direction: increase) 1085 Actual Year Target Status (or date expected) 1997 4 Measure not in place 1998 7 Measure not in place 1999 2 Measure not in place 2000 5 Measure not in place 2001 6 Measure not in place 2002 8 8 Target Met 2003 10 11 Target Exceeded 2004 14 19 Target Exceeded 2005 16 23 Target Exceeded 2006 18 27 Target Exceeded 2007 20 30 Target Exceeded 2008 22 27 Target Exceeded 2009 31 27 Did Not Meet Target 2010 33 24 Did Not Meet Target 2011 35 (December 2011) Pending 2012 36 (December 2012) Pending 2013 23 (December 2013) Pending 2014 24 (December 2014) Pending 2015 25 (December 2015) Pending Source. U.S. Department of Education, FY 2010 Consolidated State Performance Report, grades three, four, and five assessment data. Frequency of Data Collection: Annual Data Quality. Information that directly measures the impact of the Title I, Migrant Education Program is not available. However, each state has its own assessment to measure and determine student

U.S. Department of Education Draft Page 1 02/10/2012 proficiency. Student achievement across the states cannot be compared directly, but the results for migrant students can be tracked over time, providing the state proficiency levels and assessments' content remain consistent and the disaggregation of assessment data by subgroup is 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. Target Context. The annually set state targets for 2002 through 2010 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 five percent and the annually set state targets will project an increase in the number of states meeting the new threshold. Explanation. The number of states that report elementary school reading results has declined over the last year, as well as the number of states that met the annually set performance targets in elementary school reading. The progress of states can be viewed by also examining the number of states that have increased the percentage of migrant students at the proficient or advanced level in reading for 2010, and improved from 2009. In that regard, 24 out of 44 states demonstrated a positive percent increase in proficiency or above in grade three, 25 out of 44 states in grade four, and 25 out of 44 states in grade five.

Measure 1.2 of 16: The number of states that reported results for reading proficiency of elementary school migrant students. (Desired direction: increase) 1086 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 26 Measure not in place 2001 23 Measure not in place 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 48 Target Exceeded 2008 47 48 Target Exceeded 2009 48 49 Target Exceeded 2010 48 44 Did Not Meet Target 2011 48 (December 2011) Pending 2012 48 (December 2012) Pending 2013 44 (December 2013) Pending 2014 44 (December 2014) Pending 2015 44 (December 2015) Pending Source. U.S. Department of Education, FY 2010 Consolidated State Performance Report, grades three, four, and five assessment data. Data Quality. Each state has 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.

U.S. Department of Education Draft Page 2 02/10/2012 Target Context. The annually set state targets for 2002 through 2010 project an increase in the number of states that report state assessment results in reading for migrant students in elementary school. Explanation. In 2010, several states either did not offer a migrant education program, did not have a minimum amount of students take the statewide assessment in elementary school, or did not provide results of a statewide assessment.

Measure 1.3 of 16: The number of states meeting an annually set performance target in reading at the middle school level for migrant students. (Desired direction: increase) 1087 Actual Year Target Status (or date expected) 1997 3 Measure not in place 1998 6 Measure not in place 1999 4 Measure not in place 2000 2 Measure not in place 2001 7 Measure not in place 2002 9 6 Did Not Meet Target 2003 11 10 Made Progress From Prior Year 2004 15 10 Did Not Meet Target 2005 17 14 Made Progress From Prior Year 2006 19 19 Target Met 2007 21 24 Target Exceeded 2008 23 21 Did Not Meet Target 2009 25 25 Target Met 2010 27 22 Did Not Meet Target 2011 29 (December 2011) Pending 2012 31 (December 2012) Pending 2013 24 (December 2013) Pending 2014 25 (December 2014) Pending 2015 26 (December 2015) Pending Source. U.S. Department of Education, FY 2010 Consolidated State Performance Report, grades six, seven, and eight assessment data. Data Quality. Information that directly measures the impact of the Title I, Migrant Education Program is not available. However, each state has its own assessment to measure and determine student proficiency. Student achievement across the states cannot be compared directly, but the results for migrant students can be tracked over time, providing the state proficiency levels and assessments' content remain consistent and the disaggregation of assessment data by subgroup is 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. Target Context. The annually set state targets for 2002 through 2010 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 five percent and the annually set state targets will project an increase in the number of states meeting the new threshold. Explanation. The number of states that report middle school reading results has declined over the past year, as well as the number of states that met the annually set performance targets in middle school reading. The progress of states in moving toward a target can be viewed by examining the number of

U.S. Department of Education Draft Page 3 02/10/2012 states that have increased the percentage of migrant students at the proficient or advanced level in reading in 2010 up from 2009. In that regard, 23 out of 46 states demonstrated a positive increase in the percent proficient or above in grade six, 28 out of 46 states in grade seven, and 27 out of 46 states in grade eight.

Measure 1.4 of 16: The number of states that reported results for reading proficiency of middle school migrant students. (Desired direction: increase) 1088 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 23 Measure not in place 2001 21 Measure not in place 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 48 Target Exceeded 2008 47 48 Target Exceeded 2009 48 49 Target Exceeded 2010 48 46 Did Not Meet Target 2011 48 (December 2011) Pending 2012 48 (December 2012) Pending 2013 46 (December 2013) Pending 2014 46 (December 2014) Pending 2015 46 (December 2015) Pending Source. U.S. Department of Education, FY 2010 Consolidated State Performance Report, grades six, seven, and eight assessment data. Frequency of Data Collection: Annual Data Quality. Each state has 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. Target Context. The annually set state targets for 2002 through 2010 project an increase in the number of states that report state assessment results in reading for migrants in middle school. Explanation. In 2010, several states either did not offer a migrant education program, did not have a minimum amount of students take the statewide assessment in middle school, or did not provide results of a statewide assessment.

Measure 1.5 of 16: The number of states meeting an annually set performance target in mathematics at the elementary school level for migrant students. (Desired direction: increase) 1089 Actual Year Target Status (or date expected)

U.S. Department of Education Draft Page 4 02/10/2012 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 31 Target Exceeded 2008 26 35 Target Exceeded 2009 31 36 Target Exceeded 2010 33 32 Did Not Meet Target 2011 35 (December 2011) Pending 2012 37 (December 2012) Pending 2013 26 (December 2013) Pending 2014 27 (December 2014) Pending 2015 28 (December 2015) Pending Source. U.S. Department of Education, FY 2010 Consolidated State Performance Report, grades three, four, and five assessment data. Data Quality. Information that directly measures the impact of the Title I, Migrant Education Program is not available. However, each state has its own assessment to measure and determine student proficiency. Student achievement across the states cannot be compared directly, but the results for migrant students can be tracked over time, providing the state proficiency levels and assessments' content remain consistent and the disaggregation of assessment data by subgroup is 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. Target Context. The annually set state targets for 2002 through 2010 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 threshold of 50 percent of migrant students at or above the proficient level, the performance threshold will be raised in increments of five percent and the annually set state targets will project an increase in the number of states meeting the new threshold. Explanation. The number of states that report elementary school mathematics results has declined over the past year, as well as the number of states that met the annually set performance targets in elementary mathematics. The progress of states can be viewed by also examining the number of states that have increased the percentage of migrant students at the proficient or advanced level in mathematics in 2009, up from 2008. In that regard, 23 out of 43 states demonstrated a positive percent increase in proficiency or above in grade three, 24 out of 44 states in grade four, and 22 out of 44 states in grade five.

Measure 1.6 of 16: 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

U.S. Department of Education Draft Page 5 02/10/2012 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 2006 40 48 Target Exceeded 2007 45 48 Target Exceeded 2008 47 48 Target Exceeded 2009 48 49 Target Exceeded 2010 48 43 Did Not Meet Target 2011 48 (December 2011) Pending 2012 48 (December 2012) Pending 2013 43 (December 2013) Pending 2014 43 (December 2014) Pending 2015 43 (December 2015) Pending Source. U.S. Department of Education, FY 2010 Consolidated State Performance Report, grades three, four, and five assessment data. Data Quality. Each state has 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. Target Context. The annually set state targets for 2002 through 2010 project an increase in the number of states that report state assessment results in mathematics for migrant students in elementary school. Explanation. In 2010, several states either did not offer a migrant education program, did not have a minimum amount of students take the statewide assessment, or did not provide results of a statewide assessment in elementary schools.

Measure 1.7 of 16: 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 23 Target Exceeded 2008 20 23 Target Exceeded 2009 23 27 Target Exceeded

U.S. Department of Education Draft Page 6 02/10/2012 2010 25 25 Target Met 2011 27 (December 2011) Pending 2012 29 (December 2012) Pending 2013 23 (December 2013) Pending 2014 24 (December 2014) Pending 2015 25 (December 2015) Pending Source. U.S. Department of Education, FY 2010 Consolidated State Performance Report, grades six, seven, and eight assessment data. Data Quality. Information that directly measures the impact of the Title I, Migrant Education Program is not available. However, each state has its own assessment to measure and determine student proficiency. Student achievement across the states cannot be compared directly, but the results for migrant students can be tracked over time, providing the state proficiency levels and assessments' content remain consistent and the disaggregation of assessment data by subgroup is 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. Target Context. The annually set state targets for 2002 through 2010 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 five percent and the annually set state targets will project an increase in the number of states meeting the new threshold. Explanation. The number of states that report middle school mathematics results has declined over the last year, as well as the number of states that met the annually set performance target in middle school mathematics. The progress of states can be viewed by also examining the number of states that have increased the percentage of migrant students at the proficient or advanced level in mathematics in 2010, up from 2009. In that regard, 20 out of 46 states demonstrated a positive increase in the percent proficient or above in grade six, 29 out of 46 states in grade seven, and 25 out of 46 states in grade eight.

Measure 1.8 of 16: 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 48 Target Exceeded 2008 47 48 Target Exceeded 2009 48 49 Target Exceeded 2010 48 46 Did Not Meet Target 2011 48 (December 2011) Pending

U.S. Department of Education Draft Page 7 02/10/2012 2012 48 (December 2012) Pending 2013 46 (December 2013) Pending 2014 46 (December 2014) Pending 2015 46 (December 2015) Pending Source. U.S. Department of Education, FY 2010 Consolidated State Performance Report, grades six, seven, and eight assessment data. Frequency of Data Collection: Annual Data Quality. Each state has 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. Target Context. The annually set state targets for 2002 through 2010 project an increase in the number of states that report state assessment results in mathematics for migrant students in middle school. Explanation. In 2010, several states either did not offer a migrant education program, did not have a minimum amount of students take the statewide assessment in middle school, or did not provide results of a statewide assessment.

Measure 1.9 of 16: 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 27 Target Exceeded 2007 18 32 Target Exceeded 2008 19 38 Target Exceeded 2009 27 41 Target Exceeded 2010 29 (December 2011) Pending 2011 31 (December 2012) Pending 2012 33 (December 2013) Pending 2013 34 (December 2014) Pending 2014 35 (December 2015) Pending 2015 36 (December 2016) Pending Source. U.S. Department of Education, FY 2010 Consolidated State Performance Report, Drop Out data. Frequency of Data Collection: Annual Data Quality. Information that directly measures the impact of the Title I, Migrant Education Program is not available. However, each state must 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. Target Context. The annually set state targets for 2004 through 2010 project the number of states that attain a performance threshold of 50 percent or fewer migrant students who dropout of school.

U.S. Department of Education Draft Page 8 02/10/2012 Explanation. 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 five percent and the annually set state targets will project an increase in the number of states meeting the new threshold.

Measure 1.10 of 16: 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 27 Target Exceeded 2007 19 32 Target Exceeded 2008 20 38 Target Exceeded 2009 27 41 Target Exceeded 2010 29 (December 2011) Pending 2011 31 (December 2012) Pending 2012 33 (December 2013) Pending 2013 34 (December 2014) Pending 2014 35 (December 2015) Pending 2015 36 (December 2016) Pending Source. U.S. Department of Education, FY 2010 Consolidated State Performance Report, Drop Out data. Data Quality. Each state must report an annual dropout rate for students 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 disaggregate and report results. Target Context. The annually set state targets for 2004 through 2010 project an increase in the number of states that report dropout rates for migrant students. Explanation. The number of states that report the dropout rate of migrant students has gradually increased, over time, exceeding projections from 2005 through 2010.

Measure 1.11 of 16: 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 18 Target Exceeded 2007 16 27 Target Exceeded 2008 17 23 Target Exceeded 2009 18 26 Target Exceeded 2010 19 (December 2011) Pending 2011 20 (December 2012) Pending 2012 21 (December 2013) Pending 2013 22 (December 2014) Pending

U.S. Department of Education Draft Page 9 02/10/2012 2014 23 (December 2015) Pending 2015 24 (December 2016) Pending Source. U.S. Department of Education, FY 2010 Consolidated State Performance Report, High School Graduation data. Frequency of Data Collection: Annual Data Quality. Information that directly measures the impact of the Title I, Migrant Education Program is not available. However, each state must 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 for disaggregating and reporting all migrant students who graduate stabilize. Target Context. The annually set state targets for 2004 through 2010 project the number of states that attain a performance threshold of 50 percent or more migrant students graduating from high school. Explanation. Once 80 percent of all states have met the performance threshold of 50 percent or more migrant students graduating from high school, the performance threshold will be increased in increments of five percent and the annually set state targets will project an increase in the number of states meeting the new threshold.

Measure 1.12 of 16: 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 24 Target Exceeded 2007 23 32 Target Exceeded 2008 25 31 Target Exceeded 2009 26 36 Target Exceeded 2010 27 (December 2011) Pending 2011 28 (December 2012) Pending 2012 29 (December 2013) Pending 2013 30 (December 2014) Pending 2014 31 (December 2015) Pending 2015 32 (December 2016) Pending Source. U.S. Department of Education, FY 2010 Consolidated State Performance Report, High School Graduation data. Frequency of Data Collection: Annual Data Quality. Each state must 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 for disaggregating and reporting all migrant students who graduate stabilize. Target Context. The annually set state targets for 2004 through 2010 project an increase in the number of states that report graduation rates for migrant students. Explanation. The number of states that report results for high school graduation of migrant students has gradually increased, and exceeeded the target over the last five years.

U.S. Department of Education Draft Page 10 02/10/2012 Measure 1.13 of 16: The percentage of migrant students at the fourth grade level that are classified as proficient or advanced in reading. (Desired direction: increase) 89a0vg Actual Year Target Status (or date expected) 2006 Set a Baseline 51.8 Target Met 2007 52 52.2 Target Exceeded 2008 53 52.3 Made Progress From Prior Year 2009 54 54 Target Met 2010 55 54.1 Made Progress From Prior Year 2011 56 (December 2011) Pending 2013 58 (December 2013) Pending 2014 59 (December 2014) Pending 2015 60 (December 2015) Pending Source. Source: U.S. Department of Education, FY 2010 CSPR, grade four assessment data. Frequency of Data Collection: Annual Data Quality. Information that directly measures the impact of the Title I, Migrant Education Program is not available. However, each state has its own assessment to measure and determine student proficiency. Target Context. Student achievement across the states cannot be compared directly, but the results for migrant students can be tracked over time, providing the state proficiency levels and assessments' content remain consistent and the disaggregation of assessment data by subgroup is 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 targets for 2006 through 2010 project the percentage of fourth grade level migrant students at the proficient or advanced level in reading.

Measure 1.14 of 16: The percentage of migrant students at the fourth grade level that are classified as proficient or advanced in mathematics. (Desired direction: increase) 89a0vi Actual Year Target Status (or date expected) 2006 Set a Baseline 54 Target Met 2007 55 55.8 Target Exceeded 2008 56 69.2 Target Exceeded 2009 57 56.4 Did Not Meet Target 2010 58 59.1 Target Exceeded 2011 59 (December 2011) Pending 2013 61 (December 2013) Pending 2014 62 (December 2014) Pending 2015 63 (December 2015) Pending Source. The U.S. Department of Education, FY 2010 Consolidated State Performance Report, grade four assessment data. Frequency of Data Collection: Annual Data Quality. Information that directly measures the impact of the Title I, Migrant Education Program is not available. However, each state has its own assessment to measure and determine student proficiency.

U.S. Department of Education Draft Page 11 02/10/2012 Target Context. Student achievement across the states cannot be compared directly, but the results for migrant students can be tracked over time, providing the state proficiency levels and assessments' content remain consistent and the disaggregation of assessment data by subgroup is 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 targets for 2006 through 2010 project the percentage of fourth grade level migrant students at the proficient or advanced level in mathematics.

Measure 1.15 of 16: The percentage of migrant students at the eighth grade level that are classified as proficient or advanced in reading. (Desired direction: increase) 89a0vj Actual Year Target Status (or date expected) 2006 Set a Baseline 43 Target Met 2007 44 44.5 Target Exceeded 2008 45 46.2 Target Exceeded 2009 46 47.2 Target Exceeded 2010 47 47.8 Target Exceeded 2011 48 (December 2011) Pending 2013 50 (December 2013) Pending 2014 51 (December 2014) Pending 2015 52 (December 2015) Pending Source. The U.S. Department of Education, FY 2010 Consolidated State Performance Report, grade eight assessment data. Frequency of Data Collection: Annual Data Quality. Information that directly measures the impact of the Title I, Migrant Education Program is not available. However, each state has its own assessment to measure and determine student proficiency. Target Context. Student achievement across the states cannot be compared directly, but the results for migrant students can be tracked over time, providing the state proficiency levels and assessments' content remain consistent and the disaggregation of assessment data by subgroup is 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 targets for 2006 through 2010 project the percentage of eighth grade level migrant students at the proficient or advanced level in reading.

Measure 1.16 of 16: The percentage of migrant students at the eighth grade level that are classified as proficient or advanced in mathematics. (Desired direction: increase) 89a0vk Actual Year Target Status (or date expected) 2006 Set a Baseline 38.7 Target Met 2007 40 41.8 Target Exceeded 2008 42 53.8 Target Exceeded 2009 43 45.5 Target Exceeded 2010 44 43.8 Did Not Meet Target 2011 45 (December 2011) Pending

U.S. Department of Education Draft Page 12 02/10/2012 2013 47 (December 2013) Pending 2014 48 (December 2014) Pending 2015 49 (December 2015) Pending Source. The U.S. Department of Education, FY 2010 Consolidated State Performance Report, grade eight assessment data. Frequency of Data Collection: Annual Data Quality. Information that directly measures the impact of the Title I, Migrant Education Program is not available. However, each state has its own assessment to measure and determine student proficiency. Target Context. Student achievement across the states cannot be compared directly, but the results for migrant students can be tracked over time, providing the state proficiency levels and assessments' content remain consistent and the disaggregation of assessment data by subgroup is 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 targets for 2006 through 2010 project the percentage of eighth grade level migrant students at the proficient or advanced level in mathematics.

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 Not Collected Not Collected 2008 50 Not Collected Not Collected 2009 50 Not Collected Not Collected 2010 75 Not Collected Not Collected 2011 100 (December 2011) Pending 2012 100 (December 2012) Pending 2013 100 (December 2013) Pending 2014 100 (December 2014) Pending 2015 100 (December 2015) Pending Source. U.S. Department of Education contractor evaluation report. Frequency of Data Collection: Annual Data Quality. Each state will be required to provide the national Migrant Student Information Exchange (MSIX) with 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 credit 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. Target Context. This is a new measure of program efficiency. A consolidated migrant student record contains the minimum information from the various schools in which a migrant student has previously enrolled to assist the new school to make decisions about school enrollment, course placement, and credit accrual in a timely manner.

U.S. Department of Education Draft Page 13 02/10/2012 Explanation. The annually set targets for 2007 through 2010 project an increase in the percentage of migrant students who have a consolidated migrant students record with basic student information.

U.S. Department of Education Draft Page 14 02/10/2012