Report - U.S. Department of Education



ESEA: Migrant State Agency Program (OESE) | |

|FY 2010 Program Performance Plan (System Print Out) |

|Strategic Goal 1 |

|Formula |

|ESEA, Title I, Part C |

|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. |

|[pic] |

|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 |

|Year |Target |Actual |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 |(December 2010) |Pending |

|2010 |33 |(December 2011) |Pending |

|2011 |35 |(December 2012) |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 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 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 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 in 2008 up from 2007. In that regard, 26 out of 47 states demonstrated a positive percent increase in proficiency or above in grade three, 27 out of 48 states in grade four, and 25 out of 47 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 |

|Year |Target |Actual |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 |(December 2010) |Pending |

|2010 |48 |(December 2011) |Pending |

|2011 |48 |(December 2012) |Pending |

Source. U.S. Department of Education, Consolidated State Performance Report.

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 migrant students in elementary school.

|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 |

|Year |Target |Actual |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 |(December 2010) |Pending |

|2010 |27 |(December 2011) |Pending |

|2011 |29 |(December 2012) |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 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.

Explanation. 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 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 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 in 2008 up from 2007. In that regard, 26 out of 47 states demonstrated a positive percent increase in proficiency or above in grade six, 32 out of 47 states in grade seven, and 32 out of 48  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 |

|Year |Target |Actual |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 |(December 2010) |Pending |

|2010 |48 |(December 2011) |Pending |

|2011 |48 |(December 2012) |Pending |

Source. U.S. Department of Education, Consolidated State Performance Report.

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.

Explanation. 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 middle school.

|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 |

|Year |Target |Actual |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 |31 |Target Exceeded |

|2008 |26 |35 |Target Exceeded |

|2009 |31 |(December 2010) |Pending |

|2010 |33 |(December 2011) |Pending |

|2011 |35 |(December 2012) |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 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.

Explanation. 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 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 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 2007 up from 2006. In that regard, 27 out of 47 states demonstrated a positive percent increase in proficiency or above in grade three, 26 out of 48 states in grade four, and 28 out of 47 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 |

|Year |Target |Actual |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 |

|2006 |40 |48 |Target Exceeded |

|2007 |45 |48 |Target Exceeded |

|2008 |47 |48 |Target Exceeded |

|2009 |48 |(December 2010) |Pending |

|2010 |48 |(December 2011) |Pending |

|2011 |48 |(December 2012) |Pending |

Source. U.S. Department of Education, Consolidated State Performance Report.

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.

Explanation. 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.

|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 |

|Year |Target |Actual |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 |(December 2010) |Pending |

|2010 |25 |(December 2011) |Pending |

|2011 |27 |(December 2012) |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 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.

Explanation. 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 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 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 2007 up from 2006. In that regard, 36 out of 47 states demonstrated a positive percent increase in proficiency or above in grade six, 33 out of 47 states in grade seven, and 31 out of 48 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 |

|Year |Target |Actual |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 |(December 2010) |Pending |

|2010 |48 |(December 2011) |Pending |

|2011 |48 |(December 2011) |Pending |

Source. U.S. Department of Education, Consolidated State Performance Report.

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.

Explanation. 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.

|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 |

|Year |Target |Actual |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 |(December 2010) |Pending |

|2009 |27 |(December 2011) |Pending |

|2010 |29 |(December 2012) |Pending |

|2011 |31 |(December 2013) |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 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.

Explanation. 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. 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 16: The number of states that reported results for dropout rate of migrant students.   (Desired direction: |

|increase)   1094 |

|Year |Target |Actual |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 |(December 2010) |Pending |

|2009 |27 |(December 2011) |Pending |

|2010 |29 |(December 2012) |Pending |

|2011 |31 |(December 2013) |Pending |

Source. U.S. Department of Education, Consolidated State Performance Report.

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.

Explanation. The annually set state targets for 2004 through 2010 project an increase in the number of states that report dropout rates for migrant students.

|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 |

|Year |Target |Actual |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 |(December 2010) |Pending |

|2009 |18 |(December 2011) |Pending |

|2010 |19 |(December 2012) |Pending |

|2011 |20 |(December 2013) |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 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.

Explanation. 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. 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 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 16: The number of states that reported results for high school graduation of migrant students.   (Desired |

|direction: increase)   1096 |

|Year |Target |Actual |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 |(December 2010) |Pending |

|2009 |26 |(December 2011) |Pending |

|2010 |27 |(December 2012) |Pending |

|2011 |28 |(December 2013) |Pending |

Source. U.S. Department of Education, Consolidated State Performance Report.

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.

Explanation. The annually set state targets for 2004 through 2010 project an increase in the number of states that report graduation rates for migrant students.

|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 |

|Year |Target |Actual |Status |

| | |(or date expected) | |

|2006 |Set a Baseline |51.8 |Target Met |

|2007 |52 |52.2 |Target Exceeded |

|2008 |53 |(December 2009) |Pending |

|2009 |54 |(December 2010) |Pending |

|2010 |55 |(December 2011) |Pending |

|2011 |56 |(December 2012) |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 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.

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 |

|Year |Target |Actual |Status |

| | |(or date expected) | |

|2006 |Set a Baseline |54 |Target Met |

|2007 |55 |55.8 |Target Exceeded |

|2008 |56 |(December 2009) |Pending |

|2009 |57 |(December 2010) |Pending |

|2010 |58 |(December 2011) |Pending |

|2011 |59 |(December 2012) |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 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.

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 |

|Year |Target |Actual |Status |

| | |(or date expected) | |

|2006 |Set a Baseline |43 |Target Met |

|2007 |44 |44.5 |Target Exceeded |

|2008 |45 |(December 2009) |Pending |

|2009 |46 |(December 2010) |Pending |

|2010 |47 |(December 2011) |Pending |

|2011 |48 |(December 2012) |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 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.

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 |

|Year |Target |Actual |Status |

| | |(or date expected) | |

|2006 |Set a Baseline |38.7 |Target Met |

|2007 |40 |41.8 |Target Exceeded |

|2008 |42 |(December 2009) |Pending |

|2009 |43 |(December 2010) |Pending |

|2010 |44 |(December 2011) |Pending |

|2011 |45 |(December 2012) |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 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.

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.

|[pic] |

|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 |

|Year |Target |Actual |Status |

| | |(or date expected) | |

|2007 |50 |Not Collected |Not Collected |

|2008 |50 |Not Collected |Not Collected |

|2009 |50 |Not Collected |Not Collected |

|2010 |75 |(December 2010) |Pending |

|2011 |100 |(December 2011) |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.

Explanation. 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. 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.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download