Comprehensive Needs Assessment - Indiana...Succeeds Act (ESSA) Section 1309 (3)] In order to better understand and articulate the specific services that the Indiana MEP should target

Comprehensive Needs Assessment

Migrant Education Program

Indiana Department of Education 115 West Washington Street Indianapolis, IN 46204 (317) 232-0558

July 2018

Indiana CNA and SDP Committee Membership

Region Name MEP Role

IDE Valerie Beard Assistant Director of EL and Migrant Education Programs

IDE Veronica Palacio MEP Specialist

State Blake Everhart Technology Director

State Andy Walker Technology Specialist

META Marty Jacobson Facilitator

1 Julia Cordova-Gurule Director

1 Lisa Brooks Curriculum and Professional Development

2 Kierston McKinley Assistant Director

2 Angelica Tackett Recruiter

2 Blanca Soriano Parent

3 Jesse Shawver Program Administrator

3 Josmary Pearson Recruiter

3 Jhovana Lopez Parent

4 Judy Bueckert Director

4 Debbie Gries Education Coordinator

4 Alexander Rodriguez Recruiter

5 Bree Ausenbaugh Director

5 Edith Hernandez Parent Liaison

5 María Lopez Counselor

5 Fermín Recarte Recruiter

6 Susana Amstutz Director

6 Julie Baumer Assistant Director

6 Sandra Zurita Parent

6 Diane McClury Tutor

Abbreviations

CNA Comprehensive Needs Assessment CSPR Consolidated State Performance Report ELA English Language Arts E(L)L English (language) learner ESEA Elementary and Secondary Education Act ESSA Every Student Succeeds Act FL Florida GPRA Government Performance and Results Act HS High School HSE High School Equivalency HSED High School Equivalency Diploma IDOE Indiana Department of Education ID&R Identification and Recruitment IEP Individual Education Plan IMEP Indiana Migrant Education Program IN Indiana ISTE International Society for Technology in Education ISTEP+ Indiana Statewide Testing of Educational Progress Plus LEA Local Education Agency LEP Limited English Proficiency LOA Local Operating Agency MEP Migrant Education Program MIDAS Migrant Information and Data Access System MPO Measurable Program Outcome MRC Migrant Regional Center MSIX Migrant Student Information Exchange NAC Needs Assessment Committee OME Office of Migrant Education OSY Out-of-School Youth PAC Parent Advisory Council PASS Portable Assisted Study Sequence PD Professional Development PFS Priority for Services QAD Qualifying Arrival Date SEA State Education Agency SDP Service Delivery Plan TX Texas

Table of Contents Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1

Organization of the CNA Report ............................................................................................. 1

CNA Process ............................................................................................................................ 3

The Comprehensive Needs Assessment Process in Indiana .................................................. 3 Data Collection Procedures .................................................................................................... 4

Authorizing Statute and Guidance for Conducting the Comprehensive Needs Assessment .............................................................................................................................. 5

Purpose of the CNA ................................................................................................................ 5 Planning Phase of the Indiana CNA ....................................................................................... 5

Phase I: Exploring “What Is” ................................................................................................... 7

Overview of Phase I: Exploring “What Is” ............................................................................... 7 CNA Goal Areas and the Indiana Standards .......................................................................... 7 The Migrant Education Program Seven Areas of Concern...................................................... 8 Indiana Concern Statements .................................................................................................. 9

Phase II: Gathering and Analyzing Data ................................................................................11

Indiana Migrant Student Profile .............................................................................................11 Parent and Staff Input Regarding Needs ...............................................................................17

Phase III: Making Decisions ...................................................................................................19

Goal Area 1: Proficiency in ELA.............................................................................................19 Goal Area 2: Proficiency in Mathematics ...............................................................................21 Goal Area 3: School Readiness .............................................................................................23 Goal Area 4: Graduation and Services for Secondary Youth .................................................24

Summary and Next Steps .......................................................................................................26

Table of Appendices ...............................................................................................................28

Appendices CNA Data Tables, Charts, and Analysis ...................................................................... Appendix A CNA Planning Chart .................................................................................................... Appendix B CNA Surveys ............................................................................................................. Appendix C

Indiana MEP Comprehensive Needs Assessment 1

Introduction The primary purpose of the Indiana Migrant Education Program (MEP) is to help migratory

children and youth overcome challenges of mobility, cultural and language barriers, social

isolation, and other difficulties associated with a migratory life, in order that they might succeed

in school. Furthermore, the Indiana MEP must give priority for services to migratory children and

youth who (1) have made a qualifying move within the previous 1-year period and who (2) are

failing, or most at risk of failing, to meet the challenging State academic standards; or have

dropped out of school. The term ‘migratory child’ means a child or youth ages birth to age 21

who made a qualifying move in the preceding 36 months (A) as a migratory agricultural worker

or a migratory fisher; or (B) with, or to join, a parent or spouse who is a migratory agricultural

worker or a migratory fisher. [Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)/Every Student

Succeeds Act (ESSA) Section 1309 (3)]

In order to better understand and articulate the specific services that the Indiana MEP should

target to migratory children and youth and their families, a comprehensive assessment of needs

was completed as part of a thorough review of the entire Statewide MEP.

This document describes the needs of migratory children eligible for the Indiana MEP and

proposes solutions and strategies to meet those needs. The Comprehensive Needs

Assessment (CNA) was completed with input from a committee of stakeholders from Indiana

and a consultant with knowledge of the process and procedures for conducting CNA meetings.

Stakeholders included IN MEP administrative staff, teachers, recruiters, experts in literacy,

math, and technology education, and migrant parents. All six MEP regions were represented

(see the committee membership list at the beginning of the report).

This CNA report provides an overview of the processes and procedures used for coming to

conclusions as well as an action plan with recommended strategies and interventions that aim

to close the gaps between where Indiana migratory children are now and where the Needs

Assessment Committee (NAC) believes they should be.

Organization of the CNA Report

Following this brief introduction, there are seven sections to the CNA report. CNA Process describes the procedures used to make decisions and the rationale for

committee selection.

Authorizing Statute and Guidance for Conducting the CNA provides legal underpinnings on

which Indiana conducts its CNA activities.

Phase I, Exploring What Is includes discussion about what is known about migrant students

and determination of the focus and scope of the needs assessment.


Phase II, Gathering and Analyzing Data builds a comprehensive understanding of the gaps

between Indiana migrant students and all other students in the State with a migrant student

profile.

Phase III, Making Decisions summarizes needs, solutions, and a research base on which to

build the Service Delivery Plan (SDP).

Summary and Next Steps offers evidence-based conclusions and discusses the next steps in

applying the results of the SDP to planning services for Indiana’s migrant students. This section

sets the stage for the implementation and evaluation of MEP services.

Appendices include supporting documentation for the CNA and SDP as well as the final

planning charts summarizing concerns, solutions, strategies, and measurable program

outcomes (MPOs).


CNA Process

The Comprehensive Needs Assessment Process in Indiana

The most recent CNA was completed in 2014-15 with data from 2013-14. This 2017-18 report

reexamines all sections using the most recent data available from 2016-17. The CNA aligns to

recommendations from the Office of Migrant Education’s (OME) CNA Toolkit published in 2012

and updates concerns and needs based on changes in the migrant student population, changes

to program administration and structure, and seasonal agricultural activities. We have taken into

account:

what has been done in the past to conduct a comprehensive assessment of needs in Indiana as well as the State and local context for assessing and providing comprehensive services to migrant students;

OME’s recommended procedures for conducting a CNA and guidance on successful strategies to incorporate in the Indiana CNA to move the MEP closer to achieving its State goals as well as those required federally;

the most recent migrant student achievement data and outcomes as compared with non-migrant students;

program changes arising from new law and guidance for ESSA;

the development and refinement of needs assessment systems and tools for collecting Statewide survey data locally; and

the recommendations made by a broad-based NAC that assisted the State in its CNA decision making.

The Indiana CNA will guide

future programming and policy

decisions to ensure that the

Program’s resources are

directed at the most needed

and most effective services for

migratory children and youth

and their families.

The Continuous Improvement

Cycle proposed by OME (the

graphic to the right) served as a

model for the activities

conducted through the update to the Indiana CNA. This model illustrates the relationship

between the CNA, State plan for the delivery of services through the SDP process, the

implementation of services through a defined process for applications for funds and the

implementation of programs through local sub-grantees, and the evaluation of services.

The Indiana process included both the assessment of needs and the identification of potential

solutions at three levels.


Level #1: Service Receivers (i.e., migrant students and parents)

Level #2: Service Providers and Policymakers (i.e., State and local MEP staff)

Level #3: Resources (i.e., the system that facilitates or impedes efforts of MEP staff)

Data Collection Procedures

Various data collection methods were employed to assess needs and identify solutions. These

methods included

• surveys conducted with MEP directors, school administrators and staff, recruiters, and migrant parents;

• reviews of State assessment results in reading/English language arts (ELA) and mathematics with comparisons made between migrant student achievement results and that of their non-migrant peers for migrant students residing in Indiana, Texas, and Florida;

• reports on achievement and credit accrual toward high school graduation that were generated through the Migrant Information and Data Access System (MIDAS); and

• local records of achievement and participation. The Indiana NAC was involved during the entire three phases of the CNA process and were

instrumental in formulating the recommendations for program improvement contained in this

report. This valid CNA process lays the groundwork for designing a needs-based program of

services that will address the complex challenges faced by migratory children and youth and

their families.


Authorizing Statute and Guidance for Conducting the Comprehensive Needs Assessment

Purpose of the CNA

A MEP CNA is required by the OME of the U.S. Department of Education under Section 1306 of

the ESEA as reauthorized as ESSA for Title I Part C, Section 1304(1) and 2(2). States must

address the special educational needs of migratory children in accordance with a

comprehensive State plan that:

is integrated with other programs under the ESEA and may be submitted as part of the

State consolidated application; provides that migratory children will have an opportunity to meet the same challenging

State academic content standards and challenging State student academic achievement standards that all children are expected to meet;

specifies measurable program goals and outcomes; encompasses the full range of services that are available for migratory children from

appropriate local, State, and Federal educational programs; is the product of joint planning among such local, State, and Federal programs, including

programs under Part A, early childhood programs, and language instruction programs; and

provides for the integration of available MEP services with other Federal-, State-, or locally-operated programs.

The State MEP has flexibility in implementing the CNA through its local education agencies or

local operating agencies, except that funds must be used to meet the identified needs of

migratory children that result from their migratory lifestyle. The purpose of the CNA is to: 1)

focus on ways to permit migratory children with priority for services (PFS) to participate

effectively in school; and 2) meet migrant student needs not addressed by services available

from other Federal or non-Federal programs.

Policy guidance issued by OME states that needs assessments must be conducted annually

using the best information available. The needs assessment serves as the blueprint for

establishing Statewide priorities for local procedures and provides a basis for the State to

allocate funds to local operating agencies. The CNA should take a systematic approach that

progresses through a defined series of phases, involving key stakeholders such as migrant

parents and students as appropriate, educators and administrators of programs that serve

migrant students, content area experts, and other individuals that are critical to ensuring

commitment and follow-up.

Planning Phase of the Indiana CNA

The Indiana CNA was designed to develop an understanding of the unique educational needs

and educationally-related needs of Indiana migrant students and their families. Not only does

this analysis of needs provide a foundation for the future direction of the Indiana MEP through


the Comprehensive State Plan for Service Delivery, but it also supports the overall continuous

improvement and quality assurance processes of the Indiana MEP and the overall State Plan.

The needs analysis was adapted to the resources and structures available in the State of

Indiana.

The Preparation Phase of the Indiana CNA involved two major objectives:

1. garner a sense of commitment to the needs assessment in all levels of the Indiana MEP; and

2. gain an assurance that decision makers will follow-up by using the findings in an appropriate and timely manner.

The Management Plan defined the structure for the committee, delineated various roles and

responsibilities, and scheduled a calendar of meeting dates and timelines for tasks to be

completed. The Indiana NAC was charged with:

• Reviewing existing implementation, student achievement, and outcome data on migrant students in Indiana.

• Drafting concerns, needs statements and possible solutions to inform the SDP.

• Reviewing the data to determine the elements to include on the final version of the migrant student profile.

• Recommending additional data collection to determine the scope of student needs.

• Making recommendations to the State on needs and profile data to be included in the CNA Report.

• Reviewing summary materials and the CNA report to provide feedback to the State. The Project Manager, Valerie Beard, in collaboration with META Associates implemented the

final step in management planning, the logistical plan. A schedule of meetings was developed

specifying the requirements for each meeting and the meeting goals and anticipated activities.

The tasks for each meeting were laid out in an Implementation Guide that was revised after

each meeting to incorporate unanticipated activities.


Phase I: Exploring “What Is”

Overview of Phase I: Exploring “What Is”

The purpose of Phase I was to: 1) investigate what already is known about the special

educational needs of the target group; 2) determine the focus and scope of the CNA; and

3) gain commitment for all stages of the assessment including the use of the findings for

program planning and implementation. The term special educational needs describes

educationally-related needs that result from a migratory lifestyle that must be met in order for

migratory children to participate effectively in school. The CNA process:

• includes both needs identification and the assessment of potential solutions;

• addresses all relevant goals established for migratory children;

• identifies the needs of migratory children at a level useful for program design purposes;

• collects data from appropriate target groups; and

• examines needs data disaggregated by key subgroups. Again, the primary purpose of the CNA is to guide the overall design of the Indiana MEP on a

Statewide basis as well as to assure that the findings of the CNA will be folded into the

Comprehensive State Plan for Service Delivery.

CNA Goal Areas and the Indiana Standards

During the first NAC meeting on March 1, 2018, the Committee addressed the following:

1) Understand the CNA update process

2) Review data collected through the State MEP Comprehensive Needs Assessment

3) Review and revise the CNA concern statements and need statements

4) Identify data sources for concerns and need statements and any additional data needed The committee reviewed the goal areas originally established by the OME and indicated how

the needs of Indiana migrant students fit within these broad categories and combined areas of

need as practitioners and content area experts found necessary. The Indiana Academic

Standards provide a guide to delivering challenging and meaningful content to students that

prepares them for success in life. The standards represent what all children are expected to

know and learn and migrant students are given the same opportunities as all children to meet

the standards.

Aligning with the Indiana Academic Standards, the four goal areas established by the committee

are listed below. These four goal areas serve as the organizational structure for establishing

concerns, identifying solutions, and will form the basis of the SDP.


Goal 1: Proficiency in ELA Goal 2: Proficiency in Mathematics Goal 3: School Readiness Goal 4: Graduation from High School and Services for Secondary Youth

The Migrant Education Program Seven Areas of Concern

There are seven common areas of concern that emerged from a CNA initiative undertaken by

OME from 2002-2005 in four States. Seven areas emerged from this initiative as being

important for all States to consider as they begin to conduct their Statewide assessment of

needs.

These Seven Areas of Concern served as a focus around which the Indiana CNA Committee

developed concern statements. These concern statements, in turn, will be used by Indiana

State MEP staff and other key stakeholders to design appropriate services to meet the special

educational needs of migrant students. The seven recommended areas of concern and the

Indiana context for these concerns are described below.

1. Educational Continuity—Because migrant students often are forced to move during the

regular school year and experience interruptions due to absences, students tend to

encounter a lack of educational continuity. Migrant students experience differences in

curriculum, articulation of classes, homework policies, and classroom routines. Their

course placements reflect inconsistencies. The cumulative impact of educational

discontinuity is daunting. Efforts to overcome this pattern of incoherence are needed to

strengthen educational continuity.

2. Time for Instruction—Mobility also impacts the amount of time students spend in class

and their attendance patterns. Many Indiana migrant students leave school early from

Texas or Florida for agricultural work in Indiana, and some groups stay into October

returning to school late. Such decreases in the time students spend engaged in learning

leads to lower levels of achievement. Identifying methods for ameliorating the impact of

family mobility and delays in enrollment procedures is essential.

3. School Engagement—Various factors relating to migrancy such as culture and work

schedule impact student engagement in school. Students may be unable to engage in

after school activities because they have no transportation or may need to work after

school. They may encounter cultural misunderstandings and bias because of moving

into a community where few share their background.

4. English Language Development—English language development is critical for academic

success. Since many migrant students have a home language other than English,

migrant programs must find avenues to supplement the difficulties faced by migrant

students in the process of learning English due to their unique lifestyle, while not

supplanting Title III program activities.


5. Education Support in the Home—Home environment is often associated with a child’s

success in school, reflecting exposure to reading materials, a broad vocabulary, and

educational games and puzzles. Such resources reflect parent educational background

and socio-economic status. While many migrant parents value education for their

children, they may not always know how to support their children in a manner consistent

with school expectations nor have the means to offer an educationally rich home

environment.

6. Health—Good health is a basic need that migrant students often do not attain. The

compromised dental and nutritional status of migratory children is well documented.

They have higher proportions of acute and chronic health problems and there are higher

childhood and infant mortality rates than those experienced by their non-migrant peers.

They are at greater risk than other children due to pesticide poisoning, farm injuries,

heat-related illness, and poverty. They are more likely to be uninsured and have

difficulties with health care access. Families often need assistance in addressing health

problems that interfere with the student’s ability to learn.

7. Access to Services—Newcomer status and home languages other than English often

decrease access to educational and educationally-related services to which migratory

children and their families are entitled. Since they are not viewed as members of the

community because of their mobility, services become more difficult to obtain.

Indiana Concern Statements

During the first CNA meeting, the NAC developed concern statements in each of the goal areas

and categorized needs according to the seven areas of concern. The development of the

Concern Statements followed an eight step protocol as well as specific criteria on how to write

the statements. At each of the subsequent meetings, the NAC refined concerns based on

additional data and input. The final Concern Statements, in order of importance as ranked by

the committee, are listed below.

Indiana Concern Statements

Goal Area 1: ELA Proficiency Data Source

1.1) We are concerned that migrant students are achieving proficiency in ELA at a lower rate than their non-migrant peers due to limited English acquisition and high mobility.

CSPR

1.2) We are concerned that migrant students do not have equitable access to or knowledge of state-of the-art technology, tools, and internet that are essential to prepare them with 21st century skills necessary for college or careers in a technology-rich learning and working environment.

Digital Literacy Assessment


1.3) We are concerned that migrant students lack educational resources in the home that support ELA achievement, including parent knowledge of the educational system, literacy materials, and literacy tools.

Parent Survey Staff Survey

Goal Area 2: Mathematics Proficiency Data Source

2.1) We are concerned that migrant students are achieving mathematics proficiency at a lower rate than their non-migrant peers due to limited English language acquisition and high mobility.

CSPR

2.2) We are concerned that migrant students do not have equitable access to or knowledge of state of the art technology, Internet, tools and software to support math instruction.

Staff Survey Digital Literacy Assessment

2.3) We are concerned that migrant students lack educational resources in the home that support mathematics achievement, including academic support strategies, educational materials that are culturally and linguistically appropriate, and mathematics tools.

Parent Survey

Goal Area 3: School Readiness Data Source

3.1) We are concerned that preschool migratory children have not acquired sufficient school readiness skills.

School Readiness Checklist

3.2.) We are concerned that parents of preschool migratory children lack sufficient knowledge and resources to help them support the school readiness of their children.

Parent Survey

Goal Area 4: HS Graduation & Services for Secondary Age Youth Data Source

4.1) We are concerned that migrant students and parents do not have sufficient knowledge or support necessary to navigate the educational system, graduation requirements, postsecondary education, and/or career options.


4.2) We are concerned that high school aged migrant students are not demonstrating proficiency in mathematics and ELA at the same level as non-migrant peers.

CSPR

4.3) We are concerned that migrant students lack appropriate support services necessary to fully engage in their education.


4.4) We are concerned that migrant students who are not enrolled in school while in Indiana are not receiving vocational training or making progress toward their high school diplomas or equivalency.

CSPR OSY Profile


Phase II: Gathering and Analyzing Data In the second phase of the CNA process, the key objectives were to build a comprehensive

understanding of the gaps between Indiana migrant students and all other students in the State

and post solutions based on data. Three broad categories of Indiana migrant student data were

targeted: demographic data; achievement data; and stakeholder feedback. Demographic and

achievement data were drawn from the State student database, End-of-Project Performance

Reports, the Consolidated State Performance Report (CSPR), and the State Report Card.

Perception data were collected from migrant staff and parents via surveys. A summary of the

data collected is found below in the student profile, and the survey instruments can be found in

Appendix C.

Indiana Migrant Student Profile

The migrant student profile includes 2016-17 data except where noted. These data represent

the best possible effort to describe a “typical” migrant student in Indiana; however, the NAC

made particular note that migrant students often have needs and characteristics that do not

always match the peer group. Therefore, data should be interpreted in broad strokes and not

applied to every migrant student in Indiana. Data sources, tables, charts, and additional

analyses from which the profile was drawn are found in Appendix A.

Eligibility

There were 2,265 eligible migrant students in 2016-17 (all migratory children and youth birth

through 21). Due to changes in the structure of identification and recruitment (ID&R) efforts, the

number of migratory students has increased in recent years. Changes to ID&R included:

Qualified recruitment field specialists that work and live in the region they serve.

Regional service centers and local school corporation coordination

Increased focus on establishing community relationships and understanding of the MEP

Exhibit 1: Number of Eligible Migratory Children by Year

1,5991,451

1,126 1,087

1,777 1,741

2,1222,265

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17


Mobility

Most Indiana migrant students (87%) move within the U.S., and about 11% move from

Mexico.

The States sending the largest numbers of migrant students are Texas (40%) and

Florida (16%), and about 34% of migrant families consider Indiana their home.

Forty-three percent (43%) of eligible students had a qualifying arrival date (QAD) during

the 2016-17 performance period, and 11% had a QAD during the regular school year

(RSY).

Exhibit 2: Percent of Migratory Children Arriving in the Performance Period or RSY

QAD during performance period, 43%

Previous QAD, 57%

QAD during the regular school

year, 11%

QAD during the summer, 89%


Priority Students

740 migrant students (35%) were identified as being PFS

The number of PFS students identified at the individual grade levels varied somewhat

from 28% of fourth graders to 46% of OSY.

Exhibit 3: PFS Students

PFS, 35%

Non-PFS, 65%

29%

41%

34%37% 35%

28%

37% 35%39%

31%36% 33% 31% 30%

46%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Age3-5

K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 OSY


Language Proficiency

English learner (EL) refers to a student whose home language is a language other than

English and is not proficient on an approved State assessment of language proficiency.

Note that the NAC reported that there are more EL migrant students, but they are not in

the state during the EL assessment windows and are not formally identified.

A total of 937 migrant students (45%) were identified as limited in English proficiency

compared to 5% of the non-migrant population.

Exhibit 4: Percent of Students Identified as EL by Group

MEP Services

A total of 2,240 migrant students (99%) received either an instructional or support

service during the performance period.

1,522 migrant students (67%) received instructional services.

1,592 migrant students (98%) received support services

1,423 migrant students (63%) received services during the summer

Exhibit 5: Number Served by Type of Service

Grade N Any

Instruction Reading

Instruction Math

Instruction Any

Support Summer

0-2yrs 164 25 1 1 163 121

Age 3-5 312 165 71 69 303 157

K 123 89 60 60 123 80

1 127 98 66 67 126 75

2 149 104 76 76 146 93

3 118 92 61 61 116 81

4 137 100 70 68 135 96

45%

5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Migrant EL Non-migrant EL


Grade N Any

Instruction Reading

Instruction Math

Instruction Any

Support Summer

5 114 96 62 60 112 76

6 102 82 48 46 102 71

7 110 88 48 48 108 62

8 110 76 37 36 108 77

9 123 96 41 39 123 89

10 126 88 32 32 121 77

11 106 73 23 20 103 69

12 63 40 13 12 61 13

OSY 281 210 50 34 278 186

Total 2,265 1,522 759 729 2,228 1,423

Graduation and Dropout

The number of students who graduated from high school in Indiana was 36 out of the 40

seniors enrolled in 2016-17.

Exhibit 6: Migrant Students Dropping Out of School by Grade Level

Grade

2015-16 2016-17

Number Eligible

Number Dropping

Out Number Eligible

Number Dropping

Out

7 105 1 110 0

8 105 0 110 0

9 134 1 123 0

10 106 0 126 0

11 101 4 106 2

12 39 2 63 1

Total 590 8 638 3

Dropout Rate

1.36% 0.47%


MEP Projects and Staff

The MEP is a State-operated program

which signifies that funds go directly to

the State Education Agency. The State

then sub-allocates to local operating

agencies (LOAs). Beginning in 2018-

19, Indiana funded three regional

service providers (see the map) and a

Statewide coordination grant. Each

region is responsible for identifying and

serving all migrant students in the

counties for that region.

Top agricultural jobs for Indiana migratory families: Corn, blueberries, tomatoes, milking

cows, poultry and pork processing,

melons, asparagus, pumpkins,

peppers, tobacco, strawberries

Academic Achievement

On the Indiana Statewide Testing for

Educational Progress Plus (ISTEP+) in mathematics, the gap in proficiency rates for migrant

students compared to non-migrant students was 25%, and in ELA the gap was 28%. State

assessment results should be interpreted with caution as the group that took the State

assessment represents a small subset of the overall migratory student population in Indiana

(20% of all eligible migrant students). The majority of Indiana migratory students are resident in

the summer and early fall, outside of the State assessment window. Note that the NAC

reviewed passing rates for migrant students from Florida and Texas (the two largest sending

states) in addition to passing rates from Indiana. Because these states have different

assessments and procedures, it is not appropriate to compare proficiency rates. However, the

NAC noted that migrant students in all three states are proficient on state assessments at a

lower rate than non-migrant students taking the same assessment.

Region 1

Region 2

Region 3


Exhibit 7: Migrant and Non-migrant Student Proficiency on the Mathematics State

Assessment

Exhibit 8: Migrant and Non-migrant Student Proficiency on the ELA State Assessment

Parent and Staff Input Regarding Needs

A total of 94 MEP teachers, recruiters, paraprofessionals, records clerks, and administrators

who had direct contact with migrant students responded to a survey about students’

instructional needs, students’ support service needs, staff professional development needs,

parent involvement needs, and program needs. The needs that most staff (over 50%) identified

as the most pressing are identified in each area below.

56%

62%65%

59%

50%54%

36%

54%

34%37% 36%

28%

22%

27%

10%

29%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

3 4 5 6 7 8 HS Total

Non-migrant Migrant

67% 66%61%

65% 64%61% 60%

63%

47%

40%

25%

37%

29%

35%

24%

35%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

3 4 5 6 7 8 HS Total

Non-migrant Migrant


Instructional needs Support service needs

Summer programs

Preschool programs

Extended day tutoring during the RSY

Supplemental reading

Supplemental math

parent involvement activities

books, materials, and supplies

Professional development topics needed Parent involvement topics

strategies to support English language learners

ideas for involving migrant parents

ideas for parents to help with homework

essential English for parents to communicate with the school

identifying community resources

A total of 65 parents of migratory children responded to a survey about students’ instructional

needs, support service needs, parent involvement needs, and program needs. The needs that

most parents (over 50%) identified as the most pressing are identified in each area below.

Instructional needs Support service needs

summer programs

more reading help

before/after school tutoring

books, materials, and supplies

health (medical/dental/vision)

planning for college or career

Program improvements most needed Parent involvement topics

information about helping children improve in reading and math

helping with homework in reading and math

essential English for parents

information about the U.S. educational system

drug/school safety and awareness

planning for after high school


Phase III: Making Decisions In the third phase of the CNA process, the key objective was to review data and develop viable

conclusions and recommendations that are used as a foundation for the SDP. During the

second meeting on April 12, 2018, the NAC met to develop comprehensive recommendations

to:

Ensure that the recommended solutions are feasible and can be effectively implemented;

Ensure that the recommended solutions have a strong possibility of impacting the current achievement gap and affect the causes of the current achievement gap;

Ensure that the solutions are acceptable to all stakeholders involved (e.g., migrant parents, MEP staff, district administrators).

The following section offers the final recommendations for need indicators, solutions, and

research-based materials made by the NAC. The complete chart of concerns, indicators, and

solutions is found in Appendix B.

The need indicators and need statements are cited below for the goal areas of ELA,

mathematics, school readiness, and graduation/services for secondary youth. Data tables

supporting the need indicators and need statements are cited and included in Appendix A.

Goal Area 1: Proficiency in ELA

# Need Indicator Need Statement Data Table

1.1 Need indicators: Gaps between migrant and non-migrant students on State assessments in ELA: IN: 28%; FL: 25%; and TX: 18%. In ELA, 34.6% of migrant students were proficient compared to the 2023 target proficiency rate of 66.8%. 44.6% of the migrant population is EL compared to 5.2% of the general Indiana population. 43% of MEP children moved in 2016-17.

Migrant student proficiency in ELA needs to increase 28% to close achievement gaps. To meet the 2023 proficiency rate target in ELA, there needs to be an increase of 4.6% annually.

A.1 A.3 A.5 A.7 A.11 Exhibit 2

1.2 99% of migrant students receiving summer instruction and assessed on the digital literacy assessment scored below proficient on the pre-assessment in one or more areas.

Migrant student proficiency with technology tools focused on learning ELA skills needs to increase.

A.20



1.3 57% of parents needed information on how to help their child in reading. 58% indicated a need for help with homework support in reading and math. 80% of MEP staff indicated that parent support was needed in this area. 55% of parents said they needed additional books, materials, and supplies for the home. 52% of parents indicated needing additional information about the U.S. educational system.

Student access to educational resources for the home needs to increase. Parents need a deeper understanding of the US educational system and tools to support their children’s literacy development at home.

A.22 A.23 A.24 A.25 A.29

Solutions

1.1 Provide evidence-based ELA instructional services for migrant students in forms that may include bilingual resources, technology-based instruction, and self-paced materials through either site-based or home-based instructional programs during the regular school year or summer.

1.2 Provide equitable access for students to innovative technologies that support ELA instruction and develop 21st century skills.

1.3a Facilitate communication between migrant families and schools, community organizations, and the Migrant Regional Center (MRC) to provide equitable access to all available resources.

1.3b Provide training for migrant families about the local educational system and how they can

support their children’s academic development at home.

Supporting Research and Promising Practices

Askew, B. J., Fountas, I. C., Lyons, C. A., Pinnell, G. S., & Schmitt, M. C. (1998). Reading Recovery Review: Understandings Outcomes & Implications.

Calkins, L. (1986, 1994). The Art of Writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Calkins, L., Hartman, A., & White, Z. (2005). One to One: The art of conferring with young writers. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Celic, C. (2009). English Language Learners Day by Day K-6. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Cooper, H., Charlton, K., Valentine, J. C., & Muhlenbruck, L. (2000). Making the most of summer school. A meta-analytic and narrative review. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 65 (1, Serial No. 260), 1-118.

Diller, D. (2003). Literacy Work Stations: Making Centers Work. Stenhouse Publishers.

Echevarria, J., Vogt, ME., & Short, D. (2013). Making content comprehensible for English language learners: The SIOP Model 3rd edition. Pearson Higher Ed.

Gouwens, J.A. (2001). Migrant Education. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, Inc.

Jasis, P., & Marriott, D. (2010). All for our children: Migrant families and parent participation in an alternative education program. Journal of Latinos and Education, 9(2), 126-140.


Keene, E.O. & Zimmermann, S. (1997). Mosaic of Thought: Teaching Comprehension in a Reader's Workshop. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Laman, T. T. (2013). From ideas to words: Writing strategies for English language learners. Heineman.

Oberg De La Garza, T. & Lavigne, A.L. (2015). Salsa Dancing in Gym Shoes: Exploring cross-cultural missteps with Latinos in the classroom. Advanced Classroom Strategies, Inc.

Opitz, M.F. (2009). Comprehension and English Language Learners. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Optiz, M.F. & Ford, M.P. (2001). Reaching Readers: Flexible & Innovative Strategies for Guided Reading. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Pinnell, G. S. (2001). Guided reading. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Pinnell, G. S., & Fountas, I. C. (2007). The Continuum of Literacy Learning, Grades K-8: Behaviors and Understandings to Notice, Teach, and Support. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Taberski, S. (2000). On Solid Ground: Strategies for Teaching Reading K-3. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Van Sluys, K. (2011). Becoming Writers in the Elementary Classroom: Visions and Decisions. National Council of Teachers of English.

Goal Area 2: Proficiency in Mathematics


2.1 Gaps between migrant and non-migrant students on State assessments: IN: 25%; FL: 16%; and TX: 11%. In mathematics, 31.0% of migrant students were proficient compared to the 2023 target proficiency rate of 65.5%. 44.6% of the migrant population is EL compared to 5.2% of the general Indiana population. 43% of MEP children moved in 2016-17.

Migrant student proficiency in mathematics needs to increase 25% to close achievement gaps. To meet the 2023 proficiency rate target in mathematics, there needs to be an increase of 4.9% annually.

A.1 A.2 A.4 A.6 Exhibit 2

2.2 99% of migrant students receiving summer instruction and assessed on the digital literacy assessment scored below proficient on the pre-assessment in one or more areas.

Migrant student proficiency with technology tools focused on learning math skills needs to increase.

A.20



2.3 Parents indicated needs on the parent survey with 90% expressing a need for information about the Indiana education system and requirements, more help learning English, more mathematics help, parent involvement activities, supplemental books and materials; or interpreting or translating.

Student access to educational resources that support knowledge and skill development in needs to increase.

A.22 A.23 A.24 A.25

Solutions

2.1 Provide evidence-based math instructional services for migrant students in forms that may include: bilingual resources, technology-based instruction, and self-paced materials through either site-based or home-based instructional programs during the regular school year or summer.

2.2 Provide equitable access to instructional and support services such as math-specific programs, Internet access (when applicable), innovative technologies that support math instruction, and develop 21st century skills.

2.3 Provide instructional and support services to facilitate the participation of all migrant students in instruction by coordinating or providing services aligned to student needs. Examples may include: transportation to/from MEP-funded services, Internet access (when applicable), access to health and nutrition services, virtual tutoring, etc.


Carpenter, T. P, Fennema, E., Franke, M. L., Levi, L., & Empson, S. B. (1999). Children’s mathematics: Cognitively guided instruction. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Celic, C. (2009). English Language Learners Day by Day K-6. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Cooper, H., Charlton, K., Valentine, J. C., & Muhlenbruck, L. (2000). Making the most of summer school. A meta-analytic and narrative review. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 65 (1, Serial No. 260), 1-118.

Echevarria, J., Vogt, ME., & Short, D. (2013). Making content comprehensible for English language learners: The SIOP Model 3rd edition. Pearson Higher Ed.

Fennema, E. & Romberg, T.A. (1999). Mathematics Classrooms that Promote Understanding. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Jasis, P., & Marriott, D. (2010). All for our children: Migrant families and parent participation in an alternative education program. Journal of Latinos and Education, 9(2), 126-140.

Lembke, E. & Stecker, P. (2007). Curriculum-based measurement in mathematics: An evidence-based formative assessment procedure. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2006). Curriculum focal points for prekindergarten through Grade 8 mathematics: A quest for coherence. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.


National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. U.S. Department of Education.

Optiz, M.F. & Ford, M.P. (2001). Reaching Readers: Flexible & Innovative Strategies for Guided Reading. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Goal Area 3: School Readiness

# Need Indicator Need Statement Data Table 3.1 78% of migrant PK/K students

assessed on the IMEP School Readiness Checklist had not mastered sufficient skills for preparation for kindergarten.

By the time preschoolers enter kindergarten, the number demonstrating mastery on the IMEP School Readiness Checklist needs to increase by 78%.

A.9

3.2 35% of all migrant parents indicated that there is a need to receive information on preparing children ages 3-5 for school. 32% of all migrant parents indicated a need for preschool programs and locating resources for their children.

Parent access to activities and information about preparing preschool migratory children for school needs to increase.

A.22 A.24

Solutions

3.1a. Provide evidence-based instructional and support services within site-based or home-based early childhood education programs during the regular school year or summer.

3.1b. Provide MEP staff with high quality professional development opportunities regarding strategies that promote acquisition of school readiness skills.

3.2a. Provide preschool materials, training, and information to parents so they are more able to support their children’s growth in readiness skills during the regular school year or summer.

3.2b. Coordinate with community agencies and programs to provide access to programs with a focus on readiness skills aligned with State standards.


Bracken, S. S., & Fischel, J. E. (2008). Family reading behavior and early literacy skills in preschool children from low-income backgrounds. Early Education and Development, 19(1), 45-67.

Clay, M. M. (1993). An observation survey of early literacy achievement. Heinemann, 361 Hanover St., Portsmouth, NH 03801-3912.

Griffin, P., Burns, M. S., & Snow, C. E. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. National Academies Press.

Harvard Family Research Project. (2005). Preparing educators to involve families: From theory to practice. Heather B. Weiss (Ed.). Sage.

National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2005). NAEYC early childhood program standards: position statement approved by the NAEYC governing board 2005. Retrieved from


http://naeyc.org/files/naeyc/Position%20Statement%20EC%20Standards.pdf.

Parent Teacher Association. (2008). National Standards for Family-School Partnerships. Retrieved March 31, 2015 from http://www.pta.org/

West, J., Denton, K., & Reaney, L. (2001). The Kindergarten Year. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.

Zarate, M.E. (2007). Understanding Latino Parental Involvement in Education. Los Angeles, CA: The Tomás Rivera Policy Institute, University of Southern California.

Goal Area 4: Graduation and Services for Secondary Youth


4.1 51% of parents said planning for college and a career was a top priority for their household. 52% of parents said they needed more information about helping their children plan for after high school. 48% of Staff identified “Planning for Post-Secondary” as a recommendation for improving Migrant Parent Involvement.

Migrant students and parents need additional support in navigating the educational system, graduation requirements, post-secondary education, and/or career options.

A.23 A.25 A.29

4.2 Gaps between high school migrant and non-migrant students on State assessments in ELA: IN: 48%; FL: 24%; and TX: 19%. Gaps in math: IN: 30%; FL: 15%; and TX: 11% In ELA, 10% of migrant secondary students were proficient compared to the 2023 target proficiency rate of 55%. In math, 3% were proficient and the State target is 51.5%

Migrant secondary student proficiency in ELA needs to increase 48% and in math 30% to close achievement gaps. To meet the 2023 proficiency rate targets, there needs to be an increase of 6.4% in ELA and 6.9% in math annually.

A.1 A.2 A.3 A.4 A.5 A.6 A.7 A.8

4.3 53% of staff indicated that support services needed by migrant students include books, materials, and supplies. 55% of parents said they needed additional books, materials, and supplies for the home. 58% of parents and 80% of staff said parent activities geared toward helping with homework for reading and math would help parents support their children’s learning.

Migrant students and parents need additional support to facilitate engagement in school.

A.23 A.25 A.27 A.29

4.4 75% OSY received instructional services and 4% received credit accrual. The committee notes that for OSY these instructional services are not vocational training, credit accrual, or high school equivalence diploma (HSED) prep. The committee observes that many migrant students have limited access to careers outside of the migrant lifestyle.

The percentage of OSY engaged in vocational training, HSE preparation, or credit accrual appropriate to their interests and goals needs to increase.

A.21

http://naeyc.org/files/naeyc/Position%20Statement%20EC%20Standards.pdf

http://www.pta.org/


Solutions

4.1 Help students set and meet graduation and college/career readiness goals with

evidence-based supplemental instruction in a school-based, home-based, or

technology-assisted model.

4.2 Establish and implement rigorous programming for secondary students/OSY including

after-school programs, in-home tutoring, and summer school programming with an

emphasis on ELA & Math.

4.3 Provide equitable access to support services such as content-specific programs,

Internet access (when applicable), and assessment programs that will enhance the

educational process.

4.4a Provide opportunities for credit accrual through evening classes, instruction with flexible

scheduling, online classes, vocational, and alternative programs.

4.4b Facilitate mentorship and leadership training opportunities that promote student agency

for secondary migrant students and families.


ALAS. (2011). Using Technology to Prepare ELLs in Math for College and Career. Marlborough, MA: Association of Latino Administrators and Superintendents.

Gouwens, J.A. (2001). Migrant Education. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, Inc.

Harvard Family Research Project. (2005). Preparing educators to involve families: From theory to practice. Heather B. Weiss (Ed.). Sage.

Kittle, P. (2008). Write beside them. Risk, voice, and clarity in high school writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Krajník, T., Vonásek, V., Fišer, D., & Faigl, J. (2011). AR-drone as a platform for robotic research and education. In Research and Education in Robotics-EUROBOT 2011 (pp. 172-186). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

Lukes, M. (2015). Latino Immigrant Youth and Interrupted Schooling: Dropouts, Dreamers and Alternative Pathways to College (Vol. 100). Multilingual Matters.

Romanowski, M. H. (2003). Meeting the unique needs of the children of migrant farm workers. The Clearing House, 77(1), 27-33.

Salinas, C. & Fránquiz, M.E. (2004). Scholars in the Field. Charleston, WV: AEL.

Servon, L. J. (2008). Bridging the digital divide: Technology, community and public policy. John Wiley & Sons.

Strategies and best practices from http://osymigrant.org

Tovani, C. (2000). I Read It, But I Don't Get It: Comprehension Strategies for Adolescent Readers. Stenhouse Publishers.

Valadez, J. R., & Durán, R. P. (2007). Redefining the digital divide: Beyond access to computers and the Internet. The High School Journal, 90(3), 31-44

Wimberly, G. L., & Noeth, R. J. (2005). College readiness begins in middle school. ACT, Washington, DC..

http://osymigrant.org/


Summary and Next Steps The Indiana plan for the delivery of services to meet the unique educational needs of its migrant students will serve as the basis for the use of all MEP funds in the State. This SDP is essential to help the Indiana MEP develop and articulate: the needs of migratory children on a Statewide basis; the MEP’s MPOs and how they help achieve the State’s performance targets; the services the MEP will provide on a Statewide basis; and how to evaluate whether and to what degree the program is effective. The Indiana MEP will include the following components in its comprehensive State Service Delivery Plan: 1. Performance Targets. The plan should specify the performance targets that the State has

adopted for all children and migratory children if applicable for: 1) reading; 2) math; 3) high school graduation; 4) the number of school dropouts; 5) school readiness; and 6) any other performance target that the State identifies.

2. Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) Measures: The plan should outline how

the State will address the GPRA measures: 1. The percentage of MEP students that scored at or above proficient on their State’s annual Reading/Language Arts assessments in grades 3-8 (currently collected). 2. The percentage of MEP students that scored at or above proficient on their State’s annual Mathematics assessments in grades 3-8 (currently collected). 3. The percentage of MEP students who were enrolled in grades 7-12 and graduated or were promoted to the next grade level (will be collected in the future). 4. The percentage of MEP students who entered 11th grade that had received full credit for Algebra I (will be collected in the future).

3. Leading Indicators: The plan should outline how the State will address the leading

indicators: 1. An increasing percentage of PFS migratory children will receive services. 2. An increasing percentage of grades 7 through 12 migratory children will receive any services. 3. An increasing percentage of 8th grade migratory children will score proficient or higher in Mathematics. 4. An increasing percentage of age 3 through 5 migratory children will receive instructional services.

4. Needs Assessment. The plan must include identification and an assessment of: (1) the

unique educational needs of migratory children that result from the children’s migrant lifestyle; and (2) other needs of migrant students that must be met in order for them to participate effectively in school.

5. Measurable Program Outcomes. The plan must include the MPOs that the MEP will produce

through specific educational or educationally-related services. MPOs allow the MEP to determine whether and to what degree the program has met the special educational needs of migratory children that were identified through the comprehensive needs assessment. The MPOs should also help achieve the State’s performance targets.

6. Service Delivery. The plan must describe the MEP’s strategies for achieving the

performance targets and measurable objectives described above. The State’s service delivery strategy must address: (1) the unique educational needs of migratory children that result from the children’s migrant lifestyle, and (2) other needs of migrant students that must be met in order for them to participate effectively in school.


8. Evaluation. The SDP must describe how the State will evaluate whether and to what

degree the program is effective in relation to the performance targets and MPOs. The Indiana MEP may also include the policies and procedures it will implement to address other administrative activities and program functions, such as:

Priority for Services. A description of how, on a Statewide basis, the MEP will give priority to migratory children who: have made a qualifying move within the previous 1-year period and who (1) are failing, or most at risk of failing, to meet the challenging State academic standards; or (2) have dropped out of school.

Parent Involvement. A description of the MEP’s consultation with parents (or with the State PAC, if the program is of one school year in duration) and whether the consultation occurred in a format and language that the parents understand.

Identification and Recruitment. A description of the State’s plan for identification and recruitment activities and its quality control procedures.

Student Records. A description of the State’s plan for requesting and using migrant student records and transferring migrant student records to schools and projects in which migrant students enroll.

In addition, Indiana will: 1) update the CNA as needed to reflect changing demographics and needs; 2) change our performance targets and/or MPOs to reflect changing needs; and 3) use evaluation data to change services that the MEP will provide and the evaluation design to reflect changes in needs. As part of the Indiana MEP continuous improvement model, the next step for the Indiana MEP is to use the information contained in this CNA report to inform the comprehensive State service delivery planning process. The State has begun planning for this activity and will use the OME toolkit, Migrant Education Service Delivery Plan Toolkit: A Tool for State Migrant Directors (August 2012).


Table of Appendices

CNA Data Tables, Charts, and Analysis .................................................................................... 29

CNA Planning Chart .................................................................................................................. 41

CNA Surveys ............................................................................................................................ 45


Appendix A: CNA Supporting Data

Exhibit A.1: Proficiency Targets for Migratory Students through 2023

Subject Migratory Student Proficiency 2016

Gap (100% - baseline)

50% Gap Reduction

Goal by 2023

2023 Target Proficiency

Rate

Annual Increase Needed

ELA 34.6% 64.4% 32.2% 66.8% 4.6%

Mathematics 31.0% 69.0% 34.5% 65.5% 4.9%

Exhibit A.2: Proficiency on the ISTEP+ Mathematics Assessment 2016-17

Grade

Non-migrant Migrant

Gap # Assessed % Proficient # Assessed % Proficient

3 80,664 56% 83 34% 22%

4 77,464 62% 89 37% 25%

5 77,762 65% 70 36% 29%

6 76,442 59% 57 28% 30%

7 77,491 50% 54 22% 27%

8 75,991 54% 52 27% 27%

HS 77,901 36% 49 10% 26%

Total 543,715 54% 454 29% 25%

Exhibit A.3: Proficiency on the ISTEP+ ELA Assessment 2016-17

Grade

Non-migrant Migrant


3 79,918 67% 81 47% 20%

4 77,243 66% 84 40% 25%

5 77,462 61% 68 25% 36%

6 76,348 65% 54 37% 28%

7 77,496 64% 52 29% 35%

8 75,902 61% 54 35% 25%

HS 78,277 60% 50 24% 36%

Total 542,646 63% 443 35% 28%


Exhibit A.4: Proficiency on the Texas State Assessment in Mathematics 2015-16

Grade

Non-migrant Migrant


3 408,565 74% 2,037 63% 11%

4 396,511 72% 2,050 61% 11%

5 394,859 85% 2,231 75% 10%

6 382,973 71% 2,093 56% 15%

7 358,807 68% 2,172 54% 14%

8 322,686 80% 2,128 71% 9%

HS 481,812 76% 3,382 65% 11%

Total 2,746,213 75% 16,093 64% 11%

Exhibit A.5: Proficiency on the Texas State Assessment in ELA 2015-16

Grade

Non-migrant Migrant


3 408,372 72 2,037 54% 18%

4 396,339 74 2,050 59% 15%

5 395,490 80 2,232 63% 17%

6 389,389 68 2,121 65% 3%

7 387,295 69 2,209 48% 21%

8 382,957 85 2,285 70% 15%

HS 104,1882 64 8,204 45% 19%

Total 3,401,724 72% 21,138 54% 17%

Exhibit A.6: Proficiency on the Florida State Assessment in Mathematics 2015-16

Grade

Non-migrant Migrant


3 218,264 61 1,548 44 17%

4 209,766 59 1,386 41 18%

5 200,079 56 1,190 39 17%

6 191,651 50 1,114 31 19%

7 190,104 56 1,035 35 21%

8 201,985 62 1,038 46 16%

HS 427,039 42 1,957 27 15%

Total 1,638,888 53% 9,268 37% 16%

Exhibit A.7: Proficiency on the Florida State Assessment in ELA 2015-16

Grade

Non-migrant Migrant


3 218,248 55 1,545 26 29%

4 208,559 52 1,361 31 21%

5 199,918 52 1,187 26 26%

6 196,648 52 1,117 26 26%

7 193,596 49 1,027 24 25%

8 195,265 57 1,027 34 23%

HS 397,060 50 1,855 26 24%

Total 1,609,294 52% 9,119 27% 25%


Exhibit A.8: Migrant Students Dropping Out of School by Grade Level

Grade

2015-16 2016-17

Number Eligible

Number Dropping

Out Number Eligible

Number Dropping

Out

7 105 1 110 0

8 105 0 110 0

9 134 1 123 0

10 106 0 126 0

11 101 4 106 2

12 39 2 63 1

Total 590 8 638 3

Dropout Rate

1.36% 0.47%

Exhibit A.9: School Readiness Checklist Results

Region Number PK/K Students Assessed (RSY & Summer)

Number with 19 of 26 skills mastered on pre-assessment

Percent of students mastering 19 of 26 skills

Percent missing more than 7 skills

1 23 4 17% 83%

2 21 3 14% 86%

3 16 8 50% 50%

4 17 7 41% 59%

5 36 4 11% 89%

6 3 0 0% 100%

Total 116 26 22% 78%

Demographics and Services Data

Exhibit A.10: Total Eligible Migratory children (includes birth to age 2)

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

1,599 1,451 1,126 1,087 1,777 1,741 2,122 2,265

Exhibit A.11: Number of Eligible PFS, LEP, and IDEA

# Students

PFS LEP IDEA

# % # % # %

2,101* 740 35% 937 45% 95 5% Source: CSPR Part II, 2016-17

*Does not include birth to age 2.

Exhibit A.12: Number Served and PFS Status for the Performance Period

Grade All

Eligible

Served Performance

Period

PFS Eligible PFS

Served

N % N %

0-2yrs 164 163 99% -- -- --

Age 3-5 312 303 97% 90 90 100%


Grade All

Eligible

Served Performance

Period

PFS Eligible PFS

Served

N % N %

K 123 123 100% 50 50 100%

1 127 127 100% 43 43 100%

2 149 148 99% 55 55 100%

3 118 118 100% 41 41 100%

4 137 135 99% 38 38 100%

5 114 114 100% 42 42 100%

6 102 102 100% 36 36 100%

7 110 109 99% 43 43 100%

8 110 108 98% 34 34 100%

9 123 123 100% 44 44 100%

10 126 122 97% 42 42 100%

11 106 104 98% 33 33 100%

12 63 62 98% 19 19 100%

OSY 281 279 99% 130 130 100%

Total 2,265 2,240 99% 740 740 100% Source: CSPR Part II, 2016-17

Exhibit A.13: Number Served and PFS Status for the Summer Term

Grade All

Eligible

Served Summer Term

PFS Eligible

PFS Served

N % N %

0-2yrs 164 121 74% -- -- --

Age 3-5 312 157 50% 90 44 49%

K 123 80 65% 50 25 50%

1 127 75 59% 43 23 53%

2 149 93 62% 55 32 58%

3 118 81 69% 41 23 56%

4 137 96 70% 38 21 55%

5 114 76 67% 42 17 40%

6 102 71 70% 36 23 64%

7 110 62 56% 43 16 37%

8 110 77 70% 34 19 56%

9 123 89 72% 44 21 48%

10 126 77 61% 42 19 45%

11 106 69 65% 33 15 45%

12 63 13 21% 19 1 5%

OSY 281 186 66% 130 44 34%

Total 2,265 1,423 63% 740 343 46% Source: CSPR Part II, 2016-17

Exhibit A.14: Results on the Summer myON Reading Assessments

Grade #

Assessed

# Maintaining

Lexile

% Maintaining

Lexile

K 44 31 70%


Grade #

Assessed

# Maintaining

Lexile

% Maintaining

Lexile

1 42 24 57%

2 47 32 68%

3 41 35 85%

4 50 41 82%

5 38 32 84%

6 33 26 79%

7 28 24 86%

8 19 15 79%

9 8 6 75%

10 10 10 100%

11 10 10 100%

12 2 2 100%

Total 372 288 77% Source: 2017 MPO Report

Exhibit A.15: Results on the Summer Reading Assessments by PFS Status

Category # Students

pre/post tested # Making

target gain % Making target gain

PFS Migrant 76 60 79%

Non-PFS Migrant

296 228 77%

All Migrant 372 288 77% Source: 2017 MPO Report

Exhibit A.16: Percent of Preschoolers Receiving Home- or Site-based Services

Term

Number of migratory children ages 4-5 enrolled

# receiving home- or site-based support

services

% receiving home- or site-based support

services

RSY 232 218 94%

Summer 121 114 94%


Exhibit A.17: Supplemental Credit Accrual Results—All Migratory Students

Term # enrolled in supplemental credit

# earning credit

% earning credit

Regular School Year 23 13 57%

Summer 16 15 94%


Exhibit A.18: Secondary Student Progress Toward Individual Learning Objectives

N Did not Meet Objectives

Met Objectives

Exceeded Objectives

Met and Exceeded

117 13 (11%) 93 (79%) 11 (9%) 104 (89%) Source: Individual Migrant Education Plans


Exhibit A.19: Staff Use of Technology Integration Strategies

Extent to which… N Not at

all Very little

Somewhat

Very much

Staff employed technology integration strategies from MEP training with migratory students.

67 2 (3%) 3 (4%) 21 (31%) 41 (61%)

Source: Staff Survey

Exhibit A.20: Digital Literacy Assessment by Grade

Grade N Mean Pre

Mean Post

Gain # (%) Below Proficient on

Preassessment

PK-K 25 17% 29% 12% 25 (100%)

1 36 40% 59% 19% 36 (100%)

2 37 39% 65% 26% 36 (97%)

3 29 40% 63% 23% 29 (100%)

4 30 39% 58% 19% 30 (100%)

5 18 44% 66% 22% 18 (100%)

6 28 45% 64% 19% 28 (100%)

7 17 48% 66% 18% 16 (94%)

8 11 49% 72% 23% 11 (100%)

9-12 4 35% 64% 29% 4 (100%)

Total 235 39% 59% 20% 233 (99%) Source: Digital Literacy Assessment Results Spreadsheet

Exhibit A.21: Instructional Services and Credit Accrual by Grade

Grade N Any

Instruction %

Credit Accrual

%

9 123 96 78% 6 5%

10 126 88 70% 11 9%

11 106 73 69% 4 4%

12 63 40 63% 4 6%

OSY 281 210 75% 10 4%

Total 699 507 73% 35 5%


Parent Needs Assessment Survey Results (Answered: 65) Exhibit A.22: Parent Recommendations Regarding Instructional Services Needs

Exhibit A.23: Parent Recommendations Regarding Support Services Needs

22%

26%

28%

32%

32%

38%

43%

46%

49%

51%

55%

63%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

programs for out-of-school youth like GED

drop-out prevention programs

in-school tutoring

pre-school programs

high school credit programs

graduation and career activities

more help learning English

information about the Indiana education system & requirements

more mathematics help


more reading help

summer programs

What Instructional Services Are Needed?

26%

35%

38%

46%

49%

51%

54%

55%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

information on 0-4 yr old services

locating resources


transportation

interpreting/translating

planning for college or a career


books/materials/supplies

What Support Services Are Needed?


Exhibit A.24: Parent Recommendations Regarding Program Improvement

Exhibit A.25: Parent Recommendations Regarding Parent Involvement

29%

29%

29%

31%

35%

43%

48%

57%

60%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

transferring credits from one school to another

more home visits by migrant staff

information on services for my child who is out-of-school

more translating/interpreting

information on preparing children ages 3-5 for school

health/nutrition information

more information about the migrant program

information on how to help my child in reading

information on how to help my child in math

What suggestions do you have for improving the program?

48%

48%

51%

52%

52%

57%

58%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


technology



information about U.S. education system



What topics do you recommend for greater parent involvment?


Staff Needs Assessment Survey Results Number responding: 94

Exhibit A.26: Staff Recommendations Regarding Instructional Services

23%

34%

36%

40%

42%

43%

44%

51%

52%

53%

53%

78%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

technology training


vocational skills training

GED/programs for out-of-school youth

in-school tutoring

supplementary language arts

ESL programs

supplementary math

preschool programs

extended day tutoring programs

supplementary reading

summer programs

What instructional services are most needed?


Exhibit A.27: Staff Recommendations Regarding Support Services

Exhibit A.28: Staff Recommendations Regarding Program Improvements

22%

26%

26%

27%

28%

39%

42%

43%

49%

53%

55%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

clothing distribution


counseling for students

career counseling

student leadership training

locating resources

health services (medical/dental)

advocacy

transportation


parenting education

What support services are most needed?

3%

10%

35%

38%

40%

43%

43%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

more onsite visits/consultation with SEA staff

more info on identification and recruitment

more info on serving infants/toddlers/young children

more information on instructional strategies

more info on assessing family and health needs

more professional development

increased communication/coordination

What program improvements do you recommend?


Exhibit A.29: Staff Recommendations Regarding Parent Involvement Topics

30%

33%

44%

48%

59%

77%

80%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Drug/school safety

technology

Information about US school system

Planning for postsecondary

Identifying community resources

Essential English for parents

Helping with homework

What parent involvement topics do you recommend?


Appendix B: CNA Decisions and Planning Chart – IN MEP CNA GOAL AREA 1: English Language Arts (ELA)

Concern Data Source Need Indicator Need Statement Possible Solution

1.1) We are concerned that migrant students are achieving proficiency in ELA at a lower rate than their non-migrant peers due to limited English acquisition and high mobility.

CSPR Need indicators: Gaps between migrant and non-migrant students on State assessments in ELA: IN: 28%; FL: 25%; and TX: 18%. In ELA, 34.6% of migrant students were proficient compared to the 2023 target proficiency rate of 66.8%. 44.6% of the migrant population is EL compared to 5.2% of the general Indiana population. 43% of MEP children moved in 2016-17.

Migrant student proficiency in ELA needs to increase 28% to close achievement gaps. To meet the 2023 proficiency rate target in ELA, there needs to be an increase of 4.6% annually.

1.1 Provide evidence-based ELA instructional services for migrant students in forms that may include bilingual resources, technology-based instruction, and self-paced materials through either site-based or home-based instructional programs during the regular school year or summer.

1.2) We are concerned that migrant students do not have equitable access to or knowledge of state-of the-art technology, tools, and internet that are essential to prepare them with 21st century skills necessary for college or careers in a technology-rich learning and working environment.

Digital Literacy Assessment

99% of migrant students receiving summer instruction and assessed on the digital literacy assessment scored below proficient on the pre-assessment in one or more areas.

Migrant student proficiency with technology tools focused on learning ELA skills needs to increase.

1.2 Provide equitable access for students to innovative technologies that support ELA instruction and develop 21st century skills.

1.3) We are concerned that migrant students lack educational resources in the home that support ELA achievement, including parent knowledge of the educational system, literacy materials, and literacy tools.


57% of parents needed information on how to help their child in reading. 58% indicated a need for help with homework support in reading and math. 80% of MEP staff indicated that parent support was needed in this area. 55% of parents said they needed additional books, materials, and supplies for the home. 52% of parents indicated needing additional information about the U.S. educational system.

Student access to educational resources for the home needs to increase. Parents need a deeper understanding of the US educational system and tools to support their children’s literacy development at home.

1.3a) Facilitate communication between migrant families and schools, community organizations, and the MRC to provide equitable access to all available resources. 1.3b) Provide training for migrant families about the local educational system and how they can support their children’s academic development at home.


GOAL AREA 2: Mathematics

Concern: Data Source Need Indicator Need Statement Possible Solution

2.1) We are concerned that migrant students are achieving mathematics proficiency at a lower rate than their non-migrant due to limited English language acquisition and high mobility.

CSPR Gaps between migrant and non-migrant students on State assessments: IN: 25%; FL: 16%; and TX: 11%. In mathematics, 31.0% of migrant students were proficient compared to the 2023 target proficiency rate of 65.5%. 44.6% of the migrant population is EL compared to 5.2% of the general Indiana population. 43% of MEP children moved in 2016-17.

Migrant student proficiency in mathematics needs to increase 25% to close achievement gaps. To meet the 2023 proficiency rate target in mathematics, there needs to be an increase of 4.9% annually.

2.1 Provide evidence-based, math instructional services for migrant students in forms that may include: bilingual resources, technology-based instruction, and self-paced materials through either site-based or home-based instructional programs during the regular school year or summer.

2.2) We are concerned that migrant students do not have equitable access to or knowledge of state of the art technology, internet, tools and software to support math instruction.

Staff Survey Digital Literacy Assessment

99% of migrant students receiving summer instruction and assessed on the digital literacy assessment scored below proficient on the pre-assessment in one or more areas.

Migrant student proficiency with technology tools focused on learning math skills needs to increase.

2.2 Provide equitable access to instructional and support services such as math-specific programs, internet access (when applicable), innovative technologies that support math instruction, and develop 21st century skills.

2.3) We are concerned that migrant students lack educational resources in the home that support mathematics achievement, including academic support strategies, educational materials that are culturally and linguistically appropriate, and mathematics tools.

Parent Survey Parents indicated needs on the parent survey with 90% expressing a need for information about the Indiana education system and requirements, more help learning English, more mathematics help, parent involvement activities, supplemental books and materials; or interpreting or translating.

Student access to educational resources that support knowledge and skill development in needs to increase.

2.3 Provide instructional and support services to facilitate the participation of all migrant students in instruction by coordinating or providing services aligned to student needs. Examples may include: transportation to/from MEP-funded services, internet access (when applicable), access to health and nutrition services, virtual tutoring, etc.


GOAL AREA: School Readiness

Concern Data Source

Need Indicator Need Statement Possible Solution

3.1) We are concerned that preschool migrant children have not acquired sufficient school readiness skills.

School Readiness Checklist

78% of migrant PK/K students assessed on the IMEP School Readiness Checklist had not mastered sufficient skills for preparation for kindergarten.

By the time preschoolers enter kindergarten, the number demonstrating mastery on the IMEP School Readiness Checklist needs to increase by 78%.

3.1a. Provide evidence-based instructional and support services within site-based or home-based early childhood education programs during the regular school year or summer. 3.1b. Provide MEP staff with high quality professional development opportunities regarding strategies that promote acquisition of school readiness skills.

3.2.) We are concerned that parents of preschool migrant children lack sufficient knowledge and resources to help them support the school readiness of their children.

Parent Survey

35% of all migrant parents indicated that there is a need to receive information on preparing children ages 3-5 for school. 32% of all migrant parents indicated a need for preschool programs and locating resources for their children.

Parent access to activities and information about preparing preschool migrant children for school needs to increase.

3.2a. Provide preschool materials, training, and information to parents so they are more able to support their children’s growth in readiness skills during the regular school year or summer. 3.2b. Coordinate with community agencies and programs to provide access to programs with a focus on readiness skills aligned with state standards.


GOAL AREA: High School Graduation and Services for Out-of-School Youth

Concern Data Source Need Indicator Need Statement Possible Solution

4.1) We are concerned that migrant students and parents do not have sufficient knowledge or support necessary to navigate the educational system, graduation requirements, post-secondary education, and/or career options.


51% of parents said planning for college and a career was a top priority for their household. 52% of parents said they needed more information about helping their children plan for after high school. 48% of Staff identified “Planning for Post-Secondary” as a recommendation for improving Migrant Parent Involvement.

Migrant students and parents need additional support in navigating the educational system, graduation requirements, post-secondary education, and/or career options.

4.1 Help students set and meet

graduation and college/career

readiness goals with evidence-

based supplemental instruction in

a school-based, home-based, or

technology-assisted model.

4.2) We are concerned that high school aged migrant students are not demonstrating proficiency in mathematics and ELA at the same level as non-migrant peers.

CSPR Gaps between high school migrant and non-migrant students on State assessments in ELA: IN: 48%; FL: 24%; and TX: 19%. Gaps in math: IN: 30%; FL: 15%; and TX: 11% In ELA, 10% of migrant secondary students were proficient compared to the 2023 target proficiency rate of 55%. In math, 3% were proficient and the State target is 51.5%

Migrant secondary student proficiency in ELA needs to increase 48% and in math 30% to close achievement gaps. To meet the 2023 proficiency rate targets, there needs to be an increase of 6.4% in ELA and 6.9% in math annually.

4.2 Establish and implement rigorous programming for secondary/OSY students including after-school programs, in-home tutoring, and summer school programming with an emphasis on ELA & Math.

4.3) We are concerned that migrant students lack appropriate support services necessary to fully engage in their education.


53% of staff indicated that support services needed by migrant students include books, materials, and supplies. 55% of parents said they needed additional books, materials, and supplies for the home. 58% of parents and 80% of staff said parent activities geared toward helping with homework for reading and math would help parents support their children’s learning

Migrant students and parents need additional support to facilitate engagement in school.

4.3 Provide equitable access to support services such as content-specific programs, internet access (when applicable), and assessment programs that will enhance the educational process.

4.4) We are concerned that migrant students who are not enrolled in school while in Indiana are not receiving vocational training or making progress toward their high school diplomas or equivalency.

CSPR OSY Profile

75% OSY received instructional services and 4% received credit accrual. The committee notes that for OSY these instructional services are not vocational training, credit accrual, or HSED prep. The committee observes that many migrant students have limited access to careers outside of the migrant lifestyle.

The percentage of OSY engaged in vocational training, HSE preparation, or credit accrual appropriate to their interests and goals needs to increase.

4.4a. Provide opportunities for credit accrual through evening classes, instruction with flexible scheduling, online classes, vocational, and alternative programs. 4.4b. Facilitate mentorship and leadership training opportunities that promote student agency for secondary migrant students and families.


Appendix C: CNA Surveys

STAFF NEEDS ASSESSMENT SURVEY

□ ESL Teacher □ Paraprofessional

□ Classroom Teacher □ Records clerk

□ Site Director □ Other_________________

□ Recruiter

Directions: Please check ( ) the areas that you feel are needed MOST by your project to help migrant children make adequate yearly progress.

1. What INSTRUCTIONAL SERVICES are needed most by your project? (Check all that apply)

summer programs extended day tutoring programs supplementary language arts

in-school tutoring drop-out prevention programs technology training

preschool programs GED/programs for out-of-school youth other______________________

ESL programs supplementary reading other______________________

vocational skills training supplementary math other________________________

2. What SUPPORT SERVICES are needed most for students in your project? (Check all that

apply)

interpreting/translating parenting education student leadership training

advocacy counseling for students other________________________

books/materials/supplies health services (medical/dental) other________________________

clothing distribution career counseling other________________________

transportation locating resources other________________________

3. What suggestions do you have to IMPROVE SERVICES? (Check all that apply)

more professional development more onsite visits/consultation with SEA staff

more info on assessing family and health needs more info on serving infants/toddlers/young children

more info on identification and recruitment more information on instructional strategies

increased communication/coordination other___________________________________

4. If you believe migrant instructional staff (including yourself if applicable) need additional help to target services to the specific needs of migrant students, mark PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT you would like to receive. (Check all that apply)

program planning Reading/literacy strategies Involving migrant parents

Identifying migrant needs health/medical/dental issues supporting English learners

curriculum & instruction identification & recruitment preparing preschool children

student assessment Mathematics strategies other________________________

5. What topics would you recommend for PARENT TRAINING to help parents support their children’s academic success? (Check all that apply)

Planning for postsecondary Information about US school system technology

Helping with homework Identifying community resources other______________________

__ Drug/school safety Essential English for parents other______________________

__

6. What other needs to migrant students in Indiana have?


INDIANA MIGRANT EDUCATION PROGRAM PARENT NEEDS ASSESSMENT SURVEY

Directions: Please check ( ) the areas that you feel are needed MOST to help your children be more successful in school.

1. INSTRUCTIONAL SERVICES (Check all that apply)

more reading help more mathematics help more help learning English summer programs

high school credit programs

information about the Indiana education system & requirements

pre-school programs


in-school tutoring

programs for out-of-school youth like GED


graduation and career activities

other_____________________

2. SUPPORT SERVICES (Check all that apply)



planning for college or a career

locating resources


information on 0-4 yr old services


transportation

other_______________________

3. SUGGESTIONS to improve services to migrant children and families (Check all that apply)

more information about the migrant program

more home visits by migrant staff

health/nutrition information

information on preparing children ages 3-5 for school

information on how to help my child in reading

information on services for my child who is out-of-school

information on how to help my child in math

more translating/interpreting

transferring credits from one school to another

other__________________________________________

4. What TOPICS would you recommend for greater PARENT INVOLVEMENT to help you support your

children’s learning? (Check all that apply)






technology

information about U.S. education system

other_____________________

5. What additional needs do your children have?

___________________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Documents

Comprehensive Needs Assessment - Indiana...Succeeds Act (ESSA) Section 1309 (3)] In order to better understand and articulate the specific services that the Indiana MEP should target