2018-2019 evaluation report - k12.wa.us

2018-2019 Evaluation Report Washington Migrant Education Program

May 2020

2018-2019 Evaluation

of the Washington Migrant Education Program (MEP)

Prepared for: Washington Office of Superintendent of

Public Instruction (OSPI) Migrant Education Program

Old Capitol Building PO Box 47200

Olympia, WA 98504

Prepared by: Cari Semivan

External Evaluator META Associates 9620 S Dover Way

Littleton, CO 80127 (720) 339-5349

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Table of Contents 1. Executive Summary ................................................................................................................ 1 2. Program Context ..................................................................................................................... 4 3. Purpose of the Evaluation .................................................................................................... 11 Evaluation Questions (Implementation) .......................................................................... 11 Evaluation Questions (Results) ....................................................................................... 12 4. Evaluation Methodology ...................................................................................................... 13 5. Implementation Evaluation Results .................................................................................... 15 Migratory Student Services ............................................................................................. 15 Parent Involvement ......................................................................................................... 19 Professional Development .............................................................................................. 22 Strategy Implementation ................................................................................................. 24 6. Outcome Evaluation Results ............................................................................................... 30 State Performance Goals 1 and 5 Results ...................................................................... 30 GPRA Measure Results .................................................................................................. 36 Measurable Program Outcome (MPO) Results............................................................... 37 English Language Arts ........................................................................................ 38 Mathematics ........................................................................................................ 40 School Readiness ............................................................................................... 42 Graduation/Services to OSY ............................................................................... 44 7. Implications ........................................................................................................................... 51 Progress on Previous Recommendations ....................................................................... 51 2018-19 Summary and Implications – Program Implementation .................................... 52 2018-19 Summary and Implications – Program Results ................................................. 54

Table of Exhibits Exhibit 1 Map of Washington MEP Project and Non-Project Districts ...................................... 4 Exhibit 2 Services Provided by the Migrant Education Health Program ................................... 5 Exhibit 3 Eligible Migratory Students by Grade Level and Year ............................................... 7 Exhibit 4 2018-19 Performance Period Demographics of Migratory Students ......................... 9 Exhibit 5 2018-19 Child Counts for Projects with More than 400 Migratory Students .............. 9 Exhibit 6 2018-19 Child Counts for Projects with Less than 400 Migratory Students) ............ 10 Exhibit 7 Migratory Students Served during the Regular School Year and Summer .............. 15 Exhibit 8 Migratory Students Served during the 2018-19 Performance Period ...................... 16 Exhibit 9 Migratory Students Receiving Instructional and Support Services during the 2018-19 Performance Period ............................................................................. 16 Exhibit 10 2018-19 Local Project Migratory Child Counts and Students Served ...................... 17 Exhibit 11 Instructional Services Received by Migratory Students/Youth during 2018-19 ....... 18 Exhibit 12 Support Services Received by Migratory Students/Youth during 2018-19 .............. 19 Exhibit 13 Mean Ratings on the Fidelity of Strategy Implementation (FSI) .............................. 25 Exhibit 14 Most Common Ways in Which Each Strategy was Implemented in 2018-19 .......... 26 Exhibit 15 Washington’s Measurements of Interim Progress and Long Term Goals ............... 30 Exhibit 16 Migratory Students Scoring P/A on 2019 Smarter Balanced ELA Assessments ..... 30 Exhibit 17 Comparison of 2019 Smarter Balanced ELA Assessment Results ......................... 31 Exhibit 18 Comparison of Smarter Balanced ELA Assessment Results Over the Years ......... 32 Exhibit 19 Migratory Students Scoring P/A on 2019 Smarter Balanced Math Assessments .... 32 Exhibit 20 Comparison of 2019 Smarter Balanced Math Assessment Results ........................ 33 Exhibit 21 Comparison of Smarter Balanced Math Assessment Results Over the Years ........ 34 Exhibit 22 2018-19 Graduation Rates for Migratory and Non-Migratory Students ................... 34 Exhibit 23 Comparison of Migratory Student Graduation Rates Over the Years ...................... 35 Exhibit 24 2018-19 Dropout Rates for Migratory and Non-Migratory Students ........................ 36 Exhibit 25 Comparison of Migratory Student Dropout Rates Over the Years ........................... 36 Exhibit 26 Migratory Students in Grades 7-12 that Graduated in 2018-19 or were Promoted to the Next Grade Level from 2-17-18 to 2018-19 ................................... 37 Exhibit 27 10th Grade Migratory Students Completed Algebra I or a Higher Math Course in 2018-19 or Before ................................................................................................ 37 Exhibit 28 Migratory Student Gains on Regular Year Reading/ELA Assessments .................. 38 Exhibit 29 Migratory Students Improving Reading Skills by Grade Level during the Regular School Year ................................................................................................ 38 Exhibit 30 Migratory Student Gains on Summer Reading/ELA Assessments .......................... 39 Exhibit 31 Migratory Students Improving Reading Skills by Grade during the Summer ........... 39 Exhibit 32 Parent Ratings of Parent Training on Reading ........................................................ 40 Exhibit 33 Migratory Student Gains on Regular Year Math Assessments ................................ 40 Exhibit 34 Migratory Students Improving Math Skills by Grade Level during the Regular School Year ................................................................................................ 41

Exhibit 35 Migratory Student Gains on Summer Math Assessments ....................................... 41 Exhibit 36 Migratory Students Improving Math Skills by Grade Level during the Summer ....... 42 Exhibit 37 Parent Ratings of Parent Training on Math.............................................................. 42 Exhibit 38 2018-19 Migratory Students Demonstrating Characteristics of Entering Kindergarteners on the WaKIDS Assessment ......................................................... 43 Exhibit 39 Comparison of 2018-19 WaKIDS Assessment Results ........................................... 43 Exhibit 40 Parent Ratings of Parent Training on School Readiness ......................................... 44 Exhibit 41 Secondary Credits Received by Migratory Students ............................................... 44 Exhibit 42 Secondary Credits Received by Migratory Students, by Grade Level ..................... 45 Exhibit 43 Secondary Courses for Which Migratory Students Earned Credits ......................... 45 Exhibit 44 Migratory Students in grades 9-12 Receiving MEP Services during 2017-18 and 2018-19 .............................................................................................. 48 Exhibit 45 Migratory Students in Grades 9-12 Receiving MEP Services, by Grade ................. 48 Exhibit 46 Migratory Students in Grades 9-12 Supported by MGSs in 2018-19 that Graduated or Were Promoted to the Next Grade Level ........................................... 49 Exhibit 47 Migratory Students in Grades 9-12 Supported by MGSs in 2018-19 that Graduated or Were Promoted, by Grade Level ....................................................... 49 Exhibit 48 Migratory OSY Receiving MEP Services in 2018-19 Compared to 2016-17 ........... 50

Acronyms & Abbreviations CAMP College Assistance Migrant Program CIG Consortium Incentive Grant CNA Comprehensive Needs Assessment COE Certificate of Eligibility CSPR Consolidated State Performance Report EL English Learner ELA English Language Arts ELD English Language Development EOC End-of-Course Exams ESD Educational Service District ESEA Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 ESSA Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 FSI Fidelity of Strategy Implementation GLAD Guided Language Acquisition Design GOSOSY Graduation and Outcomes for Success for OSY CIG HS High School ID&R Identification and Recruitment IDEA Individuals with Disability Education Act LAP Learning Assistance Program MEP Migrant Education Program MGS Migrant Graduation Specialist MPO Measurable Program Outcomes MSA Migrant Student Advocate MSDRS Migrant Student Data Recruitment and Support MSIS Migrant Student Information System MSIX Migrant Student Information Exchange NAC Needs Assessment Committee NCLB No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 OME Office of Migrant Education (of the U.S. Department of Education) OSPI Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction OSY Out-of-School Youth PAC Parent Advisory Council PD Professional Development PFS Priority for Services QAD Qualifying Arrival Date SDP Service Delivery Plan SEA State Education Agency STEM Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math UG Ungraded WaKIDS Washington Kindergarten Inventory of Developing Skills

2018-19 Washington Migrant Education Program Evaluation 1

1. Executive Summary The Migrant Education Program (MEP) is authorized under Title I, Part C of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965, as reauthorized in 2015 as the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). The purpose of the MEP is to meet the unique educational needs of migratory children and their families to ensure that migratory children reach the same challenging academic standards as all students and graduate from high school. Specifically, the goal of state MEPs is to design programs to help migratory children overcome educational disruption, cultural and language barriers, social isolation, health-related problems, and other factors inhibiting them from doing well in school and making the transition to postsecondary education or employment [Section 1301(5)]. A migratory child is defined as a child or youth, from birth to age 21, who made a qualifying move in the preceding 36 months as a migratory agricultural worker or migratory fisher; or with, or to join, a parent or spouse who is a migratory agricultural worker or migratory fisher [Section 1309(3)(A)–(B)]. The Washington MEP assists schools throughout Washington in helping migratory children that may be negatively impacted by students’ frequent migration and interrupted schooling meet State achievement expectations. Services are designed to facilitate continuity of instruction to eligible students who migrate between Washington and other states, within the State of Washington, and across international borders. In 2018-19, Washington had 31,744 eligible migratory students in project districts (29,384 eligible students) and non-project districts (2,360 eligible students) – 10% of which were identified as having a disability through the Individuals with Disability Education Act (IDEA), and 34% had a Qualifying Arrival Date (QAD) occurring within 12 months from the last day of the performance period (8/31/19). Of the 30,304 eligible migratory students ages 3-21, 31% were categorized as having priority for services (PFS) which is a 21% increase over 2017-18, and 43% were identified as being English learners (ELs). During the performance period, services were provided to 14,039 migratory students/youth (48% of eligible migratory students in the project districts and 44% of all eligible migratory students). A total of 12,102 migratory students received services during the regular school year (41% of eligible migratory students in project districts and 40% of eligible migratory students ages 3-21), and 2,704 received services during the summer (9% of eligible migratory students in project districts [1% increase over 2017-18] and 9% of all eligible migratory students). In addition, migratory students were served by Special Education (9% of all eligible migratory students), the State Bilingual Program (38% of all eligible migratory students), and the Learning Assistance Program (23% of all eligible migratory students). Sixty-six school districts and two Educational Service Districts (ESDs) provided services to migratory students during 2018-19. Projects provided instructional and support services aligned with the State MEP Service Delivery Plan (SDP) and Comprehensive Needs Assessment (CNA) within the four goal areas of: 1) English Language Arts (ELA), 2) Mathematics; 3) School Readiness; and 4) High School Graduation/Services to Out-of-School Youth (OSY). Services included supplemental tutoring/instructional support, summer school programs, extended day programming, supplemental reading and mathematics instruction, supportive and supplemental services, and graduation enhancement and career education. Services also were provided to migratory parents to engage them in the education of their children through parent advisory committee (PAC) meetings, college visits, and parent training/activities/events.


The chart below shows that 11 of the 12 (92%) Measurable Program Outcomes (MPOs) identified in the Washington MEP SDP were accomplished. Positive results show the benefit of Washington MEP services on migratory students’ reading and math achievement, school readiness skills, secondary credit accrual, graduation, and promotion to the next grade level.

Measurable Program Outcomes (MPOs) MPO Met? Evidence

English Language Arts (ELA) MPO 1a: By the end of the 2018-19 school year, 50% of migratory students in grades K-8 who received regular term supplemental reading instruction will show a gain of at least one point or one level on pre/post district reading/ELA assessments.

Yes

82% of the 1,211 students assessed improved their reading/ELA scores by at

least one point or one level MPO 1b: Upon completion of the 2019 summer program, 75% of migratory students in grades K-8 who received summer reading instruction will maintain or increase their score by 2% on pre/post district reading/ELA assessments.

Yes

81% of the 998 students assessed maintained or

improved their reading/ELA scores by 2%

MPO 1c: By the end of the 2018-19 performance period, 75% of migratory families who participated in MEP family literacy services will report being better prepared to engage in activities for supporting reading in the home, as measured by a rating of 3 or 4 (out of 4) on the Parent Training Evaluation.

Yes

87% of the 311 parents responding reported being better prepared to support

reading in the home

Mathematics MPO 2a: By the end of the 2018-19 school year, 50% of migratory students in grades K-8 who received regular term supplemental math instruction will show a gain of at least one point or one level on pre/post district math assessments.

Yes

73% of the 981 students assessed improved their

math scores by at least one point or one level

MPO 2b: Upon completion of the 2019 summer program, 75% of migratory students in grades K-8 who received summer math instruction will maintain or increase their score by 2% on pre/post district math assessments.

Yes

86% of the 798 students assessed maintained or

improved their math scores by 2%

MPO 2c: By the end of the 2018-19 performance period, 75% of migratory families who participated in MEP family math services will report being better prepared to have conversations about math with their children, as measured by a rating of 3 or 4 (out of 4) on the Parent Training Evaluation.

Yes


math in the home

School Readiness MPO 3a: By the end of the 2018-19 school year, 48% of migratory students entering kindergarten who received MEP supplemental instruction will demonstrate skills typical of entering kindergarteners in four or more domains on the WaKIDS. No

More than 48% of children demonstrated skills typical of entering kindergarteners in 3 domains (77% physical, 60% social/emotional, 50%

cognitive) MPO 3b: By the end of the 2018-19 performance period, 75% of families of preschool migratory children who received training in school readiness (e.g., early reading, early math) will report that they are better prepared to support their child’s learning at home, as measured by a rating of 3 or 4 rating (out of 4) on the Parent Training Evaluation.

Yes


their preschool child’s learning at home

Graduation/Services to OSY MPO 4a: Upon completion of the 2018-19 performance period, 75% of migratory students enrolled in credit-bearing courses will obtain credit toward high school graduation.

Yes 78% of the 663 migratory

students and youth enrolled obtained credit

MPO 4b: By the end of the 2018-19 performance period, the percentage of migratory students in grades 9-12 receiving MEP instructional and/or support services will increase by 2% over the previous performance period.

Yes 4% more students in grades 9-12 received MEP services in 2018-19 than in 2017-18


Measurable Program Outcomes (MPOs) MPO Met? Evidence

MPO 4c: By the end of the 2018-19 performance period, 79% of migratory students in grades 9-12 who received support from Migrant Graduation Specialists (MGSs) will graduate or be promoted to the next grade level.

Yes

80% of the 2,631 students in grades 9-12 receiving

support from MGSs graduated or were

promoted to the next grade MPO 4d: By the end of the 2018-19 performance period, there will a 15% increase in the percentage of OSY served by the Washington MEP over the 2016-17 program year (<1% served).

Yes 27% more OSY received MEP services in 2018-19

than in 2016-17 Other key findings/trends revealed in the 2018-19 evaluation follow.

Inter/intrastate collaboration resulted in increased services to migratory students. Local MEP directors reported that their programs collaborated with numerous community agencies and school programs such as universities and colleges, 21st Century Community Learning Center projects, College Assistance Migrant Program (CAMP) programs, GEAR UP programs, Special Education, and the State Transitional Bilingual Instructional Program.

MEP staff reported that parents participating in parent activities and events increased their knowledge of the topics addressed including reading and math, financial aid and scholarships, testing/homework, postsecondary education, and community partnerships.

MEP staff at each of the local projects worked in teams to assign ratings of the implementation of the Strategies contained in the SDP using the Fidelity of Strategy Implementation (FSI) tool. The average rating for all 12 Strategies was 3.3 out of 5.0, with means for each Strategy ranging from 2.8 to 3.6.

From 2017-18 to 2018-19, 1% fewer migratory students scored proficient or above on Smarter Balanced ELA Assessments (compared to a 3% decrease for non-migratory students), and 1% fewer migratory students scored proficient or above on Smarter Balanced Math Assessments (compared to a 5% decrease for non-migratory students). However, the gap between migratory and non-migratory students remains large (30% in ELA, 24% in math).

Migratory students receiving MEP services were more likely to stay in school and graduate than migratory students that did not received services by the MEP.

Data collected for the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) measures show that 95% of migratory students were promoted or graduated in 2018-19, and 61% of 2018-19 10th grade students received full credit for Algebra I or a higher math course prior to entering 11th grade.

Support services provided to migratory students helped eliminate barriers that traditionally inhibit school success. Focused on leveraging existing services and resources, support services included health services, translations and interpretations, advocacy and outreach, family literacy programs, nutrition services, referrals, educational materials, transportation, academic and non-academic guidance, student advocacy, case management, career/postsecondary awareness, and social work outreach.

In summary, during 2018-19, the Washington MEP offered individualized, needs-based, student-centered services to migratory students that improved their learning and academic achievement. In addition, parents were provided services to improve their skills and increase their involvement in their child’s education; MEP staff were trained to better serve the unique needs of migratory students and their parents; community resources and programs helped support migratory students; and local projects expanded their capacity to meet the needs of Washington‘s mobile migratory population by conducting local needs assessments and professional learning activities.


2. Program Context This evaluation report provides summary information on the accomplishments made by staff and students of local MEPs in Washington during the 2018-19 performance period. These accomplishments were examined based on progress toward the Washington State Performance Goals 1 and 5, the MEP MPOs as outlined in the Washington MEP SDP, the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) measures, and implementation of the service delivery strategies in the SDP. Sixty-six (66) school districts and two ESDs provided services to migratory students during 2018-19. MEP school districts are identified on the following map in blue and non-MEP districts are identified in red.

Local projects provide instructional and support services aligned with the SDP and the needs of migratory students identified in the CNA within the four goal areas of ELA, mathematics, school readiness, and graduation/services to OSY. The primary components of the Washington MEP include academic services, supportive and supplemental services, interstate coordination, identification and recruitment (ID&R), parent involvement, and professional development. These areas are guided by the Continuous Improvement Cycle that includes assessing needs, designing services, implementing services, and evaluating services.

Exhibit 1 Map of Washington MEP Project and Non-Project Districts


INSTRUCTIONAL SERVICES - Migratory students are provided with a wide range of supplemental instructional services during the regular school year and summer including the services listed below. The MEP is a supplemental program whereby all other resources should be exhausted prior to using MEP funds to provide instructional services to migratory students. As a result, local projects coordinate services with schools, other programs, and community service providers.

MEP Instructional Services Math Tutoring/Instruction Preschool/School Readiness Reading Tutoring/Instruction GED Preparation Science/Social Studies Instruction ESL Instruction Other Instructional Services Secondary Credit Accrual Summer School Extended-day Instruction

SUPPORT SERVICES - Support services are provided to migratory students to eliminate barriers that traditionally get in the way of school success. Support services include collaboration with other agencies and referrals of migratory children from birth to age 21 to programs and community service providers, health services (medical and dental screening and referrals), instructional supplies, information and training on nutrition, translating and interpreting, advocacy and outreach, transportation, and services to OSY. The needs-based support services provided to migratory students throughout the year in Washington are listed in the chart below.

MEP Support Services Referrals to Services Youth Leadership Instructional Supplies Career Counseling Life Skills Extended Learning Opportunities Academic Guidance Migrant Health Program Career/Postsecondary Support Transportation Student Advocacy Interpreting/Translating

Beginning in 2017, the Washington MEP began implementation of the Migrant Education Health Program. The goal of this program is to provide advocacy and outreach to help migratory students and their families gain access to comprehensive health, nutrition, and social services through health care providers, and partnership organizations free of charge. With the support of the Anacortes, Pasco, Wenatchee, and Yakima Education Service Districts (ESDs), the Migrant Education Health Program works with districts to identify and provide eligible migratory students with supplemental services such as health, dental, transportation, and counseling services. This is done in coordination with migrant staff at local districts, ESD OSY/Health Coordinators, the School Nursing Corps, and other school health resources. The services provided by the program include direct preventative services (e.g., physicals, dental exams, vision/hearing, immunizations, health education, homelessness support, social-emotional support, mental health service) or treatment on an emergency or one-time basis (e.g., infections, fractures, open wounds, tooth extractions/repairs, behavioral intervention needs). Exhibit 2 shows the number of migratory students and youth receiving health services through the program from 2016-17 to 2018-19, which shows an increase in students served each year.

Exhibit 2 Services Provided by the Migrant Education Health Program

Migrant Health Services Provided 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 MEP-funded physical exams 46 45 71 Non-MEP-funded physical exams 440 395 283 Physical exam data provided from other sources 4,756 5,728 7,913 MEP-funded dental exams 29 2 0*


Migrant Health Services Provided 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 Non-MEP-funded dental exams 332 53 0* Dental exam data provided from other sources 1,968 1,763 2,153 Medical alerts created 415 68 84 Immunization flags recorded 0 312 5,894

Source: Migrant Education Health Program Records *Providers have been providing a basic dental exam as a part of the physical which is not currently captured in

reporting. During 2019-20, an option has been added in the scheduling system to collect this information. INTER/INTRASTATE COORDINATION - Because migratory students move frequently, a central function of the MEP is to reduce the effects of educational disruption by removing barriers to their educational achievement. The MEP has been, and continues to be, a leader in coordinating resources and providing integrated services to migratory children and their families. Local projects also have developed a wide array of strategies that enable schools that serve the same migratory students to communicate and coordinate with one another. In Washington, inter/intrastate collaboration is focused on the following activities: providing year-round ID&R; coordinating with other states for the ID&R of migratory students; participating as a member state in the Preschool Initiative CIG and a partner state in the

GOSOSY CIG; coordinating secondary education coursework; coordinating secondary credit accrual with counselors and educators in other states; participating in the Migrant Student Information Exchange (MSIX) to transfer education

and health data to participating states; and attending inter/intrastate MEP meetings (i.e., Interstate Migrant Education Council

meetings, CIG meetings, the ID&R Forum, Annual Directors Meetings at the U.S. Department of Education, the National Migrant Education Conference).

IDENTIFICATION AND RECRUITMENT - The Washington MEP is responsible for the proper and timely ID&R of all eligible migratory children and youth in the State. This includes securing pertinent information to document the basis of a child’s eligibility. Ultimately, it is the State’s responsibility to implement procedures to ensure that migratory children and youth are identified and determined as eligible for the MEP. ID&R for Washington is led by Migrant Student Data, Recruitment and Support (MSDRS) and conducted by MSDRS staff along with local recruiters and staff. Detailed information about ID&R in Washington and instructions for conducting ID&R can be found in the ID&R Handbook (March, 2018) which can be requested from MSDRS. The Handbook provides detailed information for local projects on their responsibilities for ID&R, MEP eligibility criteria, interviewing migratory families, eligibility scenarios/rulings, completing Certificates of Eligibility (COEs), and the Migrant Student Information System (MSIS) for recruiters. Student Demographics - During 2018-19, there were 31,744 eligible migratory students in Washington, a slight increase (+3%) from 2017-18. UG=ungraded


Exhibit 3 Eligible Migratory Students by Grade Level and Year

Number of Eligible Migratory Students Grade 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19

0-2 347 1,849 1,473 1,254 1,625 1,332 1,301 1,440 3-5 801 3,946 2,801 2,710 2,612 2,669 2,757 3,116 K 1,918 2,073 1,724 1,655 1,483 2,084 2,028 1,886 1 1,954 1,995 2,080 1,958 1,833 1,800 1,741 1,701 2 1,939 1,955 2,102 2,157 1,969 2,001 1,852 1,791 3 1,813 1,879 2,023 1,991 2,040 1,991 1,979 1,882 4 1,831 1,776 1,941 1,907 1,993 2,000 1,965 1,957 5 2,016 1,829 1,846 1,900 1,878 1,938 2,021 2,005 6 1,864 1,920 1,813 1,816 1,890 1,954 1,965 2,079 7 1,743 1,862 1,930 1,771 1,929 1,960 1,945 2,006 8 1,795 1,698 1,923 1,839 1,738 1,755 1,943 1,949 9 1,905 1,857 1,841 1,871 1,864 1,872 1,833 2,055

10 1,729 1,715 1,861 1,776 1,945 1,937 1,869 1,786 11 1,634 1,569 1,670 1,682 1,699 1,771 1,870 1,834 12 1,807 1,745 2,444 2,235 2,605 1,804 1,856 2,002 UG 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

OSY 8,696 3,675 2,344 2,809 2,279 1,438 1,873 2,255 Total 33,794 33,343 31,816 31,331 31,382 30,306 30,798 31,744

Source: CSPR Part II School Years 2011-12 to 2016-17 and 2018-19; MSIS 2017-18 As part of the ESSA requirements for Title I, Part C, every State must set its priorities for services; likewise, every MEP in every State is required to maintain a list of eligible migratory students, migratory students served, and migratory students designated as having PFS. Determining which migratory students are PFS is put into place through the SDP. The definition for PFS described below is used to determine if migratory children are considered PFS and serves as the PFS number used in the MEP funding formula.

Washington Priority for Services (PFS) Criteria Criterion #1 –Migratory children who made a qualifying move within the previous 1-year period Qualifying Move within Previous 1-Year period defined by the following parameter: • A Qualifying Arrival Date (QAD) has been made within the last 365 days (within the last 12 months, including

summer). Documentation Required

• Certificate of Eligibility (COE) AND

Criterion #2 – Migratory children who are failing, or most at risk of failing, to meet the State’s challenging academic standards or dropped out of school.

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19

# Migrant Students


Washington Priority for Services (PFS) Criteria � Has not met standard on Smarter Balanced or WA-AIM (Washington-Access to Instruction and Measurement)

in Grades 3-8 or 11 in either English language arts or math; � Has not demonstrating readiness characteristics of entering Kindergartners as measured by WaKIDS.

Documentation Required

• Student level assessment results in the areas tested OR

� Has been identified as dropout (not yet graduated). • State student database system indicates the student is no longer enrolled in WA state school. • State or federal (MSIX) database system does not indicate student transferred out-of-state. • State or federal (MSIX) database system does not indicate the student received a high school diploma or

equivalent. USE OF PROXY RISK FACTORS when State assessment data is not available to determine whether migratory students are failing, or most at risk of failing, to meet the State’s challenging State academic content standards and challenging State student academic achievement standards.

One Proxy risk factor may be applied when: • The student was not present in the district when the State assessment was administered, OR • The student is enrolled in a grade level where a State assessment is not administered (grades 1-2 and high

school). Proxy Risk Factors to Criteria #2

� 2–a) Student has not yet met Washington’s English language proficiency level on state assessment. • English language proficiency score. � 2–b) Retained – student is enrolled in same grade level from one school year to the next. • Grade level retained. □ 2–c) Grade Age Compatible (Over Age for Grade)-age does not match acceptable range for grade level

placement within 2 years. • Age and grade level placement. □ 2–d) Credit Deficiency (for secondary-age students only) - student has not earned sufficient credits per his/her

school’s graduation requirements and grade level. • Number of credits deficient and area of deficiency □ 2—e) Attendance – Student attendance is less than 90% of days enrolled • Number of days attended divided by number of days enrolled □ 2-f) Special Education • Identified with IDEA flag □ 2-g) Homeless • Identified with homeless flag in state database □ 2-h) Minimal Enrollment Days - • Total days enrolled in a WA State school is fewer than 90

Exhibit 4 shows that of the 30,304 eligible students ages 3-21, 31% were categorized as PFS which is a 21% increase over 2017-18, and 43% were identified as being ELs. Of all 31,744 eligible migratory students, 10% were identified as having a disability through IDEA, and 34% had a QAD occurring within 12 months from the last day of the performance period (8/31/19).


Exhibit 4 2018-19 Performance Period Demographics of Migratory Students

Total PFS EL IDEA QAD w/in 12 months

Grade Eligible # % # % # % # % Birth-2 1,440 -- -- -- -- 4 <1% 824 57%

Age 3-5 3,116 1 <1% 10 <1% 77 2% 1,153 37% K 1,886 681 36% 1153 61% 155 8% 648 34% 1 1,701 323 19% 1336 79% 194 11% 529 31% 2 1,791 732 41% 1317 74% 222 12% 596 33% 3 1,882 650 35% 1205 64% 231 12% 588 31% 4 1,957 755 39% 1163 59% 264 13% 589 30% 5 2,005 771 38% 963 48% 246 12% 635 32% 6 2,079 808 39% 948 46% 282 14% 592 28% 7 2,006 788 39% 932 46% 276 14% 599 30% 8 1,949 747 38% 892 46% 256 13% 591 30% 9 2,055 793 39% 901 44% 239 12% 637 31%

10 1,786 558 31% 717 40% 220 12% 532 30% 11 1,834 758 41% 755 41% 210 11% 491 27% 12 2,002 673 34% 610 30% 230 11% 260 13%

OSY 2,255 223 10% 0 0% 0 0% 1,387 62% Total 31,744 9,261 31%* 12,902 43%* 3,106 10% 10,651 34%

Source: 2018-19 CSPR Part II *Percentage of eligible migratory students ages 3-21 (30,304) Exhibits 5 and 6 show the number of eligible migratory students and the number of migratory students served at each of the 66 districts and two ESDs during 2018-19. Project sites had 29,384 eligible migratory students/youth compared to 2,360 in non-project sites. Actual numbers can be found in Exhibit 10 on page 17.

Exhibit 5 2018-19 Child Counts for Projects with More than 400 Migratory Students

Source: MSIS

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

GRANGERMOSES LAKE

QUINCYGRANDVIEW

NORTH FRANKLINPROSSER

EASTMONTWAPATO

TOPPENISHOTHELLO

MOUNT VERNONWAHLUKE

SUNNYSIDEWENATCHEE

PASCOYAKIMA

KENNEWICK

# Served # Students


Exhibit 6 2018-19 Child Counts for Projects with Less Than 400 Migratory Students

Source: MSIS

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

OLYMPIAPATERSON

CONWAYHOQUIAM

NORTHWEST ESD 189CHEHALISPRESCOTT

NORTH CENTRAL ESD 171ELLENSBURG

LINDMOSSYROCK

COLUMBIA (WALLA WALLA)OCEAN BEACH

OCOSTACASCADE

UNION GAPPATEROS

QUILLAYUTE VALLEYNASELLE-GRAYS RIVER

SNOHOMISHFINLEY

ORONDOZILLAH

COLLEGE PLACEWEST VALLEY (YAKIMA)

WINLOCKCENTRALIA

MANSONWALLA WALLA

ABERDEENSHELTON

LA CONNORSELAH

FERNDALENOOKSAK VALLEY

HIGHLANDSEDRO-WOOLLEY

LYNDENEPHRATA

SEATTLE PUBLIC SCHOOLSLAKE CHELAN

BREWSTERMARYSVILLEBRIDGEPORT

ROYALCASHMERE

BURLINGTON-EDISONWARDENMABTON

TONASKETKIONA BENTON CITY

# Served # Students


3. Purpose of the Evaluation In 1966, Congress included language in the ESEA to help the children of migratory farmworkers and established the Office of Migrant Education (OME) in the U.S. Department of Education. Migrant education programs provide supplemental instructional and support services to children of migratory workers and fishers in nearly all states. These programs must comply with Federal mandates as specified in Title I, Part C of the ESEA, as reauthorized by ESSA. The State of Washington has established high academic standards and provides all students with a high-quality education to allow them to achieve to their full potential. The Washington standards support Title I, Part C, Section 1301 of the ESEA to ensure that migratory children have the opportunity to meet the same challenging State academic performance standards that all children are expected to meet. State education agencies (SEAs) are required to evaluate the effectiveness of the State MEP and provide guidance to local MEPs on how to conduct local evaluations. A program’s actual performance must be compared to “measurable outcomes established by the MEP and State performance targets, particularly for those students who have PFS.” To investigate the effectiveness of its efforts to serve migratory children and improve those efforts based on comprehensive and objective results, the Washington MEP conducted an evaluation of its MEP to: determine whether the program is effective and document its impact on migratory

children; improve program planning by comparing the effectiveness of different interventions; determine the degree to which projects are implemented as planned and identify

problems that are encountered in program implementation; identify areas in which children may need different MEP services; and consider evaluation questions regarding program implementation and results.

EVALUATION QUESTIONS (IMPLEMENTATION) OME requires that SEAs conduct an evaluation that examines both program implementation and program (performance) results. In evaluating program implementation, the evaluation of the Washington MEP addresses questions such as: Was the program implemented as described in the approved project application? If not,

what changes were made? What worked in the implementation of Washington MEP projects and programs? What problems did the projects encounter? What improvements should be made? What types of supplemental reading/ELA and math instruction was provided to migratory

students during the regular term? What instructional programs were used to teach reading/ELA and math to migratory

students? What types of reading/ELA and math instruction was provided to migratory students

during the summer? What types of MEP supplemental instruction were provided to migratory preschool

children? For which courses/programs did secondary-aged migratory students receive credit?


What types of MEP instructional and support services were provided to secondary-aged migratory students?

What types of support did MGSs provide to secondary-aged migratory students? EVALUATION QUESTIONS (RESULTS) In evaluating program (performance) results, the evaluation of the Washington MEP addresses questions such as: What percentage of K-8 migratory students (PFS and non-PFS) receiving regular term

reading instruction showed a gain of at least one point or level on district reading/ELA assessments during the school year?

What percentage of K-8 migratory students (PFS and non-PFS) receiving summer reading instruction maintained or increased their score on district reading/ELA assessments?

What percentage of K-8 migratory students (PFS and non-PFS) receiving regular term math instruction showed a gain of at least one point or one level on district math assessments during the school year?

What percentage of K-8 migratory students (PFS and non-PFS) receiving summer math instruction maintained or increased their score on district math assessments?

What percentage of PK-3 staff completing Staff Training Evaluations reported that they are better prepared to deliver services to migratory preschool-age students?

What percentage of migratory children (PFS and non-PFS) entering kindergarten in the fall demonstrated skills typical of entering kindergarteners in 4 or more domains on the WaKIDS?

What percentage of migratory students (PFS and non-PFS) enrolled in credit-bearing courses received high school credit?

Did the percentage of migratory students in grades 9-12 (PFS & non-PFS) receiving MEP instructional and/or support services during 2018-19 increase by 2% over the previous year?

What percentage of migratory students (PFS and non-PFS) in grades 9-12 that received support from MGSs graduated or were promoted to the next grade level?


4. Evaluation Methodology The Washington MEP evaluation is part of the State MEP Continuous Improvement Cycle (U.S. Department of Education, 2018), as depicted in the figure to the right. In this cycle, each step in developing a program, assessing needs, identifying and implementing strategies, and evaluating results, builds on the previous activity, and informs the subsequent activity. As required, the evaluation of the Washington MEP includes both implementation and performance results data. It examines the planning and implementation of services based on substantial progress made toward meeting performance outcomes as well as the demographic dimensions of migratory student participation; the perceived attitudes of staff and parent stakeholders regarding improvement, achievement, and other student outcomes; and the accomplishments of the Washington MEP. An external evaluation firm (META Associates) was contracted to help ensure objectivity in evaluating Washington’s MEP, to examine the effectiveness of services, and to make recommendations to improve the quality of the services provided to migratory students. To evaluate the services, the external evaluator and/or MEP staff had responsibility for:

maintaining and reviewing evaluation data collection forms and collecting other anecdotal information;

observing the operation of MEPs and summarizing field notes about project implementation and/or participation in meetings and professional development; and

preparing an evaluation report to determine the extent to which progress was made and MPOs were met.

Data analysis procedures used in this report include descriptive statistics (e.g., means, frequencies, and t-tests); trend analysis noting substantial tendencies in the data summarized according to notable themes; and analyses of representative self-reported anecdotes about successful program features and aspects of the program needing improvement. To gather information about the outcomes and effectiveness of the services provided to migratory students in Washington, formative and summative evaluation data was collected to determine the level of implementation of the strategies contained in the SDP, the extent to which progress was made toward the Washington State Performance Goals; and the MEP MPOs listed below. English Language Arts (ELA)

MPO 1a: By the end of the 2018-19 school year, 50% of migratory students in grades K-8 who received regular term supplemental reading instruction will show a gain of at least one point or one level on pre/post district reading/ELA assessments. MPO 1b: Upon completion of the 2019 summer program, 75% of migratory students in grades K-8 who received summer reading instruction will maintain or increase their score by 2% on pre/post district reading/ELA assessments.



Mathematics MPO 2a: By the end of the 2018-19 school year, 50% of migratory students in grades K-8 who received regular term supplemental math instruction will show a gain of at least one point or one level on pre/post district math assessments. MPO 2b: Upon completion of the 2019 summer program, 75% of migratory students in grades K-8 who received summer math instruction will maintain or increase their score by 2% on pre/post district math assessments. MPO 2c: By the end of the 2018-19 performance period, 75% of migratory families who participated in MEP family math services will report being better prepared to have conversations about math with their children, as measured by a rating of 3 or 4 (out of 4) on the Parent Training Evaluation.

School Readiness

MPO 3a: By the end of the 2018-19 school year, 48% of migratory students entering kindergarten who received MEP supplemental instruction will demonstrate skills typical of entering kindergarteners in four or more domains on the WaKIDS. MPO 3b: By the end of the 2018-19 performance period, 75% of families of preschool migratory children who received training in school readiness (e.g., early reading, early math) will report that they are better prepared to support their child’s learning at home, as measured by a rating of 3 or 4 rating (out of 4) on the Parent Training Evaluation.

Graduation/Services to OSY

MPO 4a: Upon completion of the 2018-19 performance period, 75% of migratory students enrolled in credit-bearing courses will obtain credit toward high school graduation. MPO 4b: By the end of the 2018-19 performance period, the percentage of migratory students in grades 9-12 receiving MEP instructional and/or support services will increase by 2% over the previous performance period. MPO 4c: By the end of the 2018-19 performance period, 79% of migratory students in grades 9-12 who received support from MGSs will graduate or be promoted to the next grade level. MPO 4d: By the end of the 2018-19 program year, there will a 15% increase in the percentage of OSY served by the Washington MEP over the 2016-17 program year (<1% served).


5. Implementation Evaluation Results MIGRATORY STUDENT SERVICES Exhibit 7 shows that 12,102 migratory students (38% of all eligible migratory students ages 3-21) were served during the regular school year (2018-19), 42% of which (30% more than in 2017-18) were PFS students (55% of all PFS students); and 2,704 (1% more than in 2017-18) migratory students (9% of all eligible migratory students) were served during the summer (2018), 35% of which (21% more than in 2017-18) were PFS students (10% of all PFS students).

Exhibit 7 Migratory Students Served during the Regular School Year and Summer

Regular School Year Summer All Migratory Students PFS All Migratory Students PFS

Grade Total

Eligible

Served Total Served Served Total Served

# % #

PFS # % Total

Eligible # % #

PFS # % Birth-2 1,440 6 <1% -- -- -- 1,440 0 0% -- -- -- Age 3-5 3,116 114 4% 1 0 0% 3,116 65 2% 1 0 0%

K 1,886 658 35% 681 321 47% 1,886 185 10% 681 61 9% 1 1,701 635 37% 323 124 38% 1,701 269 16% 323 90 28% 2 1,791 666 37% 732 329 45% 1,791 260 15% 732 101 14% 3 1,882 726 39% 650 305 47% 1,882 287 15% 650 89 14% 4 1,957 697 36% 755 327 43% 1,957 262 13% 755 96 13% 5 2,005 725 36% 771 326 42% 2,005 239 12% 771 90 12% 6 2,079 857 41% 808 419 52% 2,079 199 10% 808 72 9% 7 2,006 936 47% 788 484 61% 2,006 128 6% 788 53 7% 8 1,949 1,021 52% 747 470 63% 1,949 214 11% 747 85 11% 9 2,055 1,129 55% 793 571 72% 2,055 186 9% 793 75 9%

10 1,786 1,014 57% 558 389 70% 1,786 163 9% 558 44 8% 11 1,834 1,091 59% 758 505 67% 1,834 198 11% 758 68 9% 12 2,002 1,228 61% 673 467 69% 2,002 49 2% 673 15 2%

OSY 2,255 599 27% 223 28 13% 2,255 0 0% 223 0 0% Total 31,744 12,102 40%* 9,261 5,065 55% 31,744 2,704 9%* 9,261 939 10%

Source: 2018-19 CSPR Part II & MSIS **Percentage of eligible migratory children/youth ages 3-21 [N=30,304]

Exhibit 8 shows the unduplicated number of participating migratory children who received MEP-funded instructional or support services at any time during the 2018-19 performance period (regular year and summer). Results show that 41% of the 31,744 eligible migratory students (46% of the eligible migratory students ages 3-21) were served during 2018-19. Thirty-nine percent (39%) of the students served were PFS students (59% of all PFS students). Exhibit 9 shows that 39% of the students served received instructional services (17% of all eligible migratory students). Five percent (5%) of the 5,532 migratory students receiving instruction during the performance period received reading instruction and 3% received math instruction. Eighty percent (80%) of the migratory students served (4% less than in 2017-18) received support services (17% of all eligible migratory students), with 53% receiving support services receiving counseling services. Sixty percent (60%) of high school students (grades 9-12) received support services, as did 46% of middle school students (grades 6-8), 28% of elementary students (grades K-5) and OSY, and 3% of children birth to age 5 (not in kindergarten).


Exhibit 8 Migratory Students Served during the 2018-19 Performance Period

All Migratory Students PFS

Grade Eligible Served Total #

PFS Served

# % # % Birth-2 1,440 9 1% -- -- -- Age 3-5 3,116 235 8% 1 0 0%

K 1,886 859 46% 681 346 51% 1 1,701 815 48% 323 199 62% 2 1,791 825 46% 732 379 52% 3 1,882 892 47% 650 342 53% 4 1,957 871 45% 755 375 50% 5 2,005 900 45% 771 372 48% 6 2,079 1,013 49% 808 449 56% 7 2,006 1,082 54% 788 500 63% 8 1,949 1,154 59% 747 497 67% 9 2,055 1,237 60% 793 591 75%

10 1,786 1,087 61% 558 399 72% 11 1,834 1,162 63% 758 514 68% 12 2,002 1,258 63% 673 470 70%

OSY 2,255 640 28% 223 28 13% Total 31,744 14,039 46%* 9,261 5,461 59%

Source: 2018-19 CSPR Part II *Percentage of eligible migratory children/youth ages 3-21 [N=30,304]

Exhibit 9 Migratory Students Receiving Instructional and Support Services

during the 2018-19 Performance Period Instructional Services Support Services

Grade #

Served

Any Instruction

Reading Instruction

Math Instruction

Support Services

Breakout of Counseling

# %* # %** # %** # %* # %*** Birth-2 9 4 44% 0 0% 0 0% 5 56% 2 40% Age 3-5 235 135 57% 0 0% 0 0% 127 54% 67 53%

K 859 497 58% 7 1% 3 1% 479 56% 210 44% 1 815 493 60% 11 2% 0 0% 493 60% 217 44% 2 825 512 62% 19 4% 12 2% 481 58% 233 48% 3 892 554 62% 24 4% 33 6% 554 62% 235 42% 4 871 515 59% 19 4% 21 4% 536 62% 246 46% 5 900 491 55% 19 4% 25 5% 636 71% 269 42% 6 1,013 415 41% 53 13% 16 4% 834 82% 352 42% 7 1,082 373 34% 41 11% 44 12% 900 83% 452 50% 8 1,154 366 32% 45 12% 13 4% 1,034 90% 685 66% 9 1,237 253 20% 6 2% 7 3% 1,198 97% 704 59%

10 1,087 259 24% 4 2% 7 3% 1,053 97% 666 63% 11 1,162 340 29% 9 3% 8 2% 1,128 97% 758 67% 12 1,258 318 25% 8 3% 4 1% 1,204 96% 850 71%

OSY 640 7 1% 0 0% 0 0% 639 99% 31 5% Total 14,039 5,532 39% 265 5% 193 3% 11,301 80% 5,977 53%

Source: 2018-19 CSPR Part II *Percentage of migratory students served during the performance period

**Percentage of students receiving instructional services ***Percentage of students receiving support services Migratory students also were served by Special Education (9% of all eligible migratory students), the State Bilingual Program (38% of all eligible migratory students), and the Learning Assistance Program (23% of all eligible migratory students). Exhibit 10 displays the migratory students and youth eligible and served at each of the project districts during 2018-19 (Note: this chart does not include non-project districts). A total of 29,384 students were eligible to receive


MEP services during 2018-19 in the project districts, with 29% of these students considered PFS (slightly more than double the percentage during 2017-18), and 71% considered non-PFS (15% less than 2017-18). Forty-eight percent (48%) of the eligible migratory students received MEP services in the project districts (same as in 2017-18). Sixty-five percent (65%) of the PFS migratory students were served, as were 40% of the non-PFS migratory students. The two largest projects were Kennewick (3,111 eligible students) and Yakima (2,457 eligible students), and the projects that served the largest percentage of students were North Central ESD 171 (100%), Ocean Beach (95%), Winlock (94%), Northwest ESD 189 (94%), and Paterson (91%). Of note is that the 17 projects with more than 400 eligible migratory students served 48% of their eligible students (22,072 eligible students, 10,557 served) and the 51 projects with fewer than 400 eligible migratory students served 47% of their eligible students (7,312 eligible students, 3,409 served).

Exhibit 10 2018-19 Local Project Migratory Child Counts and Student Served

Eligible PFS Non-PFS

Districts

# S

tude

nts

# Se

rved

% S

erve

d

# PF

S

% P

FS

# PF

S Se

rved

% P

FS

Serv

ed

# N

on-P

FS

% N

on-P

FS

# N

on-P

FS

Serv

ed

% N

on-P

FS

Serv

ed

Aberdeen 138 106 77% 45 33% 39 87% 93 67% 67 72% Brewster 235 98 42% 66 28% 42 64% 169 72% 56 33% Bridgeport 239 80 33% 40 17% 21 53% 199 83% 59 30% Burlington-Edison 337 76 23% 94 28% 25 27% 243 72% 51 21% Cascade 61 22 36% 17 28% 4 24% 44 72% 18 41% Cashmere 276 71 26% 47 17% 25 53% 229 83% 46 20% Centralia 104 47 45% 36 35% 15 42% 68 65% 32 47% Chehalis 36 31 86% 13 36% 13 100% 23 64% 18 78% College Place 102 59 58% 25 25% 18 72% 77 75% 41 53% Columbia (Walla Walla) 54 36 67% 7 13% 6 86% 47 87% 30 64% Conway 31 8 26% 13 42% 6 46% 18 58% 2 11% Eastmont 954 446 47% 238 25% 145 61% 716 75% 301 42% Ellensburg 46 32 70% 17 37% 16 94% 29 63% 16 55% Ephrata 223 45 20% 75 34% 19 25% 148 66% 26 18% Ferndale 197 103 52% 39 20% 31 79% 158 80% 72 46% Finley 77 34 44% 14 18% 8 57% 63 82% 26 41% Grandview 598 334 56% 182 30% 132 73% 416 70% 202 49% Granger 421 162 38% 88 21% 62 70% 333 79% 100 30% Highland 213 81 38% 38 18% 12 32% 175 82% 69 39% Hoquiam 31 3 10% 6 19% 0 0% 25 81% 3 12% Kennewick 3,111 1,058 34% 1,011 32% 437 43% 2,100 68% 621 30% Kiona-Benton City 381 280 73% 91 24% 87 96% 290 76% 193 67% La Connor 179 116 65% 85 47% 60 71% 94 53% 56 60% Lake Chelan 230 147 64% 67 29% 63 94% 163 71% 84 52% Lind 49 36 73% 11 22% 10 91% 38 78% 26 68% Lynden 221 41 19% 42 19% 21 50% 179 81% 20 11% Mabton 341 251 74% 97 28% 97 100% 244 72% 154 63% Manson 107 5 5% 32 30% 4 13% 75 70% 1 1% Marysville 237 42 18% 82 35% 17 21% 155 65% 25 16% Moses Lake 520 242 47% 142 27% 97 68% 378 73% 145 38% Mossyrock 52 35 67% 11 21% 10 91% 41 79% 25 61% Mount Vernon 1,647 621 38% 496 30% 249 50% 1,151 70% 372 32% Naselle-Grays River 75 11 15% 12 16% 1 8% 63 84% 10 16% Nooksack Valley 211 5 2% 32 15% 1 3% 179 85% 4 2% North Central ESD 171 45 45 100% 0 0% 0 0% 45 100% 45 100% North Franklin 682 400 59% 260 38% 185 71% 422 62% 215 51%


Eligible PFS Non-PFS

Districts

# S

tude

nts

# Se

rved

% S

erve

d

# PF

S

% P

FS

# PF

S Se

rved

% P

FS

Serv

ed

# N

on-P

FS

% N

on-P

FS

# N

on-P

FS

Serv

ed

% N

on-P

FS

Serv

ed

Northwest ESD 189 34 32 94% 0 0% 0 0% 34 100% 32 94% Ocean Beach 56 53 95% 27 48% 27 100% 29 52% 26 90% Ocosta 57 48 84% 18 32% 16 89% 39 68% 32 82% Olympia 22 19 86% 5 23% 5 100% 17 77% 14 82% Orondo 89 26 29% 10 11% 8 80% 79 89% 18 23% Othello 1,060 336 32% 287 27% 154 54% 773 73% 182 24% Pasco 2,066 507 25% 500 24% 165 33% 1,566 76% 342 22% Pateros 71 9 13% 22 31% 7 32% 49 69% 2 4% Paterson 23 21 91% 7 30% 7 100% 16 70% 14 88% Prescott 43 24 56% 4 9% 3 75% 39 91% 21 54% Prosser 760 283 37% 212 28% 129 61% 548 72% 154 28% Quillayute Valley 74 14 19% 24 32% 6 25% 50 68% 8 16% Quincy 533 150 28% 157 29% 61 39% 376 71% 89 24% Royal City 265 124 47% 57 22% 43 75% 208 78% 81 39% Seattle 228 116 51% 90 39% 59 66% 138 61% 57 41% Sedro-Woolley 219 95 43% 88 40% 42 48% 131 60% 53 40% Selah 188 107 57% 67 36% 54 81% 121 64% 53 44% Shelton 147 56 38% 41 28% 19 46% 106 72% 37 35% Snohomish 76 40 53% 34 45% 19 56% 42 55% 21 50% Sunnyside 1,676 657 39% 455 27% 259 57% 1,221 73% 398 33% Tonasket 365 149 41% 91 25% 57 63% 274 75% 92 34% Toppenish 1,038 841 81% 266 26% 261 98% 772 74% 580 75% Union Gap 64 1 2% 10 16% 1 10% 54 84% 0 0% Wahluke 1,666 1,111 67% 709 43% 647 91% 957 57% 464 48% Walla Walla 119 60 50% 37 31% 15 41% 82 69% 45 55% Wapato 999 562 56% 330 33% 222 67% 669 67% 340 51% Warden 340 229 67% 92 27% 78 85% 248 73% 151 61% Wenatchee 1,884 1,047 56% 540 29% 478 89% 1,344 71% 569 42% West Valley (Yakima) 102 62 61% 17 17% 16 94% 85 83% 46 54% Winlock 104 98 94% 20 19% 20 100% 84 81% 78 93% Yakima 2,457 1,800 73% 703 29% 640 91% 1,754 71% 1,160 66% Zillah 98 80 82% 35 36% 32 91% 63 64% 48 76%

Total 29,384 13,966 48% 8,526 29% 5,528 65% 20,858 71% 8,438 40% Source: MSIS

Exhibit 11 shows the specific instructional services received by migratory students and youth during 2018-19, as reported by local projects in MSIS.

Exhibit 11: Instructional Services Received by Migratory Students during 2018-19

410

99269

860956

28863729

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000

Financial LiteracyLife Skills

Early ChildhoodESL OSYScience

Credit AccrualMath

ELA

# Students/Youth


Source: MSIS The largest number of migratory students/youth received reading instruction, followed by math instruction, and credit accrual. Students also received science instruction, OSY received ESL instruction, and preschoolers received early childhood services. Exhibit 12 shows the specific support services received by migratory students and youth during 2018-19, as reported by local projects in MSIS. Results illustrate that the largest number of migratory students/youth received non-academic guidance, followed by student advocacy, and case management. Other support services received included career/postsecondary education, student leadership opportunities, social work outreach, educational supplies, transportation, health services, hygiene supplies, and dental.

Exhibit 12 Support Services Received by Migratory Students during 2018-19

Source: MSIS PARENT INVOLVEMENT The Washington MEP values parents as partners with the program/schools in the education of their children. As a result, parents take part in regular and ongoing PAC meetings during the regular school year and various other parent activities during both the regular school year and summer. Each project has a PAC that provides guidance and input into the planning and implementation of the Migrant Education Program. Following are examples of the events, activities, and meetings in which parents participated during 2018-19. College field trips College informational nights Dare to Dream parent nights End-of-year parent events English classes for parents FAFSA/WASFA nights Family information nights Field trips Health fairs High school parent night for

incoming freshmen Hispanic Family Forums

Holiday family events Home visits Informational fairs LEAP Conference Literacy nights Math nights Migrant awards banquets Migrant family nights Migrant math nights Migrant Parent Symposium Migrant Student Leadership Club NASDME Conference

203596

9672022

230727392845

31514198

51428234

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000

DentalHygiene Supplies

HealthTransportation

Educational SuppliesSocial Work Outreach

Student LeadershipCareer/Postsecondary

Case ManagementStudent Advocacy

Non-Academic Guidance

# Students/Youth


Open houses PAC meetings Parent classes Parent Day Parent engagement series Parent/teacher conferences Parent Universities

Regional Title I Parent Conferences Spanish financial aid nights State Parent Advisory Council STEM nights Student presentations/events Summer school orientation Washington MEP State Conference

Examples of training topics provided to parents by the MEP included the following: Attendance Brain Development in Young

Children Bullying Career Exploration College and Career Readiness -

FAFSA and Scholarships College Pathways Community Resources Discipline Drug and Alcohol Awareness Effective Conferencing with

Teachers English Language Arts Financial Aid/FAFSA/WAFSA Graduation Requirements Health and Fitness Hispanic Heritage How to Support Academics in the

Home Improved School Relationships and

Advocacy

Increased Knowledge of citizenship and immigration

Leadership Skills Mathematics Media Safety Migrant After School Tutoring in

Reading and Math Migrant Education Program

Overview Overcoming Barriers Parent Engagement Planning for the Future Postsecondary Education Project Fit Program Evaluation Reading Scholarships School Safety Science Programs Social-emotional State Assessments Strong Families

On end-of-year reports, local project staff identified activities conducted to increase migratory parent engagement. Following are examples from individual projects that address PAC meetings and training, parent involvement activities and training, and opportunities for parent involvement in the classroom and at home. PAC Meetings and Training

• Each time we have the family forums/general PAC meetings we have increased participation. Due to more migrant staff being bilingual, communication has improved. Families know who to contact at their particular schools and feel supported. They are increasingly willing to share out, relate experiences, and assist others with school related issues. They enjoy the family forums/ general PAC meetings and would like to continue them as a way to communicate with the district.

• Engagement opportunities during PAC meetings included mini trainings on how to access medical services, purpose and importance of migrant physicals, bullying reporting protocols, and state testing preparation. We also had a student present her Dare to Dream experience to encourage families and students to participate in upcoming events.

• Focus was placed on making PAC Meetings fun and engaging for families rather than sit and listen type meetings, and providing dinner.

• PAC meetings provide a safe environment for parents to voice their concerns, ask clarifying questions, and gain valuable information regarding a variety of resources, including our school


system and the community. The PAC works to empower parents with information that will support migratory students as they progress through our educational systems.

Parent Engagement Activities • During family nights, reading and math activities were modeled as well as instructional and

supplemental academic materials provided for home use. The family nights provided information and materials to parents in order to support and help their children at home with academics.

• Monthly family nights were held at the local public library. Families had the opportunity to participate in games, social activities, and interactive read alouds with their children and other families. The district staff provided parents with a variety of ways they could help their children succeed at school including state testing, attendance, school forms, and reading support in the home. Parents were given the opportunity to apply for library cards and taught how to use the different resources in the library.

• Outside of PAC and parent meetings, we conducted a large scale Parent Institute. We had over 80 families present and represented 10 of our students population on a Saturday. The outcomes were parent and student training on many different topics in order to reduce barriers for our students in and out of school.

• Parent education sessions were provided to help families learn how to teach math skills through play. Parents learned that parent involvement was necessary to support student success. They also learned that parent involvement does not necessarily mean coming into the school, but also includes providing opportunities for learning at home. Parents were provided with play kits that promote learning in the home.

• The MGS makes frequent contact with parents to share both positive things students have done as well as to inform parents and seek assistance from them when students are struggling academically and/or behaviorally.

• Migrant staff continue to visit with families, either with home visits or in schools. They also attend extracurricular family events in the schools, such as meet your teacher, conferences, and academic family nights. We have had success with the Hispanic Family Forums and will continue to implement them this upcoming year. Each time we have the family forums/general PAC meetings we have increased participation. Due to more migrant staff being bilingual, communication has improved. Families know who to contact at their particular schools and feel supported. They are increasingly willing to share out, relate experiences, and assist others with school related issues. They enjoy the family forums/general PAC meetings and would like to continue them as a way to communicate with the district.

Opportunities for Parent Involvement in the Classroom and at Home

• Home visits were made to all the families since we could not get them to participate in PAC meetings. Phone calls were made 23 times/family over the year to see if there are any supplies we could provide or extra services we could offer. When trying to engage parents, we were met with resistance until spring. We then focused on student engagement and asking students how we can help them. This was much more successful. Parents started to be more open to support and engagement because their children were enthusiastic about the MEP. By the end of the year, we were able to identify more Native American migratory families who were offering to help spread the word of the MEP and its benefits.

• Ready for Kindergarten Sessions for early learning and school readiness activities were provided to migratory families one-on-one and in small groups.

Following are a few examples from parents of their learning from parent activities.

• Different ways to learn how to teach my son. • How to work with my child for kindergarten readiness.


• How to work with my child. • I learned a lot of new and useful techniques (i.e., don’t say no, jumping syllable). Gives me much

more confidence with teaching my son. • Sounding out words

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT Professional development supports staff that provide instructional and support services to migratory students. All MEP staff participate in professional learning opportunities, allowing them to serve migratory students more effectively and efficiently. Professional development takes many forms including national/state conferences, regional training, site-based workshops, and coaching and mentoring. During 2018-19, Washington MEP and ESD staff provided numerous professional development opportunities to MEP staff. Following are examples of the key professional development in which MEP staff participated during 2018-19. Migrant Student Advocate(MSA)/MGS professional learning communities (PLCs) Latino/a Educational Achievement Project (LEAP) Conference Migrant staff meetings Migrant Grant Application Training (OSPI) MSIS Data Training National Migrant Education Conference National Summer Learning Association (NSLA) Summer School Institute OSPI/ESD meetings Quarterly MEP webinars (OSPI) Regional migrant meetings Title I Parent Conference Washington Migrant Education Conference Washington Student Support Conference

In addition, MEP staff participated in regular and ongoing professional development provided by local districts, ESDs, and the MEP. Following is a sample of the topics covered during professional development. Academic Language ACES Bilingual Newcomer Bilingual and Sheltering Techniques Binational Transfer Process Book Studies Bridge to College Collaboration Cultural Awareness Early Learning Migrant 101 Early Numeracy ELA Learning A-Z Engineering is Elementary (EiE) Family Literacy Flexible Credit Options Funds of Knowledge GLAD Strategies

Graduation Requirements Health Home/School Connections Home Visits ID&R Immigration Literacy Strategy Lessons Math Matters Mathematical Practices MEP Strategy Implementation MGS/MSA Training Migrant 101 Migrant Lifestyle Training Migrant Student Leadership Activities MSIS Needs Assessment Parent Engagement


Following are examples of descriptions of professional development services provided by ESD staff.

• Facilitate access to Title III and TBIP programs’ professional learning that address the academic content language needs of highly mobile migratory students as measured by state assessments (e.g., ELPA21, Smarter Balanced).

• Provide ongoing training and technical assistance on Early Learning Migrant Education 101 modules to include cultural awareness and support for primary home language.

• Provide technical assistance to schools to develop and implement content support in appropriate settings including before/after school, lunch, intercession, and summer programs focused in the areas of comprehension and academic vocabulary development.

• Provide trainings and ongoing technical assistance to support districts in conducting parent information sessions to ensure that migratory students and their parents understand the High School and Beyond Plan, assessments, the high school transcript, and graduation requirements. Work with local school districts to identify the training needed to graduation specialist and advocates about post-secondary education opportunities including financial aid, scholarships, and other grant applications.

• Support district access to coordinated services so that migratory ELs are receiving language development services through the State Transitional Bilingual Instructional Program, Title III (extended day, summer, or intersession programming), or other applicable resources.

• With OSPI, provide technical assistance and PLC’s for MGSs, MSAs, and school counselors to address the following initiatives and services for migratory youth to support on course toward graduation and postsecondary education including: meeting state standards and alternative tests, social emotional wrap-around services, referrals to health and behavioral resources, credit retrieval options, dropout recovery, and student leadership opportunities.

MEP staff completing end-of-year reports of summer programming indicated the ways in which professional learning impacted MEP staff. They reported that staff incorporated strategies learned from PD while working with migratory students, extending staff knowledge of the needs and home life of migratory students, and in creating and implementing innovative and engaging instruction. Following are examples of MEP staff comments. Impact on classroom instruction

• As a result of PD, teachers focused on language learning in academic context and maximizing hands-on/applied learning projects. Students improved in their vocabulary related to the tasks and understood the concepts of the course and engagement was elevated through the use of Kagan cooperative learning strategies.

• Professional development impacted instruction in a positive way. Teachers were much better prepared to implement the science curriculum and lead the hands-on engineering lessons having experienced the lessons as students themselves. The training gives teachers a jump start on planning, which allows for more intentional instructional strategies. Specifically there was a significant use of GLAD strategies in most of our classrooms, and many GLAD strategies require a lot of preparation time for the teacher.

• Teachers were placed into PLCs by grade level and special populations. Staff collaborated on what they felt like their prescriptive interventions were and what data they would hold as meeting the standards set. Our pre and post data monitored the strengths and areas of needs for each student. Teachers used the data to develop individualized activities for their students based on their areas on needs.


Impact on staff skills for implementing innovative and engaging instruction • Through the implementation of a comprehensive GLAD unit, teachers successfully integrated

reading, writing, listening, speaking, science and art through a themed unit on Oceanography. • The science PD directly impacted student learning and teacher skill in presenting a project-based

cooperative learning curriculum. • Teachers used the reading curriculum with greater fidelity. The math curriculum training gave

teachers new strategies and methods to use in helping students solve problems in multiple ways. Students were so highly engaged in the math activities that they hardly realized how hard they were working and thinking. Teachers were excited about the engaging learning with Imagine Learning and the resources it offered them to supplement and make use of a blended learning environment of teacher-directed and computer-based learning.

Impact on staff knowledge of the needs and home life of migratory students

• Training helped staff to better comprehend and relate to their migratory students. • Teachers gained a greater understanding of the obstacles that migratory students have in their

educational pathway. • The migrant home visitor reported feeling very comfortable with the home visiting process and

the materials that she was using to support student learning in the home. Families and students reported feeling very comfortable with the home visitor.

Impact on MEP staff conducting home-based programming

• Our teachers reported feeling safe during their home visits and knew exactly what to do and who to contact if they had an issue of problem. The teachers also appreciated the weekly check-ins as an opportunity to reflect on the learning, plans, and individual students.

• Professional development was job-embedded including modeling of lessons, team teaching, coaching, and debriefing in a cycle of improvement. A vast majority of the home visiting lessons included job-embedded PD that directly impacted instruction in the learning environment with real students.

STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION The Fidelity of Strategy Implementation (FSI) tool was completed by local projects in Washington. MEP staff worked in teams to discuss how the 12 strategies were implemented in their projects, arrive at consensus on the level of implementation of each strategy, and identify evidence used to determine ratings for their projects. Following are the mean ratings assigned by MEP staff for the level of implementation of each strategy in the Washington SDP. Ratings are based on a 5-point rubric where 1=not aware, 2=aware, 3=developing, 4=succeeding, and 5=exceeding. A rating of succeeding (4) is considered “proficient”. A copy of the FSI is included in Appendix A. The mean rating for all 12 strategies combined was 3.3 out of 5.0. Mean ratings for all 12 strategies were below the “proficient” level (4.0/“succeeding”). Highest rated was Strategy 1.1 (mean rating of 3.6) addressing regular term ELA academic support, followed by Strategies 1.2, 2.1, and 4.2 (each with a mean rating of 3.5) addressing summer ELA academic support, regular term math academic support, and graduation support and advocacy. Lowest rated was Strategy 4.3 (mean rating of 2.8) addressing outreach to OSY and eligible migratory H2A workers, including dropouts.


Exhibit 13 Mean Ratings on the Fidelity of Strategy Implementation (FSI)

Strategies # Projects

Implementing Strategy

# Projects Assigning

Rating of ≥4 18-19 Rating

ELA Strategy 1.1: Provide regular term academic support designed to help migratory students in grades K-12 meet or exceed WA State K-12 Learning Standards in ELA and ELP Standards using: a) research-based, evidence-based, or best practices and resources; b) services aligned to individual needs; and c) targeted interventions and strategies through small group, after school, and/or before school supplemental instruction.

27 16 (59%) 3.6

Strategy 1.2: Provide summer term academic support designed to help migratory students in grades K-12 meet or exceed WA State K-12 Learning Standards in ELA and ELP Standards using research-based, evidence-based or best practices, resources, and services aligned to individual needs.

24 14 (58%) 3.5

Strategy 1.3: Use the OSPI ELA Suite (Menu of Best Practices, Early Literacy Pathways, Literacy Plan Summer 2017) and additional family resources highlighted by OSPI and their regional and national partners (e.g., Preschool Initiative Consortium Incentive Grant) to provide family literacy services (reading, writing, speaking, listening in L1 or L2) that include opportunities for families to learn strategies to support learning in the home (e.g., PAC, Teacher Conferences, Family Literacy Night).

26 7 (27%) 3.2

Mathematics Strategy 2.1: Provide regular term academic support designed to help migratory students in grades K-12 meet or exceed WA State K-12 Learning Standards in Mathematics through strategies such as: a) academic discourse for research-based mathematics instruction and language acquisition; b) growth mindset learning and strategies; and c) targeted interventions through small group, after school, and/or before school supplemental instruction.

26 13 (50%) 3.5

Strategy 2.2: Provide summer term academic support designed to help migratory students in grades K-12 meet or exceed WA State K-12 Learning Standards in Mathematics that incorporate: a) research-based mathematics instruction; b) growth mindset learning and strategies; c) math content using evidence-based best practices, resources, and services aligned to individual needs; and/or d) best practices in language acquisition strategies that promote student academic discourse.

19 8 (42%) 3.3

Strategy 2.3: Use the OSPI Mathematics Suite (Menu of Best Practices, Early Numeracy Pathways, Growth Mindset) to provide family mathematics services that include: a) opportunities for families to learn about strategies that support student academic discourse and core mathematical concepts; and b) suggested activities for engaging in mathematical discourse at home.

26 10 (39%) 3.3

School Readiness Strategy 3.1: Ensure early learning classrooms are culturally responsive by providing all teachers of migratory preschool through third grade students and preschool partners (Head Start, ECEAP, and community/faith-based schools) with opportunities for school readiness and cultural awareness training, including how school readiness and culture can influence each other (e.g., Migrant 101 with a focus on early learning).

25 9 (36%) 3.0

Strategy 3.2: Provide or partner with programs to provide supplemental, research-based and best practices instructional services (including a focus on social-emotional development) to 3-5-year-old migratory children that are aligned to their needs (e.g., preschool opportunities, home visits with school readiness instruction, trained paraprofessional support in kindergarten classrooms, kindergarten jumpstart).

24 10 (42%) 3.0

Strategy 3.3: Offer a series of family engagement trainings that are research-based or best practice, culturally-appropriate, and relevant that could include: a) home visits that include a focus on Funds of Knowledge; b) partnering with other early learning programs to combine parent outreach efforts (e.g., Head Start, ECEAP); c) embedded ongoing early learning opportunities for parents

23 8 (35%) 3.2


Strategies # Projects

Implementing Strategy

# Projects Assigning

Rating of ≥4 18-19 Rating

to learn what students are learning and ways to support their learning; d) early learning and school readiness strategies; e) providing parents with access to counseling and advocacy programs; and f) providing education about the State 211 Referral Network Graduation/Services to OSY Strategy 4.1: Provide wrap-around support for secondary-age migratory students with multi-tiered systems of support including: a) credit retrieval and competency-based high school credit options aligned to WA standards; b) dual credit and career technical education (CTE) applied credit options; c) academic support focused on individual needs (with ongoing data review); and d) professional learning for all teachers on effective instructional strategies (e.g., AVID, GLAD, SIOP, ELA, mathematics, Migrant 101, Integrated Basic Education, and Skills Training Program or I-BEST).

33 15 (45%) 3.4

Strategy 4.2: Provide migratory student graduation support and advocacy that includes: a) monitoring and tracking attendance and academic progress; b) conducting referrals to services aligned to students’ needs; c) facilitating appropriate scheduling options for students to gain access to Advanced Placement, Highly Capable, CTE, and regular academic core course options; d) facilitating access to services to address social/emotional needs; e) fostering family school connections and conducting home visits; f) conducting parent information sessions to ensure that migratory students and their parents understand assessment and graduation requirements and students understand their rights to an equitable and rigorous education that prepares them for college and career; and g) promoting access to or developing leadership and mentoring programs.

34 20 (59%) 3.5

Strategy 4.3: Provide outreach to OSY ages 16-21 and eligible migratory H2A workers, including dropouts, to increase participation in MEP services, referrals to needed educational and support services, and high school recovery.

30 2 (7%) 2.8

Source: 2018-19 FSIs The following chart displays the most common ways in which each of the strategies were implemented by Washington migrant education projects in 2018-19.

Exhibit 14 Most Common Ways In Which Each Strategy was Implemented in 2018-19

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Differentiated InstructionFamily Literacy Night

Paras Providing SupportSmall Group Instruction

Collaboration w/Other Programs

Strategy 1.1 (N=27)

% Projects Implementing


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Differentiated InstructionStrategies to Build Reading Skills

Pre/post-testingDirect Instruction from Certified Staff

Small Group InstructionParas Providing Support

Strategy 1.2 (N=24)


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Info, Strategies, Resources for ParentsFamily Literacy Nights

PAC Meetings

Strategy 1.3 (N=26)


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

After School SupportSmall Group Instruction

Family Math NightsCollaboration w/Other Programs

Strategy 2.1 (N=26)


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Strategies to Build Math SkillsDirect Instruction Provided by Certified Staff

Pre/post-testing

Strategy 2.2 (N=19)



0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Family Math NightsParent/Teacher Conferences

Info, Strateiges, Resources for Parents

Strategy 2.3 (N=26)


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Migrant 101 TrainingProfessional Development

Strategy 3.1 (N=25)


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Direct Instruction Provided by Certified StaffParas Providing Support

Student Progress Shared with ParentsVocabulary Development

Small Group InstructionCollaboration with Preschool Programs/Services

Strategy 3.2 (N=24)


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Family Engagement MeetingsInfo, Strategies, Resources for Parents

Collaboration w/Other Early Learning ProgramsFamily Nights

Strategy 3.3 (N=23)



Source: 2018-19 FSIs

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

College Readiness ActivitiesField Trips

HS Counselor Credit EvaluationsStudent Monitoring by MEP StaffCollaboration w/Other Programs

PASSDare to Dream Academy

Strategy 4.1 (N=33)


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Field TripsCollege Readiness Activities

Collaboration w/Other ProgramsHS Counselor Credit Evaluations

Dare to Dream AcademyStudent Monitoring by MEP Staff

Strategy 4.2 (N=34)


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Credit RecoveryReferrls to HSE Programs

Referrals to Adult Ed ProgramsMonitoring by MEP Staff

Referrals to GED Prep Programs

Strategy 4.3 (N=30)



6. Outcome Evaluation Results State Performance Goals 1 and 5 Results

Performance Goal 1: Proficiency in Reading and Math During 2018-19, academic achievement in reading and math of students attending public school in Washington was assessed by two assessments: (1) Smarter Balanced Assessment in ELA and Math (grades 3-12), and (2) End-of-Course (EOC) exams in Math (grades 10-12). Proficiency levels for all assessments are as follows: Level 1=Below Basic; Level 2=Basic; Level 3=Proficient; and Level 4=Advanced. Note: P/A = Proficient/Advanced The State of Washington has set measurements of interim progress leading toward long term goals for ELA and math proficiency rates and graduation rates in its ESSA State Plan. Below are Washington’s long term goals and measurements of interim progress from 2017 (baseline) to 2027.

Exhibit 15 Washington’s Measurements of Interim Progress and Long Term Goals

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 ELA 61.9 64.7 67.5 70.3 73.1 75.9 78.7 81.5 84.3 87.1 89.9 Math 53.7 57.4 61.1 64.8 68.5 72.2 75.9 79.6 83.3 87.0 90.7 Graduation 79.1 80.2 81.3 82.4 83.5 84.6 85.7 86.8 87.9 89.0 90.1

Source: Washington ESSA State Plan Performance Indicator 1.1: The percentage of students at or above the proficient level each year on the state assessment in reading/language.

Exhibit 16 Migratory Students Scoring P/A on 2019 Smarter Balanced ELA Assessments

Grade Levels

PFS Status

# Tested

% Migratory Students Scoring

P/A

18-19 State Performance

Target Diff

(+/-%)

% Non-Migratory Students Scoring

P/A

3 PFS 214 13% -54.5% Non-PFS 1,443 26% 67.5% -41.5% 56% Total 1,657 24% -43.5%

4 PFS 208 15% -52.5% Non-PFS 1,524 27% 67.5% -40.5% 57% Total 1,732 25% -42.5%

5 PFS 225 14% -53.5% Non-PFS 1,588 32% 67.5% -35.5% 61% Total 1,813 29% -38.5%

6 PFS 177 12% -55.5% Non-PFS 1,668 29% 67.5% -38.5% 57% Total 1,846 28% -39.5%

7 PFS 192 14% -53.5% Non-PFS 1,570 33% 67.5% -34.5% 61% Total 1,762 31% -36.5%

8 PFS 188 11% -56.5%


Grade Levels

PFS Status

# Tested


P/A


Target Diff

(+/-%)


P/A Non-PFS 1,552 32% 67.5% -35.5% 58% Total 1,740 29% -38.5%

10 PFS 201 16% -51.5% Non-PFS 1,331 43% 67.5% -24.5% 70% Total 1,532 40% -27.5%

PFS 1,405 14% -53.5% All Non-PFS 10,676 32% 67.5% -35.5% 59%

All 12,082 29% -38.5% Source: Washington OSPI

Migratory students were 38.5% short of the Washington State Performance Target (67.5%) for ELA proficiency. Migratory students with PFS were 53.5% short of the target and non-PFS students were 35.5% short of the target. The 2018-19 target was not met by migratory students for any grade level (differences ranged from -27.5% to -43.5%). Largest differences were seen for 8th grade PFS students (-56.5%). In addition, for all grade levels assessed, fewer PFS migratory students scored P/A than non-PFS migratory students. Compared to non-migratory students, 30% fewer migratory students scored P/A. Below is a graphic display of the differences in the percent of migratory and non-migratory students scoring P/A on the 2019 Smarter Balanced ELA Assessment.

Exhibit 17 Comparison of 2019 Smarter Balanced ELA Assessment Results

(Expressed in Percentages)

Source: Washington OSPI

Exhibit 18 provides a comparison of Smarter Balanced ELA results for the past five years. Results show that 1% fewer migratory students (same percentage for PFS students) scored P/A

13 15 14 12 14

11

16 14

26 27

32

29

33 32

43

32

24 25

29 28

31 29

40

29

56 57

61

57

61

58

70

59

67.5

67.5

67.5

67.5

67.5

67.5

67.5

67.5

3 4 5 6 7 8 1 0 T O T A L

PFS Non-PFS Migratory Non-Migratory Target


in 2018-19 than in 2017-18. Of note is that 3% fewer non-migratory students scored P/A in 2018-19 than in 2017-18. Since 2015-16, more migratory students scored P/A in ELA.

Exhibit 18 Comparison of Smarter Balanced ELA Assessment Results Over the Years



Performance Indicator 1.2: The percentage of students at or above the proficient level each year on the state assessment in math.

Exhibit 19 Migratory Students Scoring P/A on 2019 Smarter Balanced Math Assessments

Grade Levels

PFS Status

# Tested


P/A


Target Diff

(+/-%)


P/A

3 PFS 219 22% -39.1% Non-PFS 1,448 34% 61.1% -27.1% 57% Total 1,667 32% -29.1%

4 PFS 216 18% -43.1% Non-PFS 1,528 28% 61.1% -33.1% 54% Total 1,744 26% -35.1%

5 PFS 226 15% -46.1% Non-PFS 1,593 22% 61.1% -39.1% 48% Total 1,819 21% -40.1%

6 PFS 177 14% -47.1% Non-PFS 1,673 23% 61.1% -38.1% 47% Total 1,851 22% -39.1%

7 PFS 194 8% -53.1% Non-PFS 1,574 24% 61.1% -371% 49% Total 1,768 22% -39.1%

8 PFS 191 10% -51.1% Non-PFS 1,555 22% 61.1% -39.1% 46% Total 1,746 21% -40.1%

10 PFS 207 6% -55.1% Non-PFS 1,331 14% 61.1% -47.1% 40% Total 1,538 13% -48.1%

PFS 1,430 13% -48.1% All Non-PFS 10,702 24% 61.1% -37.1% 47%

All 12,133 23% -38.1% Source: Washington OSPI

1319 16 14 14

26 26 27 30 29

58 60 60 62 59

010203040506070

2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19

PFS Migratory Non-Migratory


Migratory students were 38.1% short of the Washington State Performance Target (61.1%) for math proficiency. PFS students were 48.1% short of the target and non-PFS students were 37.1% short of the target. The 2018-19 target was not met by migratory students for any grade level assessed (differences ranged from -29.1% to -48.1%). Largest differences were seen for 10th grade PFS students (-55.1%). In addition, fewer PFS migratory students scored P/A than non-PFS migratory students for all grade levels. Twenty-four percent (24%) fewer migratory students scored P/A than non-migratory students. Following is a graphic display of the differences in the percent of migratory and non-migratory students scoring P/A on the 2019 Smarter Balanced Math Assessment.

Exhibit 20 Comparison of 2019 Smarter Balance Math Assessment Results



Exhibit 21 provides a comparison of Smarter Balanced Math results for the past five years. Results show that 1% fewer migratory students (1% fewer PFS students) scored P/A in 2018-19 than in 2017-18. Of note is that 5% fewer non-migratory students scored P/A in 2018-19 than in 2017-18. Since 2014-15, more migratory students have scored P/A in math.

22

18

15 14

8 10

6

13

34

28

22 23 24 22

14

24

32

26

21 22 22 21

13

23

57

54

48 47 49

46

40

47

61.1

61.1

61.1

61.1

61.1

61.1

61.1

61.1

3 4 5 6 7 8 1 0 T O T A L

PFS Non-PFS Migratory Non-Migratory Target


Exhibit 21 Comparison of Smarter Balanced Math Assessment Results Over the Years



Performance Goal 5: High School Graduation Performance Indicator 5.1: The percentage of students who graduate from high school each year with a regular diploma. The 2018-19 Washington State Performance Target for high school graduation is 81.3%. In 2018-19, the 4-year Cohort graduation rate for migratory students was 75.4 (5.9% short of the target); however, the graduate rate for migratory students enrolled in the MEP during 2018-19 was 81.2% which was just 0.1% short of the target.

Exhibit 22 2018-19 Graduation Rates for Migratory and Non-Migratory Students



*Includes all migratory students in the Cohort even if they weren’t MEP eligible in 2018-19 The graduation rate for PFS migratory students was 75.4% (5.9% short of the target), and the graduation rate for non-PFS migratory students was 75.3% (6% short of the target). The non-

9 10 1014 13

20 21 22 24 23

4952 52 52

47

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19

PFS Migratory Non-Migratory

4-Year Cohort Enrolled 2018-19 Ever 2016-2019PFS 75.4 81.2 72.9Non-PFS 75.3 79.2 74.0Migratory 75.4 79.8 73.7Non-Migratory 81.1 84.6 81.2

70.072.074.076.078.080.082.084.086.0


migratory student graduation rate was 81.1% which was 0.2% short of the target and exceeding the migratory student graduation rate by 5.7%. Of note is that 2019 Cohort migratory students that were enrolled in the MEP during 2018-19 (migratory, PFS, and non-PFS) had higher graduation rates than the 4-year cohort, especially PFS migratory students whose graduation rate was 5.8% higher. Graduation rates also were reported for migratory students in the Cohort, even if they weren’t MEP eligible in 2018-19. Results show that graduation rates were lower for all migratory students, PFS students, and non-PFS students. This may have resulted from the discontinuation of MEP services due to ineligibility; and/or migration, mobility, or the high migratory student dropout rate. Exhibit 23 provides a comparison of migratory student graduation rates for the past three years. Results show that migratory students enrolled during the year in which they graduated had a higher graduation rate (with the gap widening in 2018-19) than both the 4-year cohort of migratory students and the migratory students that were enrolled in the MEP at some time during the four years in which they were in high school.

Exhibit 23 Comparison of Migratory Student Graduation Rates Over the Years



Performance Indicator 5.2: The percentage of students who drop out of school each year. Washington does not have a State Performance Target for dropout rate. The 2018-19 dropout rate for Washington migratory students was 16.8% (5.8% higher than the non-migratory student dropout rate). The dropout rate for PFS migratory students was higher than it was for non-PFS migratory students (17.7% compared to 16.7%). Of note is that 2019 Cohort migratory students that were enrolled in the MEP during 2018-19 (migratory, PFS, and non-PFS) had substantially lower dropout rates than the 4-year cohort (7.8% less for non-PFS students, 7.2% less for all migratory students, and 6.3 less for PFS students). Dropout rates also were collected for migratory students in the Cohort, even if they weren’t MEP eligible in 2018-19. Results show that dropout rates were slightly higher for non-PFS and all migratory students.

71.573.3

75.475.276.1

79.8

68.5

70.8

73.7

6769717375777981

2016-17 2017-18 2018-19

4-Year Cohort Enrolled Current Year Enrolled ever during 4 years


Exhibit 24: 2018-19 Dropout Rates for Migratory and Non-Migratory Students

Source: Washington OSPI *Includes all migratory students in the Cohort even if they weren’t MEP eligible in 2018-19

Exhibit 25 provides a comparison of migratory student dropout rates for the past three years. Results show that migratory students enrolled during the performance period had a lower dropout rate (with the gap widening in 2018-19) than both the 4-year cohort of migratory students and the migratory students that were enrolled in the MEP at some time during the four years in which they were in high school.

Exhibit 25: Comparison of Migratory Student Dropout Rates Over the Years


GPRA Measure Results This section provides a summary of program results as indicated by the GPRA measures for the MEP. Sources of data include data entered into MSIS on promotion, graduation, and completion of Algebra I. The results for GPRA 1 and 2 (ELA and math state assessment results) are included in the previous section. GPRA 3: The percentage of migratory students who were enrolled in grades 7-12, and graduated or were promoted to the next grade level. Exhibit 26 shows that 95% of all Washington migratory students for whom this information was available were promoted or graduated (94% PFS students, 95% non-PFS students).

4-Year Cohort Enrolled 2017-18 Ever 2015-2018PFS 17.7 11.4 17.3Non-PFS 16.7 8.9 17.0Migratory 16.8 9.6 17.1Non-Migratory 11.0 7.2 11.0

6.08.0

10.012.014.016.018.0

1917.3 16.8

10.412.1

9.6

20.718.7

17.1

810121416182022

2016-17 2017-18 2018-19

4-Year Cohort Enrolled Current Year Enrolled ever during 4 years


Exhibit 26 Migratory Students in Grades 7-12 that Graduated in 2018-19 or were

Promoted to the Next Grade Level from 2017-18 to 2018-19

Grade Level PFS

# Eligible Migratory Students

# Students For Whom Data Was

Students Promoted from

2017-18 to 2018-19

Students Graduated in 2018-19

2018-19 Status 2018-19 Available # % # %

7 PFS 771 679 650 96% Non-PFS 1,235 970 928 96% Total 2,006 1,649 1,578 96%

8 PFS 655 549 531 97% Non-PFS 1,294 1,086 1,043 96% Total 1,949 1,635 1,574 96%

9 PFS 769 672 644 96% Non-PFS 1,286 984 946 96% Total 2,055 1,656 1,590 96%

10 PFS 571 445 408 92% Non-PFS 1,215 1,028 988 96% Total 1,786 1,473 1,396 95%

11 PFS 725 606 575 95% Non-PFS 1,109 941 909 97% Total 1,834 1,547 1,484 96%

12 PFS 625 543 112 21% 381 70% Non-PFS 1,377 1,304 400 31% 782 60% Total 2,002 1,847 512 28% 1,163 63%

PFS 4,116 3,494 2,920 84% 381 11% Total Non-PFS 7,516 6,313 5,214 83% 782 12%

Total 11,632 9,807 8,134 83% 1,163 12%

GPRA 4: The percentage of migratory students who entered 11th grade that had received full credit for Algebra I. Exhibit 27 shows that 61% of all Washington migratory 10th grade students in 2018-19 completed Algebra I or a higher math course prior to entering 11th grade (50% PFS students, 66% non-PFS students).

Exhibit 27 10th Grade Migratory Students Completing Algebra I or a

Higher Math Course in 2018-19 or Before

PFS Status

# Eligible Migratory 10th Grade Students

2018-19

# 2018-19 10th Grade Migratory Students that Received Full Credit

for Algebra I or a Higher Math Course in 2018-19 or Before

PFS 571 285 (50%) Non-PFS 1,215 798 (66%) Total 1,786 1,083 (61%)

Measurable Program Outcomes (MPO) Results This section provides a summary of program results as indicated by the MPOs. Sources of data include MSIS, the Parent Education Evaluation (Form 1), and ESD professional development training evaluations.


ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS (ELA)

MPO 1a: By the end of the 2018-19 school year, 50% of migratory students in grades K-8 who received regular term supplemental reading instruction will show a gain of at least one point or one level on pre/post district reading/ELA assessments.

Exhibit 28 shows that the Washington MEP met MPO 1a with 82% of the 1,211 migratory students pre/post-tested during the 2018-19 regular school year improving their reading/ELA score by at least one point or one level. Both PFS and non-PFS migratory students met the MPO with 80% of the 516 PFS students and 83% of the 695 non-PFS students improving their reading/ELA scores. Migratory students had a statistically significant mean gain (p<.001).

Exhibit 28 Migratory Student Gains on Regular Year Reading/ELA Assessments

PFS Status

# Assessed Pre/Post

# (%) Gaining P-Value

MPO Met?

PFS 516 412 (80%) <.001 Yes Non-PFS 695 577 (83%) <.001 Yes Total 1,211 989 (82%) <.001 Yes

Source: MSIS Nineteen projects provided reading/ELA instruction during the regular school year and submitted results for 1,659 migratory students [1,211 (73%) had matched pre/post-test scores]. Following is a graphic display of these results by grade level [K=178, 1=119, 2=168, 3=183, 4=146, 5=159, 6=88, 7=101, 8=69] expressed as percentage gaining. Kindergarten students had the highest percentage of students gaining on local regular year reading/ELA assessments, followed closely by students in grades 1-2. Middle school students had the lowest percentage of students improving students improving their reading/ELA skills.

Exhibit 29: Percentage of Migratory Students Improving Reading Skills by Grade Level during the Regular School Year

Source: MSIS

697475

778383

8686

90

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Grade 7Grade 8Grade 6Grade 5Grade 4Grade 3Grade 1Grade 2

Kinder

% Migratory Students


MPO 1b: Upon completion of the 2019 summer program, 75% of migratory students in grades K-8 who received summer reading instruction will maintain or increase their score by 2% on pre/post district reading/ELA assessments.

Exhibit 30 shows that the Washington MEP met MPO 1b with 81% of the 998 migratory students pre/post-tested during the 2019 summer migratory program maintaining or improving their reading/ELA score by 2% or more. Eighty-five percent (85%) of the 363 PFS students and 78% of the 635 non-PFS students maintained or improved their reading/ELA score by 2%. Migratory students had a statistically significant mean gain (p<.001). Sixty-nine percent (69%) of the students assessed improved their score by at least 1% from pretest to post-test.

Exhibit 30 Migratory Student Gains on Summer Reading/ELA Assessments

PFS Status N

# (%) Gaining

# (%) Gaining By 2%

# (%) Maintaining

% Gaining by 2% or

Maintaining P-Value MPO Met?

PFS 363 262 (72%) 261 (72%) 46 (13%) 307 (85%) <.001 Yes Non-PFS 635 426 (67%) 416 (66%) 81 (13%) 497 (78%) <.001 Yes Total 998 688 (69%) 677 (68%) 127 (13%) 804 (81%) <.001 Yes

Source: MSIS Twenty-two (22) projects provided reading instruction during the summer and submitted results for 1,254 migratory students [998 (80%) had matched pre/post-test scores]. Following is a graphic display of these results by grade level [K=114, 1=189, 2=164, 3=170, 4=163, 5=133, 6=38, 7=21, 8=6] expressed as percentage maintaining or gaining by 2% or more. Kindergarten students had the highest percentage of students maintaining or improving their reading skills by 2% in the summer. Eighth graders had the lowest percentage (50%), although only six 8th graders were assessed.

Exhibit 31: Percentage of Migratory Students Improving Reading Skills by Grade Level during the Summer

Source: MSIS

507171

7780818283

88

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


Kinder




Exhibit 32 shows that the Washington MEP met MPO 1c with 87% of the 311 migratory parents completing Parent Training Evaluations reporting that they are better prepared to support reading in the home “very much” (57%) or “a lot” (31%).

Exhibit 32 Parent Ratings of Parent Training on Reading

How much did this training help you learn skills to better support your child’s reading at home?

# Parents Responding

# (%) Not at all

1

# (%) Somewhat

2

# (%) A Lot

3

# (%) Very Much

4 Mean

Rating

# (%) Rating 3 & 4

MPO Met?

311 2 (1%) 38 (12%) 95 (31%) 176 (57%) 3.4 271 (87%) Yes

MATHEMATICS

MPO 2a: By the end of the 2018-19 school year, 50% of migratory students in grades K-8 who received regular term supplemental math instruction will show a gain of at least one point or one level on pre/post district math assessments.

Exhibit 33 shows that the Washington MEP met MPO 2a with 73% of the 981 migratory students pre/post-tested during the 2018-19 regular school year improving their math score by at least one point or one level. Both PFS and non-PFS migratory students met the MPO with 76% of the 408 PFS students and 70% of the non-PFS students improving their math scores. Migratory students had a statistically significant mean gain (p<.001).

Exhibit 33 Migratory Student Gains on Regular Year Math Assessments

PFS Status

# Assessed Pre/Post

# (%) Gaining P-Value

MPO Met?

PFS 408 311 (76%) <.001 Yes Non-PFS 573 402 (70%) <.001 Yes Total 981 713 (73%) <.001 Yes

Source: MSIS Eighteen (18) projects provided math instruction during the regular school year and submitted results for 1,294 migratory students [981 (76%) had matched pre/post-test scores]. Following is a graphic display of these results by grade level [K=111, 1=108, 2=147, 3=166, 4=149, 5=131, 6=59, 7=70, 8=40] expressed as percentage gaining. Kindergarten students had the highest percentage of students gaining on local regular year math assessments, followed closely by students in grades 1-3. Eighth graders had the lowest percentage of students gaining.


Exhibit 34: Percentage of Migratory Students Improving Math Skills by Grade Level during the Regular School Year

Source: MSIS MPO 2b: Upon completion of the 2019 summer program, 75% of migratory students in grades K-8 who received summer math instruction will maintain or increase their score by 2% on pre/post district math assessments.

Exhibit 35 shows that the Washington MEP met MPO 2b with 86% of the 798 migratory students pre/post-tested during the 2019 summer migrant program maintaining or improving their math score by 2% or more. Both PFS and non-PFS students met the MPO with 86% of the 270 PFS students and 528 of the 528 non-PFS students maintaining or improving their math score by 2%. Migratory students had a statistically significant mean gain (p<.001). Seventy-four percent (74%) of the students assessed improved their score by at least 1% from pretest to post-test.

Exhibit 35 Migratory Student Gains on Summer Math Assessments

PFS Status N

# (%) Gaining

# (%) Gaining By 2%

# (%) Maintaining

% Gaining by 2% or

Maintaining P-Value MPO Met?

PFS 270 195 (72%) 193 (72%) 39 (14%) 232 (86%) <.001 Yes Non-PFS 528 395 (75%) 392 (74%) 62 (12%) 454 (86%) <.001 Yes Total 798 590 (74%) 585 (73%) 101 (13%) 686 (86%) <.001 Yes

Source: MSIS Twelve (12) projects provided math instruction during the summer and submitted results for 999 migratory students [798 (80%) had matched pre/post-test scores]. Following is a graphic display of these results by grade level [K=73, 1=134, 2=130, 3=135, 4=123, 5=107, 6=66, 7=17, 8=13] expressed as percentage gaining by 2% or more. All eighth grade students assessed maintained or improved by 2%, as did 95% of kindergarten students, and 90% of second grade students. Sixth grade students had the lowest percentage (79%) of students maintaining or improved their math score by 2%.

5368

7171

74757576

78

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


Kinder



Exhibit 36: Percentage of Migratory Students Improving Math Skills by Grade Level during the Summer

Source: MSIS

MPO 2c: By the end of the 2018-19 performance period, 75% of migratory families who participated in MEP family math services will report being better prepared to engage in activities for supporting math in the home, as measured by a rating of 3 or 4 (out of 4) on the Parent Training Evaluation.

Exhibit 37 shows that the Washington MEP met MPO 2c with 88% of the 408 migratory parents completing Parent Training Evaluations reporting that they are better prepared to have conversations about math with their children “very much” (58%) or “a lot” (30%).

Exhibit 37 Parent Ratings of Parent Training on Math

How much did this training help you learn to have conversations about math with your child?


# (%) Not at all

# (%) Somewhat

# (%) A Lot

# (%) Very Much

Mean Rating

# (%) Rating 3 & 4

MPO Met?

408 4 (1%) 45 (11%) 122 (30%) 237 (58%) 3.5 359 (88%) Yes

SCHOOL READINESS

MPO 3a: By the end of the 2018-19 school year, 48% of migratory children entering kindergarten who received MEP supplemental instruction will demonstrate skills typical of entering kindergarteners in four or more domains on the WaKIDS.

Exhibit 38 shows that the Washington MEP did not meet MPO 3a with at least 48% of migratory children entering kindergarten who received MEP services demonstrating skills typical of entering kindergarteners in three of the six domains on the WaKIDS (77% physical, 60% social/emotional, 50% cognitive) – which was the same as for migratory children not served previously by the MEP.

7979

828485

8990

95100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Grade 6Grade 3Grade 7Grade 4Grade 5Grade 2Grade 1

KinderGrade 8



Exhibit 38: 2018-19 Migratory Students Demonstrating Characteristics of Entering Kindergarteners on the WaKIDS Assessment

Area of Development

PFS Status

# Tested

# Migratory Children that were

NOT Served Previously by the

MEP Demonstrating

Characteristic of Entering

Kindergarteners #

Tested

# Migratory Children that were Served

Previously by the MEP

Demonstrating Characteristic of

Entering Kindergarteners

% Non-Migratory

Children Demonstrating Characteristic

of Entering Kindergarteners

Literacy PFS 545 172 (32%) 108 38 (35%) Non-PFS 572 283 (50%) 156 68 (44%) Total 1,117 455 (41%) 264 106 (40%)

Language PFS 487 170 (35%) 103 45 (44%) Non-PFS 528 302 (57%) 151 73 (48%) Total 1,015 472 (47%) 254 118 (47%)

Physical PFS 541 390 (72%) 108 83 (77%) Non-PFS 569 444 (78%) 156 121 (78%) Total 1,110 834 (75%) 264 204 (77%)

Cognitive PFS 540 220 (41%) 108 45 (42%) Non-PFS 569 308 (54%) 156 86 (55%) Total 1,109 528 (48%) 264 131 (50%)

Social Emotional

PFS 542 307 (57%) 108 60 (56%) Non-PFS 570 389 (68%) 156 98 (63%) Total 1,112 696 (63%) 264 158 (60%)

Math PFS 539 109 (20%) 108 25 (23%) Non-PFS 569 217 (38%) 156 47 (30%) Total 1,108 326 (29%) 264 72 (27%)

PFS 545 176 (32%) 108 39 (36%) All Non-PFS 572 294 (51%) 156 74 (47%) 45%

All 1,117 470 (42%) 264 113 (43%) Source: MSIS & Washington OSPI

Fewer PFS migratory kindergarten demonstrated characteristics of entering kindergarteners than non-PFS migratory kindergarten students in all six areas of development. In addition, fewer migratory kindergarten students demonstrated characteristics of entering kindergarteners for all six areas than non-migratory kindergarten students. Exhibit 39 is a graphic display of the differences in the percentage of migratory kindergarten students demonstrating characteristics of entering kindergarteners on the WaKIDS.

Exhibit 39: Comparison of 2018-19 WaKIDS Assessment Results (Expressed in Percentages)

Source: MSIS & Washington OSPI

41 47

75

4863

2940

47

77

5060

27

0

20

40

60

80

100

Literacy Language Physical Cognitive Social/Emotional Math

Migratory Not Served Migratory Served


MPO 3b: By the end of the 2018-19 performance period, 75% of families of preschool migratory children who received training in school readiness (e.g., early reading, early math) will report that they are better prepared to support their child’s learning at home, as measured by a rating of 3 or 4 rating (out of 4) on the Parent Training Evaluation.

Exhibit 40 shows that the Washington MEP met MPO 3b with 86% of the 206 migratory parents completing Parent Training Evaluations reporting that they are better prepared to support their preschooler’s learning at home “very much” (42%) or “a lot” (44%).

Exhibit 40 Parent Ratings of Parent Training on School Readiness

How much did this training help you learn skills to support your preschooler’s learning at home?


# (%) Not at all

# (%) Somewhat

# (%) A Lot

# (%) Very Much

Mean Rating

# (%) Rating 3 & 4

MPO Met?

206 3 (2%) 26 (13%) 90 (44%) 87 (42%) 3.3 177 (86%) Yes

GRADUATION/SERVICES TO OSY MPO 4a: Upon completion of the 2018-19 performance period, 75% of migratory students enrolled in credit-bearing courses will obtain credit toward high school graduation.

Exhibit 41 shows that the Washington MEP met MPO 4a with 78% of the 663 migratory students and youth enrolled in credit-bearing courses obtaining credit toward high school graduation. Programs included PASS, Odysseyware, Red Comet, APEX Learning, and Dare to Dream (DTD) program credits. PFS students met the MPO (94% receiving credit); however, non-PFS students did not (69% receiving credit).

Exhibit 41 Secondary Credits Received by Migratory Students

(61 Districts Reporting)

PFS Status

# Students Enrolled

# (%) Students Receiving HS Credit

MPO Met?

PFS 248 234 (94%) Yes Non-PFS 415 285 (69%) No All 663 519 (78%) Yes

Source: MSIS Exhibit 42 is a graphic display of these results by grade level expressed as percentage of migratory students obtaining credits. All but one of the 158 eighth grade students (99%) received credit, as did 79% of the 177 ninth grade students, 74% of the 144 tenth grade students, 69% of the 141 eleventh grade students, and 42% of the 43 twelfth grade students.


Exhibit 42: Percentage of Credits Received by Migratory Students, by Grade Level

Source: MSIS Exhibit 43 shows the courses for which migratory students earned credits during 2018-19. Students completed 32 different courses and participated in DTD earning a total of 663 credits.

Exhibit 43 Secondary Courses for which Migratory Students Earned Credits

Course(s) Enrolled

Total Credits Earned

Algebra 1A 12 Algebra 1B 18 Algebra 2A 7 Algebra 2B 6 Biology A 2 Biology B 3 Consumer Math 10 Contemporary World Problems 2 Creative Writing 2 Dare to Dream Programs 425 English 1A 11 English 1B 3 English 2A 5 English 2B 5 English 3A 1 English 4A 1 English 4B 2 Environmental Science 4 General Math A 4 Geometry A 9 Geometry B 14 Health – Spanish 10 Health and Fitness 24 Learning English Through Literature 9 Pre-Algebra 1 US Government 8 US History A 15 US History B 9 Visual Arts A 5 WA State History & Government 12 World Geography 8 World History A 11 World History B 5

Total 663 Source: MSIS

4269

7479

99

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Grade 12Grade 11Grade 10

Grade 9Grade 8



To support graduation and academic growth, secondary students were provided with numerous opportunities for field experiences and leadership activities such as college and career fairs, college visits, service learning projects, Dare to Dream academies, CAMP day, field trips, high school clubs, the La Chispa Leadership Day Camp, the Latino Legislative Day, the LEAP Conference, the Migrant Youth Leadership Conference, student involvement in PACs and family literacy events (e.g., childcare, presentations), and Voices from the Field. MEP staff reported that students benefited greatly from leadership opportunities and field experiences. They increased their awareness, aspirations, and participation in postsecondary education; improved their academic achievement; and more migratory students were prepared to graduate as a result of leadership and field experiences. Following are examples of MEP staff comments about the ways in which these activities impacted students. Impact on Aspirations/Participation in Postsecondary Education/Careers

• All migratory juniors and seniors have an individualized plan of how they would like to proceed after high school. This allows them to think about their future in a concrete way, and promotes growth in each individual. Many of the students who attended the leadership conference, college tours, and Dare to Dream have not previously been to a college or university campus. This allows these students to grow their world view, and the possibilities for their future. It helps them become more motivated to put more effort in their current schooling.

• By providing these events/activities to migratory students, students are able to see their futures and build plans for them. By assisting students with financial aid and scholarships, students and families are able to make a plan to attend college and get questions answered about higher ed. Students and parents participated in college visits and by having parents involved this has helped open doors to college opportunities that many of our migratory students would not have been able to access.

• College visits provided migratory students with the opportunity to see what career opportunities are available after high school and to learn about the process of applying to college. These visits motivated some students to try harder and improve their grades so they could apply to college.

• With Dare to Dream, students are immersed in academics at a college campus for a week, which will provide for academic growth and an overall sense of what is possible through higher education.

• With these experiences, our students may feel more comfortable pursuing higher education. Having them visit such educational institutions and meeting students who too were migratory helps them see this as a reality in their future. This opportunity allows students explore a variety of career paths and potential areas of study.

Impact on Academic Achievement

• All the events and activities available to migratory students have specific academic outcomes and are targeted at academic growth. The postsecondary assistance helps students plan for after high school, and ensure they understand and meet the requirements of future directions they will take. The Dare to Dream Academy helps build the academic identity of our migratory students, and prepare them for the possibilities that await them.

• STEM content areas were part of the NASA and Voices from the Field programs. Students who went on college visits learned the importance of academic growth in order to enroll in college.

• The CHISPA event provided middle school students an opportunity to experience leadership and goal setting skill development. The events and activities were linked with reading, writing, and math college and career standards.

• The LEAP conference ties directly into increasing academic growth of migratory students by empowering and motivating students to pursue educational careers beyond high school, and


advocate for greater educational opportunities in their communities. Students become aware of the need to continue to strive for academic growth and success in order to pursue educational careers after high school. These students take on a leadership role at the school and provide presentations to students, PAC members, parents, and the school board. These presentations focus on how the LEAP conference has empowered them to become greater leaders and how it motivates them for higher achievement both in school and beyond high school.

• The student events were tied to academic growth as students learn concrete and factual information through the tours, games, and pre-trip research as these are skills that they will be able to apply post high school. It also contributes to their overall academic optimism and hope for their future. These opportunities impacted student engagement in the classroom as they see themselves as learners with goals to be successful academically so that they may attend college and enroll in postsecondary institutions.

Impact on High School Graduation

• Courses like Dare to Dream provided actual credit classes to help students get closer to credits needed to attend these colleges. Student participation in Voices from the Field also provide valuable opportunities. Students who attended also get certificates of participation to add to their portfolios.

• Students graduated on time. Others were promoted • The academies allow our PFS and/or migratory students to receive additional credit in math or

science depending upon which academy they attend therefore, giving them credit they may be lacking towards their high school diploma. The whole academy experience has helped our students see and experience college and how doing well academically can help them achieve their higher education goals. The EWU CAMP visit helps our students see what support is offered for them as they attend college.

• These activities provided motivation, guidance, and support for students to complete high school and progress academically.

Impact on Students’ Self-Esteem

• Students who participate in Voices from the Field Academy greatly enjoy cultivating their artistic sides. They learn about their own cultures through artistic means. Upon returning, it is evident that the students have gained a greater sense of self-worth and a positive self-identity.

• The Native Voices Academy and Dare to Dream students were able to share their experience with fellow students and our school board. Each student felt that this opportunity increased their passion for education and were able to see the importance and value on education at the Academy.

• The upper classmen who attend Dare to Dream return with a new appreciation for being focused on college. They learn how to develop plans to complete their academic careers. More importantly, they learn self-advocacy.

• The various field experiences encouraged the development of positive peer, community, and mentor type of relationships. These relationships provide support and encouragement throughout students’ academic career.

MPO 4b: By the end of the 2018-19 performance period, the percentage of migratory students in grades 9-12 receiving MEP instructional and/or support services will increase by 2% over the previous performance period.

Exhibit 44 shows that the Washington MEP met MPO 4b with a 4% increase over 2017-18 in the number of 2018-19 eligible migratory students in grades 9-12 receiving MEP services. The


MPO was not met for met for PFS and non-PFS students as the percentage served was 4% less for PFS students and only 1% more for non-PFS students.

Exhibit 44 Migratory Students in Grades 9-12 Receiving MEP Services during 2017-18 and 2018-19

2017-18 2018-19

PFS Status

# Eligible Migratory Students Grades

9-12

# (%) Receiving

MEP Services

# Eligible Migratory Students Grades

9-12

# (%) Receiving

MEP Services

Diff 17-18

to 18-19

MPO Met?

PFS 786 593 (75%) 2,782 1,974 (71%) -4% No Non-PFS 6,642 3,710 (56%) 4,895 2,770 (57%) +1% No All 7,428 4,303 (58%) 7,677 4,744 (62%) +4% Yes

Source: MSIS and 2018-19 CSPR The number of eligible migratory students in grades 9-12 increased by 249 students (3%) in 2018-19, and the percentage served went from 58% to 62%. In 2018-19, 25% of the eligible migratory students in grades 9-12 received instructional services and 60% received support services. Exhibit 45 is a graphic display of these results by grade level. Note that for each grade level, there was a higher percentage of migratory students in grades 9-12 receiving MEP services in 2018-19.

Exhibit 45: Percentage of Migratory Students in Grades 9-12 Receiving MEP Services, by Grade Level

Source: MSIS MPO 4c: By the end of the 2018-19 performance period, 79% of migratory students in grades 9-12 who received support from MGSs will graduate or be promoted to the next grade level.

Exhibit 46 shows that the Washington MEP met MPO 4c with 80% of the 2,631 migratory students in grades 9-12 who received support from MGSs during 2018-19 graduating (21%) or promoted to the next grade level (60%). The MPO was met for PFS students (87%) but not met for non-PFS students (75%).

55 5762

5760 61 63 62

0102030405060708090

100

Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12

2017-18 2018-19


Exhibit 46 Migratory Students in Grades 9-12 Supported by MGSs in

2018-19 that Graduated or Were Promoted to the Next Grade Level

PFS Status

# Migratory Students in Grades 9-12

that Received MGS Support

# (%) Promoted

# (%) Graduated

# (%) Graduated

or Promoted

MPO Met?

PFS 1,112 766 (69%) 201 (18%) 967 (87%) Yes Non-PFS 1,519 803 (53%) 342 (23%) 1,145 (75%) No All 2,631 1,569 (60%) 544 (21%) 2,113 (80%) Yes

Source: MSIS Exhibit 47 is a graphic display of these results by grade level expressed as percentage graduating or promoted to the next grade level. Eighty-five percent (85%) of the 647 ninth grade students supported by MGSs were promoted, as were 84% of the 575 tenth grade students, and 82% of the 650 eleventh grade students. Seventy-two percent (72%) of the 759 twelfth grade students supported by MGSs graduated.

Exhibit 47 Migratory Students in Grades 9-12 Supported by MGSs in 2018-19 that Graduated or Were Promoted, by Grade Level

Source: MSIS Following are examples of the ways in which MGSs (and MSAs) support migratory students during 2018-19 as reported on end-of-year reports.

• The MSA/recruiter monitors attendance and academic progress data and follows up with district staff to coordinate needed services.

• We meet with the building principals on a weekly basis and monitor the list of students who have incompletes. Parents are called, meetings are scheduled, plans are made to get students back on track.

• Our MGS met with all migratory students throughout the year but focused on students needing the most support based on academic and social data. Our MGS met with the students, teachers, family, and counselors to identify ways to support students as they looked to graduation. She brought students to college campuses, partnered with speakers to help describe the application process, and encouraged students on a routine basis.

• The MGS monitored the needs of the high school migratory students. The MGS works in collaboration with much of the school staff including the counselors, principal, vice principals, paraeducators, teachers, and other support staff in order to advocate what is best for each migratory student. Some of the methods include staff education, individual student meetings, creating individual student plans, advocating for proper class placement, advocating for a universal ELL grading system, family visits, and biweekly grade checks.

7282

8485

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Grade 12Grade 11Grade 10

Grade 9



• Communicate with other school staff regarding the identified needs of priority students and work to help students stay on track to graduate or promote to next grade level. Develop the students’ High School and Beyond Plan unique to intended school of graduation. Promote participation in available supplemental instruction to help the student stay on track to complete graduation requirements in not more than 5 years of high school. Support successful transition from ESL to mainstream classes. Monitor credit accrual (track high school credit accrued across schools attended, analyze credit accrual status, collaborate with counselors and district graduation specialist across schools attended for appropriate placement, help students gain access to alternative credit accrual options, and ensure students earn transcript credit for partial coursework in grading periods interrupted by migrant moves). Use MSIS OSY reports to monitor students needing additional support and resources. Conduct weekly meetings to discuss current needs for at risk migratory students

• The MGS and MSA use a notebook monitoring system to track migratory students’ progress. Students who scored below average scores in classes on weekly grade checks were flagged and provided intervention to get back on track. This involved communication with counselors and teachers, as well as families to hold students accountable to make improvements.

• The district utilizes the Homeroom data system to monitor student progress in ELA and Math. The records clerk created a subgroup of migratory students whose data was then easily tracked at each benchmark period. The MSA visited schools and worked directly with teachers and MTSS teams to develop interventions where needed, and with school counselors and/or the Family Engagement Coordinator when coordinating supplemental services.

• Our MSAs participate in PLCs on an ongoing basis along with teachers, principals, and counselors to provide students with appropriate interventions as needed. PLCs facilitate communication between staff to meet the needs of our students. The staff also uses Homeroom (data storage) and MSIS to be able to share information on student performance and monitor student progress. Advocates periodically meet to review student 5-year plans and credit evaluations.

MPO 4d: By the end of the 2018-19 performance period, there will be a 15% increase in the percentage of OSY served by the Washington MEP over the 2016-17 program year (<1% served).

Exhibit 48 shows that the Washington MEP met MPO 4d with a 27% increase over 2016-17 in the number of migratory OSY served by the Washington MEP in 2018-19. In 2016-17, there were no OSY with PFS, so the difference for PFS students in 2018-19 and 2016-17 could not be determined. There was a 29% increase in the number of non-PFS OSY receiving services in 2018-19 compared to 2016-17.

Exhibit 48 Migratory OSY Receiving MEP Services in 2018-19 Compared to 2016-17

2016-17 2018-19

PFS Status

# Eligible Migratory

OSY

# (%) Receiving

MEP Services

# Eligible Migratory

OSY

# (%) Receiving

MEP Services

Diff 16-17

to 18-19

MPO Met?

PFS 0 -- 223 28 (13%) N/A -- Non-PFS 1,438 2 (1%) 2,032 612 (30%) +29% Yes All 1,438 2 (1%) 2,255 640 (28%) +27% Yes

Source: 2016-17 CSPR and 2018-19 CSPR


7. Implications This section of the report provides progress on recommendations from the previous evaluation and recommendations for action based on the data collected for the evaluation of the Washington MEP. Recommendations are summarized based on the data reported in this report. Recommendations are provided for program implementation as well as for improving services to achieve the State’s MPOs. PROGRESS ON PREVIOUS RECOMMENDATIONS

Program Implementation Recommendations Status Data reported for 2017-18 shows that zero children ages 3-5 (not in kindergarten) have priority for services (PFS). It is not known whether this is intentional (i.e., the State does not want preschool children included in the PFS criteria), of if there is a need to include criteria under “failing or most at-risk of failing” that would allow for preschool migratory children to have PFS. It is recommended that the Evaluation Planning Team discuss this at their April 2019 meeting and determine if a change needs to be made.

Priority for services criteria will be discussed and updated during the update to the Service Delivery Plan (SDP) in 2020-21. The SDP will determine if an additional criteria needs to be added that would qualify migratory children ages 3-5 as PFS (if they have a QAD during the previous 1-year period).

Fewer migratory students in grades K-5 (33% of all eligible) received support services than middle school (47%) and high school migratory students (51%), most likely due to support services provided by MGSs and MSAs in the upper grades. It is recommended that MEP staff be encouraged to increase support services provided to migratory students in grades K-5 to the level being provided in the upper grades to ensure that barriers are removed for migratory student success.

The percentage of migratory students in grades K-5 receiving support services was less in 2018-19 than in 2017-18 (-5%). OSPI staff reported that MSA staff may need additional training on reporting the services provided to migratory students in grades K-5 to ensure that all support services provided are being documented. Efforts will be taken to focus staff efforts on providing additional needed support services to migratory students in grades K-5.

During the April 2019 Evaluation Planning Team meeting, review the 2017-18 results, for the State as a whole and for individual projects, and review the MPOs and strategies related to the implementation evaluation to determine if adjustments need to be made for the 2019-20 performance period.

The EPT met in April 2019 and reviewed the 2017-18 evaluation results as well as the 2019-20 Strategies and MPOs and made adjustments as needed based on the evaluation results.

Washington MEP staff are commended for increasing the number of migratory students served during 2017-18 by 9% over 2016-17 (9% increase during the regular year, 1% increase during the summer), even though there was only a 2% increase in the number of eligible migratory students. It is recommended that the State continue to work to increase the number served during the summer as this count is tied to the State’s allocation.

Washington MEP staff encouraged summer services throughout the year and as a result, there was a 1% increase in the number of migratory students served during the summer of 2019. However, the percentage served remains relatively low (9%). The State needs to determine strategies for increasing summer services as the number served during summer/ intersessions directly impacts the MEP allocation.


Results Evaluation Recommendations

Status

During the April 2019 Evaluation Planning Team meeting, review the 2017-18 results, for the State as a whole and for individual projects, and review the MPOs and strategies related to the results evaluation to determine if adjustments need to be made for the 2019-20 performance period. For example, the target set for MPOs 1a and 2a could be adjusted higher as reflected by the percentage gains made by migratory students during the regular school year.

The EPT met in April 2019 and reviewed the 2017-18 evaluation results as well as the 2019-20 Strategies and MPOs and made adjustments as needed based on the evaluation results.

It is not known why the summer programs would meet the MPO for math but not reading. It is recommended that the Evaluation Planning Team review the assessments utilized for the summer and determine if more appropriate assessments need to be chosen by local projects, or if the instructional services need to be improved and/or enhanced to ensure that migratory students are improving as a result of receiving reading/ELA instruction.

The EPT met in April 2019 and reviewed the 2017-18 evaluation results as well as the assessments utilized for summer reading and math assessments. Washington MEP staff worked with local project staff and ESD staff to ensure that summer programs chose appropriate reading and math assessments.

2018-19 SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS - PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION Parent Involvement: MEP staff reported that parents participating in PAC meetings, parent events, family literacy activities, home-based services, parent training, and statewide/regional parent conferences increased their involvement in their child’s education and their capacity to advocate for their children and families. Parents were pleased with the parent programming and were involved in planning parent/family activities and student services (e.g., extended learning opportunities, summer programming) on a regular basis. The Washington MEP SDP includes three MPOs related to parent involvement.

MPO 1c: By the end of the 2018-19 performance period, 75% of migratory families who participated in MEP family literacy services will report being better prepared to engage in activities for supporting reading in the home, as measured by a rating of 3 or 4 (out of 4) on the Parent Training Evaluation. MPO 2c: By the end of the 2018-19 performance period, 75% of migratory families who participated in MEP family math services will report being better prepared to have conversations about math with their children, as measured by a rating of 3 or 4 (out of 4) on the Parent Training Evaluation. MPO 3b: By the end of the 2018-19 performance period, 75% of families of preschool migratory children who received training in school readiness (e.g., early reading, early math) will report that they are better prepared to support their child’s learning at home, as measured by a rating of 3 or 4 rating (out of 4) on the Parent Training Evaluation.

All three MPOs were met in 2018-19 with 87% of the 311 parents responding reporting being better prepared to support reading in the home, 88% of the 408 parents responding reporting being better prepared to support math in the home, and 86% of the 206 parents responding reporting being better prepared to support their preschool child’s learning at home. Professional Development: MEP staff were provided with ongoing and varied professional learning opportunities throughout the year that positively impacted their ability to address the


learning needs of migratory students. Professional development included attendance at national, State, and regional conferences and meetings, local training and workshops, and coaching and mentoring. Much of the professional development provided to MEP staff throughout the State was provided by ESD staff. MEP Services: Migratory students were provided with educational services including supplemental reading and math instruction, summer programming, and secondary credit accrual. In addition, the MEP provided migratory students with educationally-related (support) services to reduce barriers to academic success. Examples of support services provided include academic guidance, student advocacy, non-academic guidance, case management, career/postsecondary services, student leadership, social work outreach, health and dental, educational supplies and transportation, and collaboration with other programs and agencies. The Washington MEP SDP includes two MPOs related to MEP services.

MPO 4b: By the end of the 2018-19 performance period, the percentage of migratory students in grades 9-12 receiving MEP instructional and/or support services will increase by 2% over the previous performance period. MPO 4d: By the end of the 2018-19 performance period, there will be a 15% increase in the percentage of OSY served by the Washington MEP over the 2016-17 program year (<1% served).

During 2018-19, both MPOs were met with a 4% increase over 2017-18 in the number of migratory students in grades 9-12 receiving MEP serves, and a 27% increase over 2016-17 in the number OSY receiving MEP services. Strategy Implementation: Local migrant projects completed the FSI. MEP staff worked in teams to discuss how each of the strategies identified in the Washington SDP were implemented in their projects, arrive at consensus on the level of implementation, and identify evidence used to determine ratings for their projects. The highest rated was Strategy 1.1 (mean rating of 3.6) addressing regular term ELA academic support, followed by Strategies 1.2, 2.1, and 4.2 (each with a mean rating of 3.5) addressing summer ELA academic support, regular term math academic support, and graduation support and advocacy. Lowest rated was Strategy 4.3 (mean rating of 2.8) addressing outreach to OSY and eligible migratory H2A workers, including dropouts. Recommendations for Program Implementation

An average of 48% of all eligible migratory children were served in 2018-19. Fifty-two percent (52%) of the 68 projects served less than half of all eligible students (32% served between 51%-75%, and 16% served 76% or more). It is recommended that technical assistance be provided to local projects to make sure that services provided are documented and that supplemental educational and educationally-related (support) services are provided. Only 36% of all eligible migratory children received support services in 2018-19 (compared to similar states that are providing at least 50% of eligible students with support services). Support services are a cornerstone of the MEP and unique to this program. These services are key to removing barriers to academic success for migratory students.

Once again, data reported for 2018-19 shows that only one child ages 3-5 (not in kindergarten) had priority for services (PFS). It is recommended that the SDP Committee review the PFS criteria during the SDP process in 2020-21 and decide if children ages 3-5 should be included in the PFS designation.

Summer programming/services are critical for addressing the learning gaps that migratory students have caused by mobility. In addition, the MEP allocation is based, in part, on the


number of migratory children served (educational and educationally-related services) during the summer/intersession. During 2018-19, only 9% of all eligible migratory children ages 3-21 received services during the summer. As a result, it is recommended that OSPI put in place strategies to increase the number of students served during the summer months. In some states, the SEA has mandated the projects receiving MEP funds allocate a certain portion of their funds to summer services/programming or return the funds so that regional service centers/units can provide summer services for them. In others, local projects are required to provide at least one home visit to all migratory students in the state during the summer.

Once again, fewer migratory students in grades K-5 (28% of all eligible, 5% less than in 2017-18) received support services than middle school (46%) and high school migratory students (60%), most likely due to support services provided by MGSs and MSAs in the upper grades. It is recommended that MEP staff be encouraged to increase support services provided to migratory students in grades K-5 to the level being provided in the upper grades to ensure that barriers are removed for migratory student success.

2018-19 SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS - PROGRAM RESULTS English Language Arts and Mathematics: Local projects focus services on reading and math instruction to migratory students during the regular school year and the summer. The Washington MEP SDP includes four MPOs related to reading and math for 2018-19.

MPO 1a: By the end of the 2018-19 school year, 50% of migratory students in grades K-8 who received regular term supplemental reading instruction will show a gain of at least one point or one level on pre/post district reading/ELA assessments. MPO 1b: Upon completion of the 2019 summer program, 75% of migratory students in grades K-8 who received summer reading instruction will maintain or increase their score by 2% on pre/post district reading/ELA assessments. MPO 2a: By the end of the 2018-19 school year, 50% of migratory students in grades K-8 who received regular term supplemental math instruction will show a gain of at least one point or one level on pre/post district math assessments. MPO 2b: Upon completion of the 2019 summer program, 75% of migratory students in grades K-8 who received summer math instruction will maintain or increase their score by 2% on pre/post district math assessments.

During 2018-19, all four MPOs were met. MPO 1a was met with 82% of 1,211 students assessed during the regular school year improving their reading/ELA scores by one point or one level. MPO 1b was met with 81% of the 998 students assessed during the summer maintaining or improving their reading/ELA scores by 2%. MPO 2a was met with 73% of the 981 students assessed during the regular school improving their math score by one point or one level. MPO 2b was met with 86% of the 798 migratory students assessed during the summer improving their math scores by 2% or more. School Readiness: Local projects either provide direct supplemental instructional services to preschool-age children, or coordinate with early childhood service providers to ensure that migratory preschool children receive services (or both). The Washington SDP includes one MPO related to school readiness.

MPO 3a: By the end of the 2018-19 school year, 48% of migratory students entering kindergarten who received MEP supplemental instruction will demonstrate skills typical of entering kindergarteners in four or more domains on the WaKIDS.


MPO 3a was not met during 2018-19 with at least 48% of the 113 migratory children entering kindergarten who received MEP instructional services demonstrating skills typical of entering kindergarteners in three of the six domains on the WaKIDS (77% physical, 60% literacy, 50% cognitive). Fewer PFS migratory kindergarten students demonstrated characteristics of entering kindergarteners than non-PFS migratory kindergarten students in all six areas of development (literacy, physical, cognitive, social/emotional, and math). Slightly fewer migratory children not served previously by the MEP demonstrated skills typical of entering kindergarteners. Graduation and Services to OSY: Services to secondary migratory students and OSY were designed to ensure that students graduate from high school. The Washington MEP SDP includes one MPO related to graduation.

MPO 4a: Upon completion of the 2018-19 performance period, 75% of migratory students enrolled in credit-bearing courses will obtain credit toward high school graduation. MPO 4c: By the end of the 2018-19 performance period, 79% of migratory students in grades 9-12 who received support from MGSs will graduate or be promoted to the next grade level.

Both MPOs were met in 2018-19. MPO 4a was met with 78% of the 663 migratory students and youth enrolled in credit-bearing courses obtaining credit toward high school graduation. MPO 4c was met with 80% of the 2,631 migratory students in grades 9-12 that received support from MGSs during 2018-19 graduated or were promoted to the next grade level. Recommendations for the Results Evaluation

During the April 2020 Evaluation Planning Team meeting, review the 2018-19 results, for the State as a whole and for individual projects, and discuss the 2019-20 evaluation in the context of the school closures due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Adjust 2019-20 strategies, MPOs, and evaluation tools to reflect the changes to MEP service delivery due to no-contact/social distancing requirements.

Even though the percentage of migratory students served remained similar in 2017-18 and 2018-19, the number of reading and math assessment results documented in MSIS for the regular year and summer increased dramatically. The Washington MEP is commended for working with local projects to provide assistance with selecting and reporting curriculum-based reading and math assessment results to show the impact of MEP services.

MPO3a was not met indicating a need to provide increased school readiness services to preschool-aged migratory children to prepare them for kindergarten by focusing on math, literacy, and language instructional services. Should the SDP Committee decide to include preschool children in the PFS criteria, this should assist with increasing school readiness services. In addition, it would be worthwhile to determine how best to determine which preschool-age migratory children are receiving services from other service providers (state-funded, Head Start, or privately-funded) to ensure that the migratory children not participating in any school readiness program receive MEP services.

During the 2020-21 program year, the State will continue working through the Continuous Improvement Cycle by using the results from the CNA currently being conducted to update the SDP with updated strategies and MPOs to be implemented in 2021-22. It is recommended that the Evaluation Planning Team carefully review MPOs to ensure that systems are in place to evaluate the MPOs during the 2021-22 program year.


Following are examples of parent recommendations for future training topics to be considered by the Washington MEP and local projects when designing and implementing parent activities and services.

• Computer skills • Drug prevention • English classes • Graduation • History • Homework help • How to create an environment for learning at home. • How to help children when parent doesn’t know much about math • How to help young people with depression. • How to support students to pass graduation exams. • Information about college and benefits of going to college. • Keep updated on high school graduation requirements. • Learn about the different cultures. • Learning techniques • Literacy • Math • Math and reading games • More about the projects in engineering. • More information on student performance. • Reading • Scholarships • School safety • Science • Water/fire safety • What the program offers the children to ensure they graduation.

In summary, during 2018-19, the Washington MEP offered individualized, needs-based, student-centered services to migratory children and youth that improved their learning and academic skills and helped them earn high school credits. In addition, migratory parents were provided services that improved their skills and increased their involvement in their child’s education; MEP staff were trained to better serve the unique needs of migratory students; and community agencies and programs helped support migratory students by providing direct supportive and instructional services.

2018-2019 evaluation report - k12.wa.us

Documents