JUNE 2008 FINAL REPORT: GEORGIA COMPREHENSIVE NEEDS ASSESSMENT Prepared by: Title I, Part C Migrant Education Program Atlanta, Georgia
TABLE OF CONTENTS Georgia Migrant Education Program Comprehensive Needs Assessment (CNA) Report EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I. INTRODUCTION - Purpose of the CNA... 6 - Background on the Georgia MEP... 7 - Georgia Migrant Education Program Organizational Hierarchy... 8 - State Demographics... 8 - Georgia MEP Student Profile... 10 II. METHODOLOGY - The CNA Process in Georgia... 14 Data Collection Procedures, Data Analysis, and Reporting Phase I Phase II Phase III III. RESULTS - State Assessment Results for Migrant Students... 18 o Georgia High School Graduation Test Data 2004-2007 o Georgia End of Course Test Data 2004-2007 o Georgia Eighth Grade Writing Assessment Data 2004-2007 - Survey Results... 24 Student Surveys Parent Surveys Faculty/Staff Surveys Out of School Youth Surveys - Statewide CNA Taskforce Concern Statements & Recommendations... 33 - Statewide PAC Recommendations... 35 - Regional MEA CNA Taskforce Recommendations... 35 IV. IMPLICATIONS - State and Regional Objectives... 37 - LEA Implementation Plans... 44 - Conclusion... 48 APPENDICES Appendix A List of CNA Taskforce Members Appendix B Georgia Migrant Education Program CNA Implementation Framework Revised April 2009 Page 2 of 84
Appendix C Georgia MEP Data Collection Forms (Surveys Migrant Students, Migrant Parents, Faculty/Staff, Migrant Out-of-School Youth) Appendix D Qualitative Survey Results: Student, Parent, Faculty/Staff Appendix E LEA Implementation Plan Revised April 2009 Page 3 of 84
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) requires that migrant education programs complete a comprehensive needs assessment (CNA) which identifies the special educational needs of migratory children and provides measurable program goals and outcomes (Title I, Part C, Section 1306). In order to comply with this program requirement, the Georgia Migrant Education Program (hereinafter the Georgia MEP ) has spent the past three years developing a process to gather data and determine needs in order to effectively serve the migrant population in Georgia. The initial attempt at conducting a comprehensive needs assessment of the Georgia MEP began in 2005 and concentrated on an analysis of the previous years testing data. Although this attempt served as an excellent starting point, it by no means constituted a true comprehensive analysis of the Georgia MEP. As a result, the Georgia MEP planned programs and services that were not necessarily identified as true needs of the migrant families in Georgia. To complicate and confuse matters even further, the Georgia MEP experienced a significant organizational restructuring during the same time as the initial comprehensive needs assessment attempt. As a result, the validity of the initial attempt at a comprehensive needs assessment of the Georgia MEP was brought into question. After spending the following year trying to develop a valid comprehensive needs assessment process, the State Education Agency, who is currently responsible for directing and overseeing the Georgia MEP, decided to take a vastly different approach to the comprehensive needs assessment process. The result was a CNA process conducted in a manner unique to the organizational structure of the Georgia MEP, which stems primarily from the vast regional crop variations in the state. Although this approach only loosely followed the three-phase CNA model recommended by the U.S. Department of Education s Office of Migrant Education (OME), which is based on the work of Witkin and Altschuld 1, it was truly comprehensive and has successfully identified the needs of the Migrant Education Program in a logical manner conducive to the uniqueness of the Georgia MEP. The major findings of the Georgia MEP CNA include: Migrant parents of pre-school age children are not fully engaged in developing strong educational support structures for their children in the home. Large numbers of migrant workers, ages 14-21, are working in agriculture and not pursuing any form of education. Migrant students in middle and high schools are not aware of the different types of graduation tracks or the requirements for each. Migrant parents are concerned about their inability to be able to assist their children with homework and other academic activities. 1 Witkin, B.R., and Altschuld, J.W. (1995). Planning and conducting needs assessments: A practical guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Revised April 2009 Page 4 of 84
Migrant parents are concerned about the lack of parental involvement/outreach from the school systems. The final Comprehensive Needs Assessment report for the Georgia MEP is a result of innovative decision-making, strategic planning, and data driven research, cumulating in a program design that will improve the academic success of migrant students in the state of Georgia. Revised April 2009 Page 5 of 84
INTRODUCTION PURPOSE OF THE CNA In general, migrant students face unique challenges and obstacles with regard to their academic achievement in school. Due to the nature of migratory work, school-age migrant children and youth often enroll in more than one school district, crossing both state and county school district lines during the course of an academic year. As a result, migrant students lose valuable instructional time and often fall behind in course work and grade level, putting them at risk of failing to meet the rigorous academic standards set in place by state educational agencies (SEAs). The migrant students in the state of Georgia fit this pattern and consistently lag behind their peers in academic achievement. The state is committed to improving the academic success of its migrant student population and strives to narrow the academic achievement gap by planning appropriate and high quality programs for migrant students in the state. Additionally, the Georgia Migrant Education Program (MEP) sets measurable state goals that are incremental performance targets in the areas of reading, mathematics, high school graduation, and school readiness. The comprehensive needs assessment (CNA) process must be the first step taken in statewide program planning efforts in order to develop goals and objectives that will effectively impact the academic success of migrant students in Georgia. Furthermore, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) requires that migrant education programs complete a CNA, which identifies the special educational needs of migratory children and provides measurable program goals and outcomes (Title I, Part C, Section 1306). To this end, the Georgia MEP conducted a statewide CNA from 2005-2007 for the following purposes: To identify and prioritize the needs of migrant students; To use data driven research for strategic and appropriate program planning decisions at all levels of the MEP; and To develop a continuous program improvement model that includes measurable goals, objectives, research-based strategies, and methods of evaluation at all levels of the Georgia MEP. This report describes and explains the entire needs assessment process for the MEP in Georgia, including an historical background of the Georgia MEP, the unique organizational hierarchy of the Georgia MEP, findings, and strategies for implementation of appropriate program services. The following section provides a brief overview of the Georgia MEP in order to fully explain the adaptations made to the model suggested by the U.S. Department of Education s Office of Migrant Education (OME) to conduct the state s CNA process in a manner that was logical and most importantly, effective. Revised April 2009 Page 6 of 84
BACKGROUND ON THE GEORGIA MEP In August 2004, OME conducted a review of the Georgia MEP, which resulted in the identification of several areas of non-compliance including, but not limited to, Statewide Comprehensive Needs Assessment, Comprehensive Statewide Service Delivery Plan, and State- Level Responsibilities for Program Management and Monitoring. At that time, the Georgia MEP chose to retain a minimal level of funds at the SEA for state administration. The remaining funds were subgranted to four fiscal agents consisting of three Regional Education Support Agencies (RESAs) and one local school district. Each of the four fiscal agents operated a Migrant Education Agency (MEA) that was responsible, on a regional basis, for coordinating the delivery of MEP-funded services across multiple districts in their respective regions. Each MEA s central office staff consisted of a director, regional recruiters and other educational resource and support staff. In addition, the subgrantees reimbursed local school districts for the salaries of teachers and paraprofessionals who were located in individual school districts and provided MEP services to eligible migrant children in those districts. Because of the 2004 OME program review findings and the later outcomes of the recommended random sample eligibility re-interviews, the Georgia MEP decided to revisit the organization of the program and its overall effectiveness and administrative oversight. The Georgia MEP eventually decided to bring the management of the program under the SEA and begin allocating MEP funding (based on a specific funding formula) directly to the Local Education Agencies (LEAs) for two reasons. First, the MEP is the only Title I program that is state-operated and state-administered to meet the special educational needs of migrant children statewide. Second, MEP funds are to be used by SEAs to carry out these purposes by establishing and improving, directly or through local operating agencies, programs of education for migratory children. Therefore, in August 2005, the Georgia MEP completed its organizational changes and began operating under the management of the SEA. The following section provides a description of the current organizational hierarchy of the Georgia MEP. This information was extremely important in determining the best methodology to use for the CNA. Revised April 2009 Page 7 of 84
GEORGIA MEP ORGANIZATIONAL HIERARCHY The following diagram depicts the current organizational hierarchy of the Georgia MEP. Diagram 1 Regional Coordinator Resource Specialist Adolescent Outreach Specialist Data Specialist 2 Recruiters State MEP Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 LEAs LEAs LEAs LEAs Program Manager CNA Coordinator Data Collections Coordinator ID&R Coordinator Accountant Para-pro The following positions serve the entire state: Program Manager, CNA Coordinator, Data Collections Coordinator, Identification and Recruitment Coordinator, and the program Accountant Para-professional. Each state administered Regional MEA contains the following positions: Regional Coordinator, Resource Specialist, Adolescent Outreach Specialist, Data Specialist, and two Recruiters. As a result of the LEAs receiving direct funding, they are responsible for determining the most appropriate use of the MEP funding for their system and may or may not have MEP-funded staff within their school system. It should also be noted that not every LEA receives direct MEP funding, which is based on a funding formula that follows the federal guidelines and includes the number and needs of the identified migrant eligible students in the school system, as well as the availability of other funding. Systems not receiving direct funding have their earned allocations managed by the state s Regional MEAs through two consortia. Both the consortia member systems and the Regional MEAs work together to determine the most appropriate use of the MEP funds available. The following section describes the migratory work activities in terms of the four regions and the average demographics of the migrant child population in Georgia. These profile data were necessary to consider when determining the CNA methodology, as well as identifying needs and academic gaps of migrant students. STATE DEMOGRAPHICS The migratory work profile provided a general understanding of Georgia s regional differences and served as one of the main reasons to conduct the CNA in a different manner. Georgia s leading agricultural crops include fruits (e.g., peaches, watermelons, apples, blueberries) and vegetables (e.g., onions, tomatoes, corn, cucumbers, cabbage, peppers), peanuts, pecans, soybeans, sorghum, pinestraw and cotton. The migratory work activity in Georgia distinctly varies from region to region. Region 4, located in the middle southern part of the state, Revised April 2009 Page 8 of 84
consistently has the largest number of migrant families in the state, with agriculture accounting for the majority of migratory work. Furthermore, the migrant families tend to live in migrant camps and predictably return year after year. Seasonal agricultural work is also dominant in Regions 1 and 2, located in the southeastern and southwestern parts of the state, but the migratory pattern is not as consistent or predictable as in Region 4. In Region 3, however, poultry processing, vineyard activities, dairy farming, and forestry account for the majority of migratory work. The migrant families in this region tend to live in apartments, trailer parks, or other rented housing and do not display the predictability of the other regions (see map below). Regional Map 2006-2007 Migrant Eligible Participant Count REGION 1 - Live Oak MEA 3,038 REGION 2 - Two Rivers MEA 2,062 REGION 3 - Piedmont MEA 2,364 REGION 4 - Southern Pine MEA 3,840 For a large number of migrant families, the journey actually begins in Florida for the citrus and vegetable seasons and then shifts north to Georgia for the various agricultural activities throughout the year. Additionally, some migrants seek temporary employment in poultry processing plants, primarily found in the northern part of the state. North and South Carolina are the next, and usually last, stops in the migratory journey before heading back to Florida where Revised April 2009 Page 9 of 84
the cycle begins again. It should be noted that a small number of migrant families do seek work in other states as far away as California, New York, Oklahoma and Texas. Some migrant families travel directly from Mexico to Georgia to begin the migratory journey described above. GEORGIA MEP STUDENT PROFILE The purpose of the migrant student profile is to provide a general snapshot of the average migrant student in Georgia. This information was provided to the State CNA Taskforce and served as background information needed to develop initial concern statements about migrant children in Georgia. Each Regional CNA Taskforce received the same background information, albeit at a regional level, and used the information to develop recommendations that were then taken to the State CNA Taskforce for review. Because of the migratory pattern in Georgia, school-age children often enroll in more than one school district, crossing both state and county school district lines during the course of the year. Additionally, migrant students lose some school days due to a lack of school records, report cards, immunization records and district residency verification requirements. The migrant student profile data serves as a picture of the average migrant student in the state. (See Tables 1-5 for a more in-depth analysis from a regional perspective.) This information was used as a starting point for the State CNA Taskforce in developing the initial concern statements. Table 1 and Table 5 provide an unduplicated count of migrant eligible participants in the state and an unduplicated count of migrant students identified as PFS, both disaggregated by regional level. The number of participants dropped noticeably in 2005-06 year due to the full program eligibility re-interviews conducted during the re-sign process. Table 1. Total Number of Migrant Children 2004-2007 Year Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 2004-05 4,377 3,531 4,804 5,286 2005-06 3,258 2,144 2,851 3,924 2006-07 3,038 2,062 2,364 3,840 Revised April 2009 Page 10 of 84
Table 2. Ethnicity of Eligible Migrant Participants 2004-2007 REGION 1 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 REGION 2 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 Black, Not Hispanic 23 (.5%) 12 (.3%) 27 (.8%) Black, Not Hispanic 39 (1.1%) 80 (3.7%) 11 (.5%) Hispanic 4,275 2,938 2,962 Hispanic 3,433 2,020 2,021 (99%) (90%) (97%) (97%) (94%) (98%) White, Not Hispanic 79 (1.8%) 308 (9.4%) 38 (1.2%) White, Not Hispanic 18 (.5%) 22 (1.0%) 24 (1.1%) American Indian 0 0 11 (.3%) American Indian 6 (.1%) 0 0 Asian or Pacific Isl. 0 0 0 Asian or Pacific Isl. 29 (.8%) 16 (.7%) 0 Multi Racial 0 0 0 Multi Racial 6 6 6 (.1%) (.2%) (.2%) Total 4,377 3,258 3,038 Total 3,531 2,144 2,062 REGION 3 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 REGION 4 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 Black, Not Hispanic 17 (.3%) 22 (.7%) 24 (1.0%) Black, Not Hispanic 64 (1.2%) 42 (1.0%) 27 (.7%) Hispanic 4,575 2,690 2,233 Hispanic 4,941 3,752 3,709 (95%) (94%) (94%) (93%) (95%) (96%) White, Not Hispanic 171 (3.5%) 119 (4.1%) 82 (3.4%) White, Not Hispanic 76 (1.4%) 49 (1.2%) 39 (1.0%) American Indian 19 (.3%) 0 0 American Indian 199 (3.7%) 39 (.9%) 28 (.7%) Asian or Pacific Isl. 22 (.4%) 20 (.7%) 19 (.8%) Asian or Pacific Isl. 0 31 (.7%) 18 (.4%) Multi Racial 0 0 6 Multi Racial 6 11 19 (.2%) (.1%) (.2%) (.4%) Total 4,804 2,851 2,364 Total 5,286 3,924 3,840 Revised April 2009 Page 11 of 84
Table 3. Mobility Trends Total Number of Qualifying Moves 2004-2007 (PreK 12 and Out-of-School Youth) Year Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 2004-05 1,540 1,474 637 991 2005-06 1,445 1,153 522 1,343 2006-07 1,577 1,173 429 1,555 Table 4. Attendance Rates Number of Days Absent 2004-2007 Eligible Migrant Participants Year 5 days or less 6-15 days More than 15 days 2004-05 58.0% 32.9% 9.0% 2005-06 60.1% 32.2% 7.7% 2006-07 59.9% 31.7% 8.5% These data were compared to all students in the state. For each of the three academic years of data that was reported, migrant students were absent slightly less than all students across the state. Number of Days Absent 2004-2007 All Students Year 5 days or less 6-15 days More than 15 days 2004-05 54.1% 35.3% 10.6% 2005-06 56.4% 33.8% 9.8% 2006-07 54.9% 35.0% 10.0% Table 5. Total Number of Priority for Service Children 2004-2007 Year Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 2004-05 116 50 43 74 2005-06 48 22 17 40 2006-07 387 217 395 615 As with the general migrant population, the number of PFS students also dropped noticeably during 2004-2005 and 2005-2006. The increase in PFS students in 2006-07 was due to the new and more accurate method of declaring a PFS student in the State of Georgia. Revised April 2009 Page 12 of 84
The average migrant student in Georgia has the following identifiers*: Priority for Service Twelve years old Seventh Grade Hispanic ethnicity Male Enrolls at the beginning of the school year Averages two days of absences Averages two qualifying moves per year Withdraws from school in March Tested and coded ELL Scores below proficiency in both reading and math achievement scores *Data were obtained from 2006-2007 student information in COEstar, the statewide migrant student database that electronically stores eligibility and other pertinent information on migrant students, and the student performance report data. It should be noted that the state student performance report data does not include any data on schools with less than ten migrant students enrolled. This should be viewed as a caution in interpreting the data. It also had a significant impact on the methodology chosen to conduct the CNA, as discussed in the next section. Revised April 2009 Page 13 of 84
METHODOLOGY THE CNA PROCESS IN GEORGIA Data Collection Procedures, Data Analysis, and Reporting PHASE I The initial Georgia MEP CNA process began in 2005 and followed the three-phase CNA model recommended by the OME. This model is based on the work of Witkin and Altschuld 2. For the initial CNA, the state conducted an analysis of the Georgia student achievement tests, including: Criterion Referenced Competency Tests, Middle Grade Writing Assessment, Georgia High School Graduation Test, End of Course Tests, Georgia High School Writing Test and the Language Assessment Battery. The analysis also included data on attendance, graduation rates, grade retention and drop-out rates. This first phase of the CNA process, also known as exploring the what is, was overseen by the State CNA Coordinator and included the development of a State CNA Taskforce. The CNA Taskforce was charged with determining the scope of the needs assessment process and the data collection methods to be used and reviewing data to recommend possible solutions. The CNA Taskforce consisted of migrant education agency and university staff, migrant parents, former migrant students, community stakeholders, Title I and Title III representatives, and non-profit organization employees. (Refer to Appendix A for Taskforce members.) The broad representation of the CNA Taskforce members ensured that a variety of perspectives were present at the planning table when determining the needs of the migrant children. The initial responsibility of the CNA Taskforce was to develop concern statements about migrant children in Georgia that focused on the four goal areas specified in NCLB reading, mathematics, graduation and school readiness. These concern statements were developed using the migrant student profile data, OME s list of seven concern areas unique to migrant students 3, and the professional expertise of the CNA Taskforce members. The initial CNA process served as an excellent starting point for the state MEP but the 2005 reorganization warranted revisiting the methodology to see if it would fit with the new structure in place. This examination revealed gaps in the initial data collection. The State CNA Taskforce decided a new CNA process should be designed and implemented, with additional data collection initiated. 2 Witkin, B.R., and Altschuld, J.W. (1995). Planning and conducting needs assessments: A practical guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. 3 OME s list of seven areas of concern unique to migrant students include: educational continuity; instructional time; school engagement; English language development; educational support in the home; health; and access to services. Revised April 2009 Page 14 of 84
PHASE II The first step in conducting the new CNA was to identify an effective way to collect relevant and comprehensive data that would further explore the concern areas developed by the State CNA Taskforce. This further investigation was the second phase of the CNA process, gathering and analyzing data, and served as the foundation for the development of the new CNA process. Since the Georgia MEP was now allocating migrant funding directly to the LEAs, who, in turn, would be providing the direct services to the migrant children based on the identified needs, the needs of several levels of stakeholders had to be determined. The primary group of stakeholders whose needs were considered for appropriate programs and services to be delivered included migrant students and their parents (Level I). However, in order for the regional MEAs to provide support and technical assistance to the LEAs in terms of appropriate service delivery, the needs of the LEAs were also assessed (Level II). Finally, in order for the statewide-level migrant education program staff to effectively support the regional MEAs in terms of their assistance to the LEAs, the needs of the regional MEAs were assessed (Level III). Appendix B shows the implementation framework at all three levels. The second step in conducting the new CNA was to consider data sources other than student achievement data to determine the need areas of the migrant students. The Georgia Department of Education student performance data does not report information for any school with less than 10 migrant students enrolled. As a result, this data source only included migrant students who happened to be enrolled in schools with a total migrant student enrollment of at least 10. A total of 565 out of 2,214 schools in the state had less than 10 migrant students enrolled, making it a significant of enough issue to consider other data sources to determine the needs. (See Table 6 below) Table 6. Total Number of Schools with Less Than 10 Migrant Students Enrolled Year Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Total 2004-05 Data Not Available Data Not Available Data Not Available Data Not Available Data Not Available 2005-06 84 119 237 114 554 2006-07 85 111 249 120 565 Additionally, the academic achievement gap data did not include the out-of-school youth (OSY) migrant population, which is a significant, and often overlooked, population in each region. Migrant OSY and migrant students who have dropped out have historically been a difficult population to serve for the Georgia MEP. Furthermore, past efforts in gathering the needs of this population have been problematic. The State CNA Coordinator and the State CNA Taskforce developed the data collection plan to address the gap in state reported data and the established necessity to consider needs across the three levels of organizational structure. As a result, the Taskforce created four surveys that were distributed to migrant students, migrant parents, school system faculty and staff, and OSY across Revised April 2009 Page 15 of 84
the state. A total of 4,150 surveys were distributed in two ways: 1) through a direct mail campaign to the attention of the Title I contact person for each LEA with migrant students and 2) through the migrant-funded position, if present, in a school system. Both methods of distribution and collection included a survey packet with specific instructions on who to survey, how to conduct the survey, deadline to complete and return the survey, and an addressed and stamped envelope in which to return the survey. Survey Type Migrant Students (Grades 4-12) Total Surveys Distributed Total Survey Respondents Data Collection Period 750 376 August 2006- June 2007 Migrant Parents 1,400 697 August 2006- June 2007 School Faculty and Staff 2,000 842 August 2006- June 2007 OSY N/A 462 December 2007- February 2008 Focus of Survey Items Parental Involvement, School Counselor Awareness, Employment after School Educational Level, Parental Involvement, Educational Goals for Children Program Limitations, Program Services Direct questions of need including health, English, high school completion, GED, and family literacy The surveys for migrant students, parents, and school system personnel included both quantitative and qualitative questions and focused on obtaining non-academic data such as parental involvement, school counselor awareness, and program delivery weaknesses. The OSY surveys included questions of need on the initial Data Entry Form (DEF) and were asked by regional recruiters as part of the program enrollment process. The results of the survey data collected will be discussed in greater detail in the Results section of this report. (Refer to Appendix C for all survey documents.) Although the survey data were extremely useful in determining migrant student needs, caution should be used in interpretation of the data due to the fact that surveys were not collected from non-migrant students and parents. Due to time and resource constraints, the Georgia MEP focused survey dissemination on the migrant population only. The inclusion of non-migrant survey respondents will be added to future CNAs if feasible. The composition of the CNA Taskforce was reconsidered in light of the 2005 Georgia MEP organizational restructuring. Given new regional responsibilities and the perception that each Regional MEA had its own unique set of student needs, the State CNA Coordinator and State CNA Taskforce decided to form Regional CNA Taskforces. During the fall of 2007, each Regional MEA formed its own CNA Taskforce and conducted its own CNA Taskforce meeting. The Regional CNA Taskforce members consisted of college faculty and staff, migrant parents, former migrant students, community stakeholders, school system administrators, health industry professionals, math teachers, reading teachers, graduation coaches, counselors, and social workers all at the regional level. The data gathered by the Regional CNA Taskforce meetings Revised April 2009 Page 16 of 84
are discussed in the Results section of this report. In addition, the State CNA Taskforce also made changes to its stakeholder representation to better reflect a state-level perspective. New members included Georgia Department of Education personnel in the areas of assessment, Title III, Title I, testing, academic standards in reading and math, state health representatives, and state HEP/CAMP program representatives. Each Regional Coordinator of the MEA served on the State CNA Taskforce and provided any regional data needed for the state-level taskforce. (See the Results section for a more detailed review of the data gathered.) PHASE III The third phase of the CNA process was the making decisions phase and focused on program planning and service delivery efforts that would impact migrant student success. The State CNA Taskforce analyzed the survey data that was gathered in Phase II, along with the data gathered at each of the Regional CNA meetings. The State Taskforce then began developing possible solutions and research-based strategies to address the needs of migrant students in Georgia. The first recommendation made by the State CNA Taskforce to address the needs of migrant students was for the Georgia MEP to develop measurable state goals based on the needs of the migrant students so that the proposed strategies and interventions would be relevant and simple to evaluate as far as effectiveness. The State CNA Coordinator was responsible for writing the initial state MEP goals. Once the goals were written, they were presented to the State CNA Taskforce for approval. Once the four state MEP goals were approved, the State CNA Taskforce and the State Parent Advisory Council developed measurable objectives at the state level in the areas of identification and recruitment, interstate coordination, data initiatives, and progress on future CNA efforts. Each Regional MEA in collaboration with its Regional CNA Taskforce developed measurable objectives at the regional level. Each LEA was expected to develop measurable objectives at the local level. Additionally, the State CNA Taskforce and State Parent Advisory Council approved the piloting of an LEA Implementation Plan for the 2007-2008 academic year. The LEA was to use the Implementation Plan for any academic program paid for with migrant funds. The Conclusion section of this report will discuss the LEA Implementation Plans, along with the state and regional objectives, in detail. The next section describes the survey results and student achievement gaps, and includes a detailed description of the migrant student profile in Georgia, which was used as necessary background information for the State and Regional CNA Taskforce concern statements and recommendations. Revised April 2009 Page 17 of 84
RESULTS STATE ASSESSMENT RESULTS FOR MIGRANT STUDENTS Figures 1a-1b and 2 indicate the achievement gap in Reading, English/LA and Math of migrant students versus all students. Using these data and given consideration to the fact that only schools with more than 10 migrant students reported data to the state, the State CNA Taskforce used a trend analysis approach in order to make generalizations about the migrant student population in Georgia in regards to academic achievement gaps. CRCT TEST DATA READING Figures 1a-1b Figure 1a. Reading CRCT Achievement Gaps 2004-2007 Reading CRCT Achievement Gaps (Percentage) 35 30 25 20 15 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 10 5 0 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Revised April 2009 Page 18 of 84
Figure 1b. English CRCT Achievement Gaps 2004-2007 English CRCT Achievement Gaps (Percentage) 35 30 25 20 15 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 10 5 0 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Revised April 2009 Page 19 of 84
MATH Figure 2 Figure 2. Math CRCT Achievement Gaps 2004-2007 Math CRCT Achievement Gaps (Percentage) 25 20 15 10 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 5 0 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 The 2004-2007 CRCT test scores indicate slight improvement for migrant students in elementary and middle school grades. When comparing the CRCT test score data from 2004 to 2007, the State CNA Taskforce considered the slight improvement as a success but still had concerns of migrant students not performing well at the transitioning grade levels. (See State CNA Taskforce Recommendations and Concern Statements section.) Revised April 2009 Page 20 of 84
GEORGIA HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION TEST DATA 2004-2007 Figure 3 depicts three years of Georgia High School Graduation Test data. Although the percentage of migrant students who failed the test have declined, the number of migrant students who took the test also declined making the gap approximately the same from 2004-05 to 2005-06. The 2006-07 data indicates an increase in the rate of failure. The State CNA Taskforce used these data to make initial concern statements about the low pass rate of migrant high school students on state tests. Figure 3. GHSGT Achievement Gaps All Students Migrant Students (n=86) 2006-2007 2006-2007 All Students Migrant Students (n=100) 2005-2006 2005-2006 Revised April 2009 Page 21 of 84
All Students Migrant Students (n=211) 2004-2005 2004-2005 GEORGIA END OF COURSE TEST DATA 2004-2007 Figure 4 compares the End-of-Course Test data across three years with migrant students versus all students. Figure 4 depicts a continued achievement gap between migrant students and all students in all subject areas. Additionally, the numbers of migrant students taking the End-of-Course Tests continued to decrease. The State CNA Taskforce used these data to make initial concern statements about the high school completion rate of migrant students. Figure 4. End-Of-Course Test Achievement Gaps All Students Migrant Students (n=238) 2006-2007 2006-2007 Revised April 2009 Page 22 of 84
All Students Migrant Students (n=278) 2005-2006 2005-2006 All Students Migrant Students (n=449) 2004-2005 2004-2005 Revised April 2009 Page 23 of 84
GEORGIA EIGHTH GRADE WRITING ASSESSMENT DATA 2004-2007 The Eighth Grade Writing Assessment results indicate there is a significant gap between migrant students and all students. The State CNA Taskforce used these data to stress the importance of the middle grades in terms of high risk to migrant student academic performance. Not only does these data indicate that migrant students are not entering high school prepared, these data also reflects the fact that the elementary grades are not preparing the migrant students for the middle grades. Figure 5. Eighth Grade Writing Assessment Achievement Gaps 2006-2007 2005-2006 2004-2005 The State CNA Taskforce analyzed these data results, along with the goals of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and OME guidelines, to write Goal 1 and Goal 2. Goals 3 and 4 were written based on the data collected through the migrant student and parent surveys, along with the goals of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and OME guidelines. Goal 1: Migrant students in grades 4 through 8 will improve grades and CRCT scores in Reading/English and Math. Goal 2: Migrant students in grades 9 through 12 will improve End of Course Test, Georgia High School Graduation Test, and Georgia High School Writing Test outcomes. Goal 3: The Georgia Migrant Education Program will add to the current number of educational and/or healthcare opportunities for migrant OSY by identifying or developing 5 additional new opportunities over the next three years. Goal 4: The Georgia Migrant Education Program will add to the current number of educational opportunities that will promote school readiness and parental engagement by developing or identifying 5 additional new educational opportunities over the next three years. Revised April 2009 Page 24 of 84
SURVEY RESULTS One additional concern of the State CNA Taskforce was that migrant students in Georgia were not emotionally or behaviorally engaged in school, resulting in low attendance in after school programs, homework completion rates, and school involvement. In order to determine whether or not this was a valid concern, the State CNA Taskforce decided to survey migrant students and parents to determine additional program needs. This section includes the survey results, both quantitative and qualitative, from a statewide perspective. Migrant Students n=376 Figures 6a 6e represent the responses of migrant students surveyed throughout the state. The data are quantitative and shown at the state level. A snapshot of the qualitative data from the migrant student survey will follow Figures 6a 6e. Figure 6a Age of Respondents Revised April 2009 Page 25 of 84
Figure 6a represents the ages of the migrant students surveyed and is indicative of the State CNA Taskforces decision to survey only 4 th through 12 th grade migrant students. Figure 6b Employment after School 90% of the migrant students surveyed indicated they did not hold part-time jobs after school. This was an unexpected outcome as an independent variable, but combined with the significant lack of parental involvement it became a primary indicator of the need to increase emotional and behavioral school engagement by both migrant students and parents. Figure 6c School Counselor Awareness Do you know who your school counselor is? Revised April 2009 Page 26 of 84
Figure 6d School Counselor Awareness Have you sought academic guidance from your school counselor? Although 75% of migrant students surveyed indicated they knew who their school counselor was (See Figure 6c), 64% of respondents said they had not sought academic guidance from their school counselor, indicating a lack of school engagement. Figure 6e Parental Involvement My parents are involved in my activities at school. Figure 6e indicates 62% of migrant students believed their parents are involved in their activities at school. However, the qualitative responses given by the migrant students contradicted their initial response of parental involvement (See Appendix D). This contradiction also exists with the parental response to the same question (See Figure 6c). Revised April 2009 Page 27 of 84
MIGRANT STUDENT QUALITATIVE SURVEY QUESTION RESULTS Q: What additional needs do you have in order to be successful in school? The top five qualitative results given by the migrant students surveyed in each region are listed below. The complete list of responses is located in Appendix D. More parent-involving activities at better times so that parents can attend Participation in after school activities Additional help with reading and math More after school programs Homework help from my parents Migrant Parents n=697 Figures 7a - 7f represent the responses of migrant parents surveyed throughout the state. The data are qualitative and shown at the state level. A snapshot of the qualitative data from the migrant parent survey will follow Figures 7a - 7f. Figure 7a Educational Level of Migrant Parents Revised April 2009 Page 28 of 84
Figure 7b Parental Involvement I look over my children s schoolwork. Figure 7c Parental Involvement I am involved in activities at my child s school. Although Figure 5e indicates 62% of migrant students believe their parents are involved in their activities at school, 45% of migrant parents indicate they are not involved in activities at their child s school. Revised April 2009 Page 29 of 84
Figure 7d Parental Involvement When I have questions about my child s education, I contact the school. Figure 7d suggests migrant parents are relatively engaged with regards to their child s education. However, there are still a fairly significant number (38%) of migrant parents who indicate they do not contact the school when they have questions about their child s education. Figure 7e View of Educational Goals for Children I want my child to graduate from high school. Figures 7e and 7f overwhelmingly indicate the parental desire of academic success for their children. When analyzed in combination with Figure 5d, the conclusion could be drawn that migrant parents were not actively engaged in their child s education for reasons other than their desire. This conclusion became evident when analyzing the qualitative responses given by migrant parents. The State CNA Taskforce considered these data a significant factor that Revised April 2009 Page 30 of 84
resulted in Goals 3 and 4 of the State MEP Goals (i.e., increasing opportunities for OSY and migrant parents). Figure 7f View of Educational Goals for Children I want my child to go to college. MIGRANT PARENT QUALITATIVE SURVEY QUESTION RESULTS What additional needs do you have in order for your child to be successful in school? The top five qualitative results given by the migrant parents surveyed in each region are listed below. The complete list of responses is located in Appendix D. To stress the importance of studying and working hard in school so that students can graduate and become successful To have more participation of parents at school functions To find way to participate in school functions given work commitments To make sure children go to class everyday To have more after-school programs available LEA FACULTY/STAFF QUALITATIVE SURVEY QUESTION RESULTS School system faculty and staff were surveyed to determine additional programming needs that were unable to be determined using only academic achievement gap data and migrant student and parent surveys. Although this is considered the second level of stakeholders in the CNA model provided by the OME, the perspective of the State CNA Taskforce was that the perceived needs of the school system faculty and staff directly impact the success of the migrant students. As such, they should be taken into consideration when making programmatic decisions. The top five qualitative results given by the LEA faculty and staff surveyed in each region are listed below. The complete list of responses (broken down by region) is located in Appendix D. Revised April 2009 Page 31 of 84
Q: What are the limitations of the MEP? Not enough staff School staff not sufficiently informed about the program Very little collaborative planning for students Relationships between families and the program Teacher training Q: What new services should the Migrant Education Program offer? Parent workshops After school/tutorial services Help smaller districts to find/help find resources to help adult learners/drop outs Outreach classes to help teachers communicate with students and students/parents to communicate with school officials More training for teachers and administrators Q: What Professional Development do you need to better prepare you to serve migrant students? More strategies on how to make the regular classroom experience successful for migrant students Cultural issues Yearly overview of the MEP and services offered to all teachers Strategies for reading instruction/language acquisition Handout with objectives of the program OUT-OF-SCHOOL YOUTH Survey questions and compiled responses In developing the State MEP goals, the State CNA Taskforce determined that the out-of-school youth migrant population was an underserved group whose needs should be considered when making programmatic decisions. Due to the fact that there were no existing data on this population to determine their needs, the State CNA Taskforce, along with the State Parent Advisory Council, suggested a way to gather specific data on this group and then analyzed the data to determine the highest area of need. Each regional recruiter used the following question while interviewing OSY for program enrollment: Revised April 2009 Page 32 of 84
If available or offered, would you be interested in any of the following: 1. US High School Diploma/GED 2. Continue/Complete Basic Mexican Education 3. English Language Instruction 4. Family Literacy 5. Health/Dental Screen 6. Not Interested The recruiter indicated the responses on the initial Data Entry Form (DEF) and returned the data gathered to the Adolescent Outreach Specialist in each Regional Migrant Education Agency (MEA). The Adolescent Outreach Specialist compiled the data for their respective region and submitted the data to the State CNA Coordinator for analysis. Table 8 represents the responses gathered for each region. Table 8. OSY Survey Responses REGIONS USEd BMEd ELI F-LIT H/D NI Region 1 2 39 207 1 8 0 Region 2 15 8 67 3 18 0 Region 3 24 22 46 1 48 0 Region 4 11 4 96 0 1 0 USEd US High School Diploma/GED BMEd Continue/Complete Basic Mexican Education ELI English Language Instruction F-LIT Family Literacy H/D Health/Dental Screening NI Not interested The OSY survey data revealed an overwhelming need for English language instruction across all four regions. Region 1 data indicated a slight interest in the basic Mexican education completion, while Region 3 data indicated the need for health and dental screenings. The State CNA Taskforce and the State PAC recommended each regional MEA to review their respective data and make programming decisions accordingly. STATE CNA TASKFORCE CONCERN STATEMENTS & RECOMMENDATIONS As discussed in Phase II of the Methodology section, the State CNA Taskforce evaluated the data gathered through the state performance reports, COEstar student database, and various surveys to make determinations and recommendations for service delivery efforts of the Georgia MEP. In order to have some direction in the program service delivery efforts, the first recommendation made by the State CNA Taskforce was to create state goals for the MEP. Table 9 below shows the state MEP goals in relation to the OME s Seven Areas of Concern, and the data sources consulted for each goal. Revised April 2009 Page 33 of 84
Table 9. State MEP Goals Based on Seven Areas of Concern Factor Concern Statement Indicator State MEP Goal Instructional Time, School Engagement, Access to Services Educational Continuity, School Engagement, Educational Support in the Home, Access to Services Access to Services, English Language Development, Educational Continuity, Health Access to Services, Educational Support in the Home Upper elementary grade migrant students and middle school migrant students are failing English, Reading, and Mathematics, along with respective CRCT exams. A number of migrant students are failing End of Course Tests, the Georgia High School Graduation Test, and the Georgia High School Writing Test and, as a result, many students are opting to drop out of high school. Large numbers of migrant workers, ages 14-21, are working in agriculture and not pursuing any form of education or health screenings. Migrant parents are not fully engaged in developing strong educational support structures for their children in the home. State Achievement Gap Data State Achievement Gap Data Migrant Student Survey OSY Survey Faculty/Staff Survey Parent Survey Faculty/Staff Survey Migrant students in grades 4 through 8 will CRCT scores in Reading/English and Math. Migrant students in grades 9 through 12 will improve End of Course Test, Georgia High School Graduation Test, and Georgia High School Writing Test outcomes. The Georgia Migrant Education Program will add to the current number of educational and/or healthcare opportunities for migrant OSY by identifying or developing 3 additional new opportunities over the next five years. The Georgia Migrant Education Program will add to the current number of educational opportunities that will promote school readiness and parental engagement by developing or identifying 3 additional new educational opportunities over the next five years. The second recommendation made by the State CNA Taskforce was to clarify the role of the Regional MEAs in terms of the services they provide to the LEAs. Since the faculty/staff surveys already indicated an overwhelming need for program awareness, the State CNA Taskforce suggested each Regional MEA hold their own CNA meeting with their respective stakeholders and LEAs to determine needs at a regional level for both the direct-funded and consortia member LEAs. Revised April 2009 Page 34 of 84
The third recommendation by the State CNA Taskforce was for each level of the MEP (Level I, Level II, and Level III) to write measurable objectives that will be combined to write the service delivery plan for the state. The consensus of the State CNA Taskforce was for the MEP to have a collective buy-in from all levels of the program in order to improve the quality. The assumption of the Taskforce was that if the same expectations were held at all levels, the establishment of a team approach to the service delivery efforts would ensue, ultimately resulting in achieving the established state goals. STATE PAC RECOMMENDATIONS The recommendations from the State Parent Advisory Council (PAC) are a result of tri-annual meetings over the past three years and the Migrant Parent Survey responses gathered during the 2006-2007 academic year. These recommendations were gathered and prioritized by the State PAC and were presented to the State CNA Taskforce for consideration when determining the State MEP goals. Migrant parents of pre-school age children are not fully engaged in developing strong educational support structures for their children in the home. Large numbers of migrant workers, ages 14-21, are working in agriculture and not pursuing any form of education. Migrant students in middle and high school are not aware of the different types of graduation tracks or the requirements for each. Migrant parents are concerned about their inability to be able to assist their children with homework and other academic activities. Migrant parents are concerned about the lack of parental involvement/outreach from the school systems. REGIONAL MEA CNA TASKFORCE RECOMMENDATIONS Region 1 Live Oak Migrant Education Agency Region 1 conducted their first CNA Taskforce meeting on November 7, 2007. The information below, combined with the regional results of the migrant student, parent, and faculty/staff surveys, was used by Region 1 to write measurable objectives for the 2008-09 academic year. More services for Drop-out population One page handout explaining migrant program: to be issued to all staff at the beginning of the academic year Ideas for serving Out-of-School Youth Resources Brochure/handout explaining types of services available to the LEAs by the MEA Revised April 2009 Page 35 of 84