2014-2015 Annual Evaluation Report Washington Migrant Education Program October 2015 Updated April 2016 and July 2016
2014-2015 Annual 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 Voice capan1@aol.com
Table of Contents 1. Executive Summary... 1 2. Program Context... 3 3. Purpose of the Evaluation... 10 Evaluation Questions (Implementation)... 10 Evaluation Questions (Results)... 11 4. Evaluation Methodology... 12 5. Implementation Evaluation Results... 13 Migrant Student Services... 13 Parent Involvement... 16 Professional Development... 20 Fidelity of Strategy Implementation... 23 6. Outcome Evaluation Results... 24 Migrant Student Achievement of Performance Goals 1 and 5... 24 Measurable Program Outcome (MPO) Results... 30 Reading... 30 Mathematics... 31 Graduation... 32 Migrant English Learners... 36 7. Implications... 39 Appendices Progress on Previous Recommendations... 39 2014-15 Summary and Implications Program Implementation... 39 2014-15 Summary and Implications Program Results... 40 Appendix A Fidelity of Strategy Implementation (FSI) Appendix B Washington MEP SDP/CNA/Evaluation Alignment Chart 2014-15 Evaluation of the Washington Migrant Education Program
Table of Exhibits Exhibit 1 Map of Washington MEP Project and Non-Project Districts... 3 Exhibit 2 Number of Eligible Migrant Students by Grade Level and Program Year... 6 Exhibit 3 2014-15 Performance Period Demographics of Migrant Students by Grade Level... 8 Exhibit 4 2014-15 Local Project Migrant Child Count Totals (Projects over 600 students)... 8 Exhibit 5 2014-15 Local Project Migrant Child Count Totals (Projects under 600 students)... 9 Exhibit 6 Migrant Students Served during the Regular School Year and Summer... 13 Exhibit 7 Number of Migrant Students Served during the 2014-15 Performance Period... 14 Exhibit 8 2014-15 Local Project Migrant Child Counts and Students Served... 14 Exhibit 9 Instructional Services Received by Migrant Students/Youth during 2014-15... 16 Exhibit 10 Support Services Received by Migrant Students/Youth during 2014-15... 16 Exhibit 11 Mean Ratings on the Fidelity of Strategy Implementation (FSI)... 23 Exhibit 12 Number/Percent of 2014-15 Migrant Students Scoring Proficient/Advanced on the 2015 Smarter Balanced ELA Assessment... 24 Exhibit 13 Comparison of 2015 Smarter Balanced ELA Assessment Results... 25 Exhibit 14 Number/Percent of 2014-15 Migrant Students Scoring Proficient/Advanced on the 2015 HSPE Reading Test... 25 Exhibit 15 Comparison of 2015 HSPE Reading Assessment Results... 26 Exhibit 16 Number/Percent of 2014-15 Migrant Students Scoring Proficient/Advanced on the 2015 Smarter Balanced Math Assessment... 26 Exhibit 17 Comparison of 2015 Smarter Balanced Math Assessment Results... 27 Exhibit 18 Number/Percent of 2014-15 Migrant Students Scoring Proficient/Advanced on the 2015 EOC Algebra I/Integrated 1 Exam... 28 Exhibit 19 Number/Percent of 2014-15 Migrant Students Scoring Proficient/Advanced on the 2015 EOC Geometry/Integrated 2 Exam... 28 Exhibit 20 Comparison of 2015 EOC Algebra I/Integrated I Assessment Results... 29 Exhibit 21 Comparison of 2015 EOC Geometry/Integrated 2 Assessment Results... 29 Exhibit 22 Graduation Rates for Non-Migrant and Migrant Students... 30 Exhibit 23 Dropout Rates for Non-Migrant and Migrant Students... 30 Exhibit 24 Migrant Student Gains on Summer Reading Assessments... 31 Exhibit 25 Percent of Migrant Students Improving Reading Skills by Grade Level... 31 Exhibit 26 Migrant Student Gains on Summer Math Assessments... 32 Exhibit 27 Percent of Migrant Students Improving Math Skills by Grade Level... 32 Exhibit 28 Secondary Courses Completed by Migrant Students... 33 Exhibit 29 Results of the 2014 and 2015 WELPA Assessment of 2014-15 Migrant and Non-Migrant English Learners (ELs)... 36 Exhibit 30 Percent of Migrant/Non-Migrant ELs Gaining on the 2014-15 WELPA... 37 2014-15 Evaluation of the Washington Migrant Education Program
1. Executive Summary The Washington Migrant Education Program (MEP) assists schools in helping migrant learners meet State achievement expectations that may be negatively impacted by students frequent migration and interrupted schooling. 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 2014-15, there were 31,331 eligible migrant students in Washington (8% were PFS migrant students). Services were provided to 10,747 migrant students (34% of all eligible migrant students). Ninety-one percent (91%) of the students served received services during the regular school year (31% of all eligible migrant students), and 23% received services during the summer (8% of all eligible migrant students). Fifty-four local MEP projects provided services to migrant students. Twenty-seven projects provided year-round services (regular year and summer programming), 27 provided regular year only services, and five provided summer only services. Projects provided instructional and support services aligned with the State Service Delivery Plan (SDP) and Comprehensive Needs Assessment (CNA) within the four goal areas of: 1) Reading, 2) Math; 3) High School Graduation; and 4) Migrant English Learners (ELs). 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 migrant parents to engage them in the education of their children through PAC meetings, college visits, and parent training/activities/events. Inter/intrastate collaboration resulted in increased services to migrant students. Projects collaborated with community agencies and school programs such as universities and colleges, 21 st Century Community School Programs, College Assistance Migrant Program (CAMP) programs, GEAR UP programs, and the State Transitional Bilingual Instructional Program. In addition, the Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) collaborated with other states for data collection, transfer, and maintenance of MEP student records, as well as participating in MEP Consortium Incentive Grants (CIGs). Support services were provided to migrant students to 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 nonacademic guidance, student advocacy, case management, career/postsecondary awareness, and social work outreach. The chart on the following page shows that all four (100%) of the Measurable Program Outcomes (MPOs) identified in the Washington MEP SDP, and addressed in this evaluation were accomplished. These positive results show the benefit of Washington MEP services on migrant students reading and math achievement, secondary credit accrual, and English language development. 2014-15 Evaluation of the Washington Migrant Education Program 1
Washington MEP Measurable Program Outcomes (MPOs) Reading MPO 1.1: The percentage of migrant students who demonstrate growth in vocabulary development and reading comprehension by end of summer program 2015. Mathematics MPO 2.1: The percentage of migrant students who demonstrate growth in mathematics concepts by end of summer program 2015. Graduation MPO 3.1: Districts report both the number of migrant students enrolled in credit retrieval courses and the number who received credit toward graduation by the end of the summer program. Migrant English Learners MPO 4.1: Annually review the language assessment results of migrant English learners (ELs) for growth compared to nonmigrant ELs. MPO Met? Yes Yes Yes Yes Evidence 73% of migrant students assessed gained 78% of migrant students assessed gained 57% completion rate; 23 districts reported student enrollment/ completion data 61% of migrant ELs gained compared to 57% of non-migrant ELs In summary, during 2014-15, 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 migrant students and their parents; community resources and programs helped support migrant students; and local projects expanded their capacity to meet the needs of Washington s mobile migrant population by conducting local needs assessments and professional learning activities. 2014-15 Evaluation of the Washington Migrant Education Program 2
2. Program Context This evaluation provides summary information on the accomplishments made by staff and students of local Migrant Education Projects (MEPs) in Washington during 2014-15. These accomplishments were examined based on State Performance Goals 1 and 5, and MEP Measurable Program Outcomes (MPOs) as outlined in the Washington State Service Delivery Plan (SDP). During 2014-15, 54 local projects provided migrant students with MEP services. Twenty-seven provided year-round services (regular year and summer programming), 27 provided regular year only services, and five provided summer only services. Local sites implementing MEP projects are identified on the following map in blue. Exhibit 1 Map of Washington MEP Project and Non-Project Districts Projects provided instructional and support services aligned with the SDP and the needs identified in the Comprehensive Needs Assessment (CNA) within the four goal areas of reading, mathematics, graduation, and migrant English learners (ELs). 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. 2014-15 Evaluation of the Washington Migrant Education Program 3
INSTRUCTIONAL SERVICES - Migrant students are provided with a wide range of supplemental instructional services during the regular school year and summer including the following. Supplementary 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 INTER/INTRASTATE COORDINATION - Because migrant 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 migrant children and their families. MEP projects also have developed a wide array of strategies that enable schools that serve the same migrant 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 migrant students; participating as a partner state in the Math and Out-of-School Youth (OSY) CIGs; participating as a member state in the InET CIG; participating in the Binational Migrant Education Initiative (BMEI); coordinating secondary education coursework; coordinating secondary credit accrual with counselors and educators in other states; participating in MSIX to transfer education and health data to participating states; attending inter- and intra-state migrant education meetings; and serving on the NASDME Conference Planning Committee and hosting the 2015 NASDME Conference in Seattle. SUPPORT SERVICES - Support services are provided to migrant students to eliminate barriers that traditionally get in the way of school success. Support focuses on leveraging existing services during both the summer and regular year program. Support services include collaboration with other agencies and referrals of migrant children from birth to age 21 to programs and community services. Examples include health (medical and dental screening and referrals), instructional supplies, information and training on nutrition, translations and interpretations, advocacy and outreach, transportation, and services to OSY. The needs-based support services provided to students throughout the year are listed in the chart below. Support Services Referrals Youth Leadership Instructional Supplies Career Counseling Life Skills Extended Learning Opportunities Academic Guidance Health Services Career/Postsecondary Support Transportation Student Advocacy Interpreting/Translating IDENTIFICATION AND RECRUITMENT - The Washington MEP is responsible for the proper and timely ID&R of all eligible migrant children and youth in the State. This includes securing 2014-15 Evaluation of the Washington Migrant Education Program 4
pertinent information to document the basis of a child s eligibility. Ultimately, it is the State s responsibility to implement procedures to ensure that migrant children and youth are both 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 project 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 2015) at the following link: https://www.msdr.org/resources/ Publications/ IR%20Handbook/index.html#34 The Handbook provides detailed information for local projects on their responsibilities for ID&R, MEP eligibility criteria, interviewing migrant families, eligibility scenarios/rulings, completing Certificates of Eligibility (COEs), and the Migrant Student Information System (MSIS) for recruiters. SEA Monitoring Process - Monitoring local MEPs is the responsibility of the Washington OSPI. This includes both the compliance monitoring process as well as follow-up and ongoing technical assistance that supports project implementation and student achievement. The Washington Monitoring Checklists contain the requirements in the ESEA Consolidated Application for Title I, Part C. The Checklists can be used by grant recipients to ensure programs are operated in compliance with the law and guidance. The Checklists are used during onsite visits, as well as virtually, and when conducting desk audit monitoring. All ESEA programs also are monitored through the application and financial reporting approval processes. In addition to Federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) monitoring, the accuracy of documentation for Certificates of Eligibility (COEs) and other quality control processes is verified by OSPI as part of its MEP monitoring process. OSPI also has the responsibility for monitoring budgetary and programmatic aspects of its grantees. Monitoring is documented through the Checklists which look at the following programmatic areas during the regular school year: Identified Needs Services from Other Programs Coordinated Services Priority for Services (PFS) Graduation and Promotion Attendance Professional Development Annual Training ID&R Time and Flexibility Records Clerk Time and Flexibility MGS/MSA Activities Parent Advisory Council Parent Engagement Students Served Following are the areas on the Monitoring Checklist for summer programs: ID&R Staffing Professional Development Parent Communication/Engagement Curriculum/Academic Standards Pre/Post Assessment Evaluation 2014-15 Evaluation of the Washington Migrant Education Program 5
Student Demographics - During 2014-15, there were 31,331 eligible migrant students in Washington, a slight decrease from the prior three years (2% less than 2013-14, 6% less than 2012-13, and 7% less than 2011-12). UG=ungraded Exhibit 2 Number of Eligible Migrant Students by Grade Level and Program Year Number of Eligible Migrant Students Grade 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 0-2 347 1,849 1,473 1,254 3-5 801 3,946 2,801 2,710 K 1,918 2,073 1,724 1,655 1 1,954 1,995 2,080 1,958 2 1,939 1,955 2,102 2,157 3 1,813 1,879 2,023 1,991 4 1,831 1,776 1,941 1,907 5 2,016 1,829 1,846 1,900 6 1,864 1,920 1,813 1,816 7 1,743 1,862 1,930 1,771 8 1,795 1,698 1,923 1,839 9 1,905 1,857 1,841 1,871 10 1,729 1,715 1,861 1,776 11 1,634 1,569 1,670 1,682 12 1,807 1,745 2,444 2,235 UG 2 0 0 0 OSY 8,696 3,675 2,344 2,809 Total 33,794 33,343 31,816 31,331 34000 33500 33000 32500 32000 31500 31000 30500 30000 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 # Migrant Students Source: CSPR Part II School Years 2011-12 through 2014-15 As part of the NCLB 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 migrant students, migrant students served, and migrant students designated as having Priority for Services (PFS). Determining which migrant students are PFS is put into place through the SDP. The definition for PFS described on the following page is used to determine if migrant child or youth are considered PFS and serves as the PFS number used in the MEP funding formula. 2014-15 Evaluation of the Washington Migrant Education Program 6
Washington State Priority for Service Definition Section 1304(d) -In providing services with funds received under this part, each recipient of such funds shall give priority to migratory children who 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, and whose education has been interrupted during the regular school year. Washington State Migrant Education Program Definition for Students Identified for Priority for Service: Students: whose education has been interrupted during the regular school year AND who 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. Migrant Students Priority for Services Criteria Criterion #1 Migratory children whose education has been interrupted during the regular school year Interrupted School Year defined by the following parameter: A Qualifying Arrival Date (QAD) has been made within the 180 day school-year and excludes the summer months. AND Documentation Required Certificate of Eligibility (COE) Criterion #2 Migratory children who 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 Academic Proficiency in State Assessments student has not demonstrated proficiency in at least one of the following assessments at grade levels tested: Measurements of Student Progress (MSP) grades 3-8 (reading, math, writing, and science); or High School Proficiency Exam (HSPE) grades 9-12 (reading and writing); or End-of-Course (EOC) Exams grades 7-12 (math); or Documentation Required Student level assessment results in the areas tested. Washington Alternate Assessment System (WAAS). ***USE PROXY RISK FACTORS when State assessment data is not available to determine whether migrant 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 factors may be applied when: 1. The student was not present in the district when the State assessment was administered, OR 2. The student is enrolled in a grade level where a State assessment is not administered (grades K-2 and 9). Proxy Risk Factors to Criteria #2 2 a). Student s score on Washington s English Language Proficiency test is within the limited English proficient levels (1, 2, and 3). 2 b). Retained- student is enrolled in same grade level from one school year to the next. 2 c). Grade Age Compatible (Over Age for Grade)- age does not match acceptable range for grade level placement within 2 years. 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. English language proficiency score. Grade level retained Age and grade level placement. Number of credits deficient and area of deficiency. 2014-15 Evaluation of the Washington Migrant Education Program 7
Exhibit 3 shows that of the 31,331 eligible students in 2014-15, 8% were categorized as PFS [percentage does not include children birth-2], 41% [percentage does not include children birth- 2] were identified as being limited in English proficiency (LEP), and 9% were identified as having a disability through the Individuals with Disability Education Act (IDEA). Thirty-three percent (33%) of the eligible migrant students had a Qualifying Arrival Date (QAD) occurring within 12 months from the last day of the performance period (8/31/15), with nearly half of the QADs within the last 12 months (44%) occurring during the regular school year. OSY and children birth to age two had the highest percentage of QADs in this performance period. Exhibit 3 2014-15 Performance Period Demographics of Migrant Students by Grade Level PFS LEP IDEA QAD w/in 12 months QAD w/in 12 Months During Reg Year Total Grade Eligible # % # % # % # % # %* Birth-2 1,254 -- -- -- -- 11 1% 771 61% 368 48% Age 3-5 2,710 0 0% 1 <1% 79 3% 1,027 38% 526 51% K 1,655 15 1% 1,014 61% 146 9% 483 29% 292 60% 1 1,958 160 8% 1,590 81% 174 9% 477 24% 273 57% 2 2,157 219 10% 1,573 73% 186 9% 634 29% 294 46% 3 1,991 225 11% 1,472 74% 232 12% 505 25% 262 52% 4 1,907 212 11% 1,275 67% 233 12% 507 27% 271 53% 5 1,900 216 11% 1,168 61% 220 12% 516 27% 252 49% 6 1,816 213 12% 954 53% 242 13% 485 27% 268 55% 7 1,771 187 11% 805 45% 198 11% 462 26% 226 49% 8 1,839 159 9% 762 41% 221 12% 448 24% 211 47% 9 1,871 216 12% 717 38% 205 11% 492 26% 233 47% 10 1,776 251 14% 604 34% 194 11% 420 24% 206 49% 11 1,682 197 12% 469 28% 163 10% 383 23% 156 41% 12 2,235 218 10% 558 25% 208 9% 280 13% 165 59% OSY 2,809 0 0% 16 1% 0 -- 2,295 82% 512 22% Total 31,331 2,488 8% 12,978 41% 2,712 9% 10,185 33% 4,515 44% Source: CSPR Part II School Year 2014-15 *Percentage of QAD within 12 months, not total eligible Exhibits 4 and 5 show the number of eligible migrant students and students served at each of the 54 local projects during 2014-15. These exhibits do not include non-project districts. Actual numbers can be found in Exhibit 8 on page 14. Exhibit 4 2014-15 Local Project Migrant Child Count Totals (Projects Over 600 Students) YAKIMA KENNEWICK WENATCHEE SUNNYSIDE WAPATO TOPPENISH MOUNT VERNON WAHLUKE EASTMONT NORTH FRANKLIN OTHELLO GRANDVIEW PROSSER 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 # Served # Students 2014-15 Evaluation of the Washington Migrant Education Program 8
Exhibit 5 2014-15 Local Project Migrant Child Count Totals (Projects under 600 students) QUINCY MOSES LAKE GRANGER WARDEN MABTON ROYAL CITY BREWSTER KIONA BENTON BURLINGTON BRIDGEPORT TONASKET HIGHLAND SEATTLE LAKE CHELAN CENTRALIA SEDRO WOOLLEY ABERDEEN NOOKSACK VALLEY WINLOCK CASHMERE BELLINGHAM LYNDEN ZILLAH EPHRATA OCEAN BEACH ORONDO UNION GAP OCOSTA WEST VALLEY CASCADE MANSON ELLENSBURG QUILLAYUTE VALLEY MOSSYROCK NASELLE-GRAYS RIVER PATEROS PATERSON WHITE SALMON OKANOGAN LIND CONWAY 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 # Served # Students 2014-15 Evaluation of the Washington Migrant Education Program 9
3. Purpose of the Evaluation In 1966, Congress included language in the ESEA to help the children of migrant farmworkers and established the Office of Migrant Education. Migrant education programs provide supplemental instruction 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. 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 migrant students have the opportunity to meet the same challenging State content and student performance standards that all children are expected to meet. States are required to evaluate the effectiveness of the 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 priority for service. To investigate the effectiveness of its efforts to serve migrant 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 migrant 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 results. In evaluating program implementation, the evaluation will address 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? How did local projects tailor instruction to meet the needs of individual students? What instructional programs were used to teach vocabulary and reading comprehension? What instructional programs were used to teach math concepts? What types of credit accrual instruction/programs were provided to students? How were student credit needs determined? What programs provided English language instruction to migrant students? 2014-15 Evaluation of the Washington Migrant Education Program 10
EVALUATION QUESTIONS (RESULTS) In evaluating program results, the evaluation will address questions such as: What percentage of migrant students (PFS and non-pfs) demonstrated growth in vocabulary development and reading comprehension by the end of summer program? What percentage of migrant students (PFS and non-pfs) demonstrated growth in math concepts by end of summer program? How many migrant students (PFS and non-pfs) enrolled in and received high school credit by the end of the summer program? What percentage of migrant ELs (PFS and non-pfs) demonstrated growth in English language skills compared to non-migrant ELs? 2014-15 Evaluation of the Washington Migrant Education Program 11
4. Evaluation Methodology The evaluation of MEP services in Washington is part of the Continuous Improvement Cycle that includes both implementation and 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 migrant student participation; the perceived attitudes of staff, parents, and student stakeholders regarding improvement, achievement, and other outcomes; and the accomplishments of the Washington MEP. An external evaluator 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 migrant 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 annual evaluation report to determine the extent to which progress was made and objectives were met. Data analysis procedures used in this report include descriptive statistics (e.g., means and frequencies); 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. In order to gather information about the outcomes and effectiveness of the services provided to students in the Washington MEP, the evaluator collected formative and summative evaluation data to determine the level of implementation of the strategies contained in the SDP, the extent to which progress was made toward the State Performance Goals in reading, math, graduation and drop-out rates; and the four Measurable Program Outcomes (MPOs) listed below. Reading Mathematics Graduation Migrant ELs MPO 1.1 The percentage of migrant students who demonstrate growth in vocabulary development and reading comprehension by end of summer program 2015. MPO 2.1: The percentage of migrant students who demonstrate growth in mathematics concepts by end of summer program 2015. MPO 3.1: Districts report both the number of migrant students enrolled in credit retrieval courses and the number who received credit toward graduation by the end of the summer program. MPO 4.1: Annually review the language assessment results of LEP migrant students for growth compared to non-migrant English learners. 2014-15 Evaluation of the Washington Migrant Education Program 12
5. Implementation Evaluation Results MIGRANT STUDENT SERVICES Exhibit 6 shows that 9,751 migrant students (31% of all eligible migrant students) were served during the regular school year (2014-15), 14% of which were PFS students (55% of all PFS students); and 2,458 migrant students (8% of all eligible migrant students) were served during the summer (2015), 17% of which were PFS students (17% of all PFS students). Exhibit 6 Migrant Students Served during the Regular School Year and Summer Regular School Year Summer All Migrant Students PFS All Migrant Students PFS Served Total Served Served Total Served Total # Total # Grade Eligible # % PFS # % Eligible # % PFS # % Birth-2 1,254 0 0% -- -- -- 1,254 0 0% -- -- -- Age 3-5 2,710 28 1% 0 -- -- 2,710 41 2% 0 -- -- K 1,655 610 37% 15 9 60% 1,655 214 13% 15 5 33% 1 1,958 674 34% 160 98 61% 1,958 227 12% 160 45 28% 2 2,157 726 34% 219 117 53% 2,157 224 10% 219 29 13% 3 1,991 639 32% 225 84 37% 1,991 239 12% 225 34 15% 4 1,907 646 34% 212 92 43% 1,907 257 13% 212 38 18% 5 1,900 599 32% 216 91 42% 1,900 208 11% 216 31 14% 6 1,816 657 36% 213 112 53% 1,816 138 8% 213 47 22% 7 1,771 604 34% 187 108 58% 1,771 146 8% 187 33 18% 8 1,839 839 46% 159 121 76% 1,839 134 7% 159 42 26% 9 1,871 859 46% 216 143 66% 1,871 146 8% 216 46 21% 10 1,776 853 48% 251 149 59% 1,776 169 10% 251 35 14% 11 1,682 870 52% 197 117 59% 1,682 184 11% 197 32 16% 12 2,235 1,144 51% 218 117 54% 2,235 131 6% 218 8 4% OSY 2,809 3 0% 0 -- -- 2,809 0 0% 0 -- -- Total 31,331 9,751 31% 2,488 1,358 55% 31,331 2,458 8% 2,488 425 17% Source: CSPR School Year 2014-15 and MSIS Exhibit 7 shows the unduplicated number of participating migrant children who received MEPfunded instructional or support services at any time during the 2014-15 performance period (regular year and summer). Results show that 34% of the 31,331 eligible migrant students were served during 2014-15, 13% of which were PFS students (58% of all PFS students). Seventy percent (70%) of the migrant students served received support services (87% receiving support services received counseling services). Fifty percent (50%) of the students served received instructional services. Not included in Exhibit 7 is the percentage of migrant students receiving reading and math instruction, and high school credit accrual during the performance period (instruction provided by a teacher only). Eight percent (8%) of the 5,320 migrant students receiving instruction during the performance period received reading instruction and 6% received math instruction. Sixty-four percent (64%) of the 1,376 high school students/osy receiving instruction received high school credit accrual. 2014-15 Evaluation of the Washington Migrant Education Program 13
Exhibit 7 Migrant Students Served during the 2014-15 Performance Period All Migrant Students PFS Type of Services Received Support Served Total # Served Instruction Services Counseling Grade Eligible # % PFS # % # %* # %* # %** Birth-2 1,254 0 0% -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Age 3-5 2,710 98 4% 0 -- -- 94 96% 6 6% 0 0% K 1,655 780 47% 15 9 33% 502 64% 387 50% 263 68% 1 1,958 775 40% 160 108 46% 504 65% 417 54% 288 69% 2 2,157 830 38% 219 125 52% 520 63% 470 57% 330 70% 3 1,991 759 38% 225 96 51% 517 68% 402 53% 269 67% 4 1,907 768 40% 212 104 45% 499 65% 410 53% 293 71% 5 1,900 685 36% 216 102 49% 380 55% 405 59% 324 80% 6 1,816 739 41% 213 120 55% 385 52% 491 66% 406 83% 7 1,771 651 37% 187 113 66% 293 45% 472 73% 444 94% 8 1,839 868 47% 159 130 70% 250 29% 706 81% 669 95% 9 1,871 879 47% 216 149 73% 156 18% 808 92% 784 97% 10 1,776 885 50% 251 150 62% 298 34% 765 86% 748 98% 11 1,682 876 52% 197 118 67% 370 42% 759 87% 733 97% 12 2,235 1,151 51% 218 119 64% 550 48% 1,012 88% 980 97% OSY 2,809 3 <1% 0 -- -- 2 67% 1 33% 0 0% Total 31,331 10,747 34% 2,488 1,443 58% 5,320 50% 7,511 70% 6,531 87% Source: CSPR School Year 2014-15 *Percentage of students served during the performance period **Percentage of students receiving support services Exhibit 8 displays the migrant students and youth eligible and served at each of the 54 project districts during 2014-15 (Note: this chart does not include non-project districts). A total of 24,809 students were eligible to receive MEP services during 2014-15 at the project districts, with 8% of these students considered PFS, and 92% considered non-pfs. Forty-three percent (43%) of the eligible migrant students received MEP services. Sixty-nine percent (69%) of the 2,075 PFS migrant students were served, as were 41% of the 22,734 non-pfs migrant students. Exhibit 8 2014-15 Local Project Migrant Child Counts and Student Served Eligible PFS Non-PFS Districts # Students # Served % Served # PFS % PFS # PFS Served % PFS Served # Non-PFS % Non-PFS # Non-PFS Served % Non-PFS Served Aberdeen 143 36 25% 9 6% 2 22% 134 94% 34 25% Bellingham 125 70 56% 12 10% 8 67% 113 90% 62 55% Brewster 280 170 61% 51 18% 50 98% 229 82% 120 52% Bridgeport 256 87 34% 27 11% 15 56% 229 89% 72 31% Burlington 274 96 35% 18 7% 15 83% 256 93% 81 32% Cascade 65 15 23% 18 28% 12 67% 47 72% 3 6% Cashmere 127 91 72% 15 12% 14 93% 112 88% 77 69% Centralia 158 28 18% 19 12% 10 53% 139 88% 18 13% Conway 27 11 41% 7 26% 5 71% 20 74% 6 30% Eastmont 897 376 42% 68 8% 41 60% 829 92% 335 40% Ellensburg 60 40 67% 15 25% 15 100% 45 75% 25 56% Ephrata 105 97 92% 13 12% 13 100% 92 88% 84 91% Grandview 779 281 36% 96 12% 70 73% 683 88% 211 31% Granger 425 217 51% 29 7% 18 62% 396 93% 199 50% Highland 243 71 29% 36 15% 21 58% 207 85% 50 24% 2014-15 Evaluation of the Washington Migrant Education Program 14
Eligible PFS Non-PFS Districts # Students # Served % Served # PFS % PFS # PFS Served % PFS Served # Non-PFS % Non-PFS # Non-PFS Served % Non-PFS Served Kennewick 2,598 645 25% 97 4% 37 38% 2,501 96% 608 24% Kiona Benton 278 218 78% 19 7% 18 95% 259 93% 200 77% Lake Chelan 160 38 24% 22 14% 10 45% 138 86% 28 20% Lind 31 22 71% 1 3% 1 100% 30 97% 21 70% Lynden 106 41 39% 14 13% 4 29% 92 87% 37 40% Mabton 323 64 20% 31 10% 8 26% 292 90% 56 19% Manson 60 27 45% 15 25% 6 40% 45 75% 21 47% Moses Lake 448 125 28% 57 13% 12 21% 391 87% 113 29% Mossyrock 54 28 52% 2 4% 1 50% 52 96% 27 52% Mount Vernon 1,046 513 49% 117 11% 90 77% 929 89% 423 46% Naselle-Grays River 43 13 30% 2 5% 1 50% 41 95% 12 29% Nooksack Valley 141 23 16% 15 11% 6 40% 126 89% 17 13% North Franklin 847 338 40% 88 10% 61 69% 759 90% 277 36% Ocean Beach 103 22 21% 13 13% 7 54% 90 87% 15 17% Ocosta 84 13 15% 6 7% 3 50% 78 93% 10 13% Okanogan 37 0 0% 3 8% 0 0% 34 92% 0 0% Orondo 98 40 41% 17 17% 10 59% 81 83% 30 37% Othello 822 250 30% 97 12% 82 85% 725 88% 168 23% Pateros 39 6 15% 4 10% 0 0% 35 90% 6 17% Paterson 38 21 55% 8 21% 8 100% 30 79% 13 43% Prosser 737 330 45% 55 7% 42 76% 682 93% 288 42% Quillayute Valley 54 9 17% 3 6% 1 33% 51 94% 8 16% Quincy 560 147 26% 84 15% 27 32% 476 85% 120 25% Royal City 311 78 25% 27 9% 12 44% 284 91% 66 23% Seattle 232 91 39% 8 3% 8 100% 224 97% 83 37% Sedro Woolley 144 111 77% 14 10% 13 93% 130 90% 98 75% Sunnyside 1,402 517 37% 98 7% 63 64% 1,304 93% 454 35% Tonasket 246 178 72% 32 13% 30 94% 214 87% 148 69% Toppenish 1,149 747 65% 114 10% 101 89% 1,035 90% 646 62% Union Gap 88 0 0% 5 6% 0 0% 83 94% 0 0% Wahluke 976 168 17% 82 8% 34 41% 894 92% 134 15% Wapato 1,223 552 45% 65 5% 62 95% 1,158 95% 490 42% Warden 368 155 42% 51 14% 31 61% 317 86% 124 39% Wenatchee 1,978 891 45% 119 6% 117 98% 1,859 94% 774 42% West Valley 74 22 30% 8 11% 2 25% 66 89% 20 30% White Salmon 37 0 0% 3 8% 0 0% 34 92% 0 0% Winlock 129 127 98% 3 2% 3 100% 126 98% 124 98% Yakima 3,676 2,402 65% 237 6% 213 90% 3,439 94% 2,189 64% Zillah 105 39 37% 6 6% 2 33% 99 94% 37 37% Total 24,809 10,697 43% 2,075 8% 1,435 69% 22,734 92% 9,262 41% Source: MSIS Exhibit 9 shows the specific instructional services received by migrant students and youth during 2014-15. Results show that the largest number of students/youth received reading instruction (1,791 students), followed by math instruction (1,441 students), credit recovery (740 students), writing instruction (552 students), science instruction (264 students), and early childhood education (23 students). 2014-15 Evaluation of the Washington Migrant Education Program 15
Exhibit 9 Instructional Services Received by Migrant Students/Youth during 2014-15 Reading Instruction Math Instruction Credit Recovery Writing Instruction Science Instruction Early Childhood Education 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 # Students/Youth Source: MSIS Exhibit 10 shows the specific support services received by migrant students and youth during 2014-15. Results illustrate that the largest number of migrant students/youth received academic guidance, followed by non-academic guidance, and career/postsecondary support. Other support services received included student leadership, social work outreach, health and dental, educational supplies, and transportation. Of note is that the Washington MEP funds Migrant Graduation Specialists [MGSs] and Migrant Student Advocates [MSAs] to provide counseling to students in tandem with school counselors, teachers, and other staff. As a result, 2,159 students received case management services, and 3,427 received advocacy services. Exhibit 10 Support Services Received by Migrant Students/Youth during 2014-15 Academic Guidance Non-Academic Guidance Career/Postsecondary Student Leadership Social Work Outreach Health Dental Educational Supplies Transportation 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 # Students/Youth 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 Parent Advisory Council (PAC) meetings and other parent activities. Following are examples of the events, activities, and meetings in which parents participated during 2014-15. College Field Trips and Information Nights ESD Title I Parent Conferences Family Literacy Nights Family Math Nights 2014-15 Evaluation of the Washington Migrant Education Program 16
Funds of Knowledge Training Holiday Family Events Migrant Parent Leadership Events National Migrant Education Conference PAC Leadership Meetings PAC Meetings School Open Houses Washington MEP State Conference Examples of training topics provided to parents by the MEP included the following: Career Exploration Community Resources Credit Accrual Discipline Drug and Alcohol Awareness Educational Program Options FAFSA / WASFA Completion Family Literacy Funds of Knowledge Gang Awareness and School Safety Graduation Requirements Health Health Reform Immigration Importance of Reading Kindergarten Readiness Labor Rights Leadership Skills Math MEP Information MEP Seven Areas of Concern Parenting with Love and Logic Postsecondary Education Reading/Literacy Scholarships School Standards Science/STEM Smarter Balanced Assessments Supporting Children at Home Using District Student Information Systems On end-of-year reports, local project staff identified activities conducted to increase migrant parent engagement. Following are examples from individual projects which address PAC meetings and training, parent involvement activities and training, opportunities for parent involvement in the classroom, and communication and collaboration. PAC Meetings and Training PAC members were trained in the Seven Areas of Concern and Funds of Knowledge. Some of these parents went on to create a presentation for other parents. PAC meetings offer our migrant parents abundant information on different topics, for example, academic information to help them understand school standards, family literacy and math nights, and promoting the importance of reading. This year we did a variety of activities at our PAC meetings that have helped our migrant families be better informed. We updated our PAC bylaws, had a presentation about an ESL class offered twice a week at the high school, and presented information on our birth to three class and our special education preschool so families were aware of community and school programs offered to engage them. Our high school counselor presented the new state testing requirements, graduation requirements for students at each grade level (9-12), ways students can pass state testing requirements if they have not yet passed them, student achievement, and test scores. Our local health facility talked about the changes in health reform and how that would affect our migrant families. Our Superintendent did a question and answer session to get feedback and parental involvement from our migrant families for our district's Strategic Plan. We had migrant students that attended migrant academies talk about their experiences, and parents of these students talk about the benefits to their children. 2014-15 Evaluation of the Washington Migrant Education Program 17
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. The PAC works to empower parents with information that will support migrant students. Parent Activities and Training Family literacy activities (lessons for parents), multicultural night for families, extra time for migrant staff to meet with parents during parent/teacher conferences to work with parents, and PAC meetings were all attended well and with a variety of parents. This multifaceted approach allowed us to reach more parents. Three migrant parents attended the State MEP conference in August and one migrant parent was selected to attend the National Migrant Education Conference in Seattle in the spring. Migrant parents travel to the Statewide MEP Conference held each year and are actively involved in all aspects of planning, implementing, and evaluating the district's MEP. PAC meetings are held quarterly and three migrant family nights are hosted throughout the year. The State Migrant Conference gives parents an opportunity to network and work with other parents. The National Migrant Conference gave parents tools for better understanding the educational system and how to be involved with their children. This experience facilitates the role of the migrant parent to become an advocate for their children. We have a weekly radio show to inform parents of district events, and current issues in education. Between 10-30 parents participated in monthly parent education nights/pac. Approximately 40 parents attended sessions at the Annual Parent Conference on reading, health, graduation requirements, scholarships, science, PASSport classes, robotics, the planetarium, art, and more. PAC members participated in a Museum of Flight Interactive Assembly. Families attended an End of Year Summer Program/Services Information Night, the National Migrant Conference, PASSport Classes, Love and Logic, and Strengthening Families. There was also an Immigration and Legal Information Night and an End of Summer School Open House/BBQ. Parent nights were scheduled at all buildings on topics of interest to migrant parents including math and science, gangs and discipline, and literacy. Many sites provided information fairs inviting community partners such as clinics, church-sponsored support services, work services, and police departments. All topics have had an impact on increasing parent engagement according to evaluations. We held bi-monthly parent meetings/trainings with guest speakers, staff and student presentations, and focused activities. Training addressed graduation requirements, leadership skills, career exploration and postsecondary education, student presentations on school activities as well as migrant-funded activities such as the LEAP conference, ways to support student academics in the home, and effective conferencing with teachers. Parent activities included postsecondary exploration with MGSs on field trips, Spanish financial aid nights, monthly PAC Leadership Team meetings, the National Migrant Conference, quarterly PAC meetings, community resource presentations at PAC meetings, and home visits by MGSs. Opportunities for Parent Involvement in the Classroom Parents had the opportunity to help their children build background knowledge with each unit. We sent "home activities" that encouraged students to talk to their parents about the unit topics and write examples to bring back and share with the class. Multiple games (4 for each grade band) were sent home with the students over the course of the program. These games encouraged family involvement and were sent in dual languages so all could participate. Parents came in for weekly read alouds where staff modeled reading aloud with Common Corefriendly questions. The READ UP program provided free books each week for each student, in exchange for a weekly reading session with parents and students together. Over 500 books were provided, most of them bilingual. The family math night was attended by 240 students and family members. 2014-15 Evaluation of the Washington Migrant Education Program 18
Communication/Collaboration Our Parent Advocate is continually inviting our migrant parents to attend our Parent Education Center. He uses the Remind 101 program to remind parents of parent meetings and school events. As a result, many of our migrant parents attended the evening classes to develop academic skills such as math and literacy. Parent activities provided opportunities to improve two-way communication with parents and gave voice to our migrant and Spanish-speaking parents and allowed us to tap into their proud culture and hopes for their children. Parents are guided through the Skyward system and given the tools to be able to check grades and attendance. This is very informational for the parents because it enables them the power to be involved in the children's education. On end-of-year reports, local project staff identified ways in which parent activities impacted parents. Following are examples from individual projects that address achievement of parent goals, increased parent involvement, and impact on students. Achievement of Parent Goals/Skills Some of our migrant parents worked hard enough to earn their GED and expressed a desire to return to our evening program in a mentor/tutor capacity. A parent survey was given showing an increase in parent confidence in reading with their children. Increased Parent Involvement Parent activities increased migrant parent engagement, in that parents got information regarding their child s school happenings. Outcomes from parent involvement included parents supporting a Latino music event in October, parents expressing greater understanding of strategies to promote deep knowledge of math concepts (75% of classes met their growth targets in math in spring 2015), and recommendations in place for 2015-16. Parent survey results show that parents increased awareness of Title I Part C and its purpose, were satisfied with the current level of interventions, expressed great support for the Migrant Graduate Specialist (MGS) program and were very positive on the presentation by MGSs on graduation requirements and state testing, and gave parent conferences high marks for being informative. Our superintendent has heard from the PAC on the importance of the MGS to parents and students. As a result of participating in parent activities, parents learned how to support students for success; increased awareness of postsecondary opportunities; gained an understanding of how to advocate for their children and support their achievement; experienced a broader understanding of the MEP; were better equipped to help the PAC be successful; learned strategies for supporting their children in math, reading, and postsecondary goals; and the parent evaluations of the STEM event showed high parent engagement and further understanding of science education. Parent involvement has increased throughout the year through home visits and talking to parents during conferences. By participating in parent activities, parents increased their motivation to help and support their child, developed a better understanding of postsecondary options, and gained ownership of their role and involvement of their child's education. Impact on Students Understanding the educational system empowers parents to actively encourage their children to attend school and seek academic support. 2014-15 Evaluation of the Washington Migrant Education Program 19