Improving Services For Migrant Students
February 2006LAO6 5 Y E A R S O F S E RV I C EImproving ServicesFor Migrant StudentsElizabethG.Hill Leg i s l a t i v eAnalystThe Migrant Education Program is a federallyfunded program that provides supplementaleducation services to migrant children. Thisreport reviews the state’s implementation ofthe program. We find that the state could better target resources and better serve migrantstudents by implementing a comprehensivepackage of reforms. Specifically, we recommend a number of modifications related tothe program’s: (1) funding and service model,(2) data system, and (3) carryover fundingprocess. We also identify funding available tohelp in implementing these changes. (In Spanish)
A n L A O R e p or t AcknowledgmentsLAO PublicationsThis report was prepared by Rachel Ehlers,and reviewed by Jennifer Kuhn. The LegislativeAnalyst’s Office (LAO) is a nonpartisan officewhich provides fiscal and policy informationand advice to the Legislature.To request publications call (916) 445-4656. This report and others, as well as an E-mailsubscription service, are available on theLAO’s Internet site at www.lao.ca.gov. TheLAO is located at 925 L Street, Suite 1000,Sacramento, CA 95814.Legislative Analyst’s Office
A n L A O R e p or tIntroductionThe Migrant Education Program (MEP)provides supplemental education services tomigrant children. The program currently provides these services primarily through a regionalsystem of MEP centers—a model that has ledto limited program accountability, poor coordination with other student services, and littlestatewide collaboration. Additionally, over thepast several years the program has developed asignificant balance of unspent federal funds.We think the time is right for the Legislatureto consider ways to improve the MEP. The bulkof state law governing the program was enactedmore than 20 years ago—before the passage ofthe federal No Child Left Behind Act and beforethe state had established its current statewideaccountability system. Moreover, the CaliforniaDepartment of Education (CDE) is currently inthe process of conducting a federally mandatedcomprehensive needs assessment of the MEP todetermine a new statewide strategic vision forthe program. The Legislature has a critical roleto play in this reform process, ensuring that theprogram is effective in serving migrant students’educational needs.In this report, we recommend the Legislatureimplement a comprehensive package of reformsdesigned to improve the state’s MEP. Specifically, we recommend a number of modificationsrelated to the program’s: (1) funding and servicemodel, (2) data system, and (3) carryover funding process. We also identify funding available tohelp in implementing these changes and navigating the transition process. We think this packageof reforms would help the state better targetresources and better serve migrant studentsthroughout the state. Below, we provide basicinformation about the state’s MEP. We then describe our recommended reforms in each of thethree areas listed above.BackgroundPurpose of the ProgramThe MEP, created bythe federal governmentin 1966, is intended toaddress the educationalneeds of highly mobilechildren whose familymembers are employeddoing seasonal agricultural work. The MEP isfunded almost entirelyby federal funds. Figure 1summarizes the objectivesof the MEP.Figure 1Objectives of the Migrant Education Program9 Help reduce the educational disruptions that result from repeatedrelocations.9 Provide coordinated educational and support services.9 Ensure migrant children who move among the states are not adverselyaffected by differences in state education programs or requirements.9 Ensure migrant students are exposed to the same academic content andheld to the same achievement standards as other children.9 Prepare migrant students to make a successful transition topostsecondary education or employment.Legislative Analyst’s Office
A n L A O R e p or tProgram Provides Supplemental Services.high school and/or do not attend a traditionalOne of the requirements of the federal programschool are referred to as “out-of-school youth.”)is that MEP funds be used to address the needsFigure 3 provides some facts about the state’sof migrant students that are not addressed bymigrant students.other education programs. That is, the programProgram Based on Regional Systemmust supplement the core academic programchildren receive during the regular school day.Migrant education services are providedThe federal government grants broad flexibilityby 23 MEP centers located across California.to states on how to implement MEP supplemenFigure 4 (see page 6) shows the service area oftal services. Figure 2 summarizes the serviceseach of the 23 centers. Fourteen of these cenprovided by California’sMEP and identifies howFigure 2much of the state’sMigrant Education Services and Spendingfederal grant is currentlyPercent of Totalbeing spent on each ofStatethese services.ExpendituresProgram ServesInstructional Services, Regular School Year. Typical Migrant Education64%Children of MigrantProgram (MEP) expenditures include: hiring additional teachers, tutors andWorkers. Children areaides for the regular school day and after school programs; purchasingsupplemental curriculum and materials; developing and distributing aeligible to participate instatewide independent study program; hiring counselors and offeringacademic counseling programs; and administering preschool programs forthe MEP if they or theirmigrant students ages 3-5. Various instructional services are also providedparents or guardiansto students in nontraditional settings/venues who have not yet completedhigh school.are migrant workers inthe agricultural, dairy,Administrative Services. The MEP has various direct and indirect14administrative costs at the state and local levels.lumber, or fishing industries, and their family hasInstructional Services, Summer School. The MEP runs supplemental7academic, enrichment, and leadership programs for migrant students duringmoved for the purposesummer and intersession breaks.of finding temporary orStudent Identification and Data Collection. The program identifies and7seasonal employment“recruits” eligible students in a variety of venues. In addition, MEP staff areresponsible for entering basic information on each enrolled student into aduring the past threestatewide migrant student database.years. Migrant studentsHealth Services. The MEP often helps migrant families obtain various3are eligible for programsocial and health services by arranging health screenings, offering healthservices from age 3 untilawareness workshops, and referring migrant students to health providers.they (1) attain a highParent Participation. The MEP offers various activities for parents of2migrant children, including: English as a second language, GED, andschool diploma or itsparenting skills classes; leadership institutes and seminars; andequivalent or (2) turn 21.opportunities to participate in MEP parent advisory councils at the school,district, regional and state levels.(Migrant students whoare under age 21 butStaff Development. The program provides training for staff who work with1migrantstudents.have not yet completed9999999 Legislative Analyst’s Office
A n L A O R e p or tters provide regional services to multiple schooldistricts and are run out of county offices ofeducation (COEs). As illustrated in the figure,some of these regional centers provide servicesto migrant students in more than one county.The remaining nine centers are operated by “direct-funded” school districts that serve only thestudents in their own districts.Figure 5 (see page 7) shows the number ofdistricts and students served by each center aswell as its funding allotment. As shown in the figure, MEP centers vary dramatically in size, withone center responsible for providing services toalmost 36,000 children in 191 school districts(spanning 22 counties), and another centerserving just over 100 students in a one-schoolschool district. The selection of MEP centers hasnot been strategic, but rather has evolved overtime based on requests to CDE from individualdistricts and COEs.Service Model Differs Across Regions. The14 regional centers can choose to distributefunding to local districts to run their own districtbased programs or keep funding at the COE andoffer MEP services at the regional level. Mostuse a mixture of these two approaches, with thespecific distribution varying significantly acrossregions. For example, one regional center reportsthat it distributes almost 90 percent of its regionalfunding directly to local districts to provide theirown migrant student services, while anotherregional center distributes only 7 percent to localdistricts. The nine direct-funded district centersuse their funding to run their own district-basedmigrant student services, and they do not rely onany other (district or county) MEP center.Per-Student Funding Levels Have Declined.In 2005‑06, CaliforFigure 3nia received a total ofFacts About California’s Migrant Students 127 million in federalfunds for the MEP, thebulk of which is alloCalifornia is home to around 330,000 migrant students. This accounts forcated to the MEP centersapproximately one-third of the total U.S. migrant student population.highlighted in FiguresAlmost one-half of the state’s migrant students recently moved from4 and 5. Prior to 2002,Mexico to California, 43 percent moved from one region of the state tostate allocations fluctuanother, and 9 percent moved to California from another U.S. state.ated based on the state’sAround 43 percent of the state’s migrant children live in the Central Valley.eligible migrant studentAround 25 percent live on the Central Coast.population. Since then,Around 60 percent of the state’s school districts have migrant students inthe federal governmenttheir classrooms.has based states’ allocaAround 70 percent of the state’s migrant students are in grades K-12. Thetions on their 2002 sturemaining 30 percent are out-of-school youth or preschool age.dent counts, regardlessAbout 98 percent of the state’s migrant students are Hispanic. Theof whether their nummajority have limited proficiency in English.bers of migrant studentsIn 2004-05, less than 15 percent of the state’s migrant students scored athave increased. Sincethe proficient level in English language arts. Around 28 percent metproficiency targets in mathematics.2002, California’s mi-9999999Legislative Analyst’s Office
A n L A O R e p or tgrant student populationFigure 4has increased 22 percentMigrant Education Program (MEP) Centerswhile its overall grant2005-06funding level has stayedrelatively the same—Bold font indicates the county office ofresultingin a declineeducation (COE) responsible for deliveringregional MEP services. As indicated by thein per-student fundingshaded regions, these COEs may provideservices to school districts in more thanlevels.one county.Bulk of State’s MEPItalic font indicates the nine direct-fundedGrant Is Distributedschool district MEP centers.Butteto MEP Centers. CurUnshaded areas indicate counties in which norently, CDE distributeseligible migrant students have been identified.85 percent of the totalfederal MEP grant toSanJoaquinMEP centers basedSantadClararceon counts of eligibleLindsay UnifiedMePajaro ValleyDelano Jointmigrant students. (TheFresnoUnion HighSan Jose Unifiedremaining 15 percent isMontereyTulareBakersfield Citymaintained at CDE forLost Hills Unionprogram administrationKernSemitropicand statewide MEP initiaSantaSanta Maria BonitaBarbara Ventura Lostives.) Funds are distribAngelesOxnard Elementaryuted to the 23 centersRiversidebased on a weightedper-pupil formula develSan Diego Imperialoped by CDE. This formula provides additionalfunding to centers thatserve migrant childrensome point); and out-of-school youth. Programwith certain characteristics, including: preschooladministrators at CDE determined that theseage children; children who are over-age for thepopulations were especially needy and thereforegrade in which they are placed (indicating theydeserved a higher funding “weight.”may have been retained or missed schooling at Legislative Analyst’s Office
A n L A O R e p or tFunding ModelConcerns With theCurrent Funding Modeldistrict MEP centers, the current model resultsin a disconnect between funding and accountability as well as a lack of coordination betweenWe think the current migrant educationthe MEP and other programs. In addition, thefunding model and formula have several probcurrent MEP funding formula does not reflectlems. Specifically, for all but the nine schoolstatutory program priorities or encourage program providers to serveFigure 5all needy students, asMigrant Education Program Centersdiscussed in more detailVary Significantly in Sizebelow.Disconnect Be2005-06tween Who Is FundedNumber ofNumber ofPercent ofTotalDistrictsMigrant Students Statewide Migrantand Who Is ce Providerable. The state has acRegional Centers :comprehensive stan19135,67511% 12,637,876Buttedards-based account2930,949910,115,926Fresnoability system that nlinked with certain5423,57278,143,708Tularebenchmarks and growth5422,67577,497,415Santa Clara2521,96077,669,352San Joaquintargets intended to hold5120,88266,940,980Mercedschools and districts5120,27666,659,884Los Angeles5416,81255,475,465San Diegoaccountable for student1512,98743,902,440Imperialachievement. These1312,95343,667,101Venturabenchmarks, as well as258,66732,447,095Santa Barbara126,57321,883,324Riversidepublic sanctions andSchool District Centers:interventions, provide114,8014 4,622,998Pajaro Valley Unifieddistricts with incen18,99532,379,938Bakersfield City Elementary13,94911,343,140Santa Maria Bonitatives for improving12,3531619,107San Jose Unifiedthe achievement of12,0041589,282Delano Joint Union High11,8371645,825Lindsay Unifiedall students, including11,381331,980Oxnard Elementary—dmigrants. In contrast, no1905361,665Lost Hills Union—daccountability system111229,724Semitropic—d634329,881100% 107,724,292holds COEs responsiblea Data from 2004-05, provided by statewide migrant student database. Count only includes districts with migrant students.for migrant student perb Enrollment for regular school year. Centers report separate counts for number of migrant students served during summer orformance or for the efintersession.c Operated out of county offices of education. The regional center may serve districts in more than one county.fectiveness of their MEPd Less than 1 percent.services. Yet, under theLegislative Analyst’s Office
A n L A O R e p or tcurrent MEP model, regional centers run out ofCOEs are responsible for providing supplemental services for almost 90 percent of the state’smigrant students. Thus, the state program iscurrently structured such that, in most cases,resources and responsibility for migrant studentservices lie with COEs, whereas accountabilityfor outcomes lies with districts.Lack of Coordination Between MEP Services and Other Programs. In many cases, littlecoordination exists between the services migrantstudents receive at school and the supplementalservices they receive through their regional MEPcenter. In some school districts, staff are largelyunaware of the services being provided to theirmigrant students through the COE-based regional center. Furthermore, regional centers do nothave access to many of the other supplementalfunds and programs that are available to servemany migrant students—such as Title I, Part A,and Title III federal funds. They, therefore, havelimited opportunities to leverage and coordinatedifferent resources—even though the program isintended to encourage pooling resources for acoordinated complement of student services.Funding Formula Does Not Reflect Statutory Program Priorities. As discussed, the CDEdistributes funding to centers using a formulathat is based on certain characteristics of migrant students. The particular characteristicsselected by CDE administrators do not reflectthe MEP priorities outlined in state and federallaw. For example, state law places greater priority on school-age as opposed to preschool-agechildren, and federal law stipulates that “priorityfor service” be accorded to (1) students whoseeducation has been interrupted during the current school year and (2) students who are failingor are most at risk of failing to meet state con tent and performance standards. While the MEPmay be following federal law by serving thesetargeted students, there is a disconnect betweenthese identified priorities and the methodologyby which CDE allocates funding for the program.Funding Formula Does Not EncourageBroad Participation. The current formula CDEuses to allocate the majority of MEP funds isbased on the number of migrant students whoare eligible to receive MEP services in the regularschool year, as opposed to the number of migrant students a center actually serves. Thus, MEPcenters have a strong fiscal incentive to identifyeligible migrant students, but no fiscal incentive toensure they actually receive MEP services.Revise Funding Model toImprove Quality of Services andEnhance AccountabilityWe recommend the Legislature revise themigrant education funding model to send themajority of funds directly to school districtsrather than regional centers. We recommend,however, maintaining some funds at county offices of education for certain regional activitiesand some funds at the California Department ofEducation for certain statewide activities.The majority of other U.S. states—includingTexas, Florida, and Arizona (which have relatively large migrant populations)—have structuredtheir state MEPs around a district-level fundingand service model. Currently, California followsthis model in only nine districts. Implementingthis structure statewide likely would result inmore effective migrant student services. Specifically, as shown in Figure 6, we suggest that70 percent of the annual federal grant be allocated to districts using a revised weighted studentformula based on district counts of migrantLegislative Analyst’s Office
A n L A O R e p or tstudents. This would result in all districts receiving funding directly from the state, similar to thenine existing direct-funded districts. Districtswould then have primary responsibility for providing supplemental instructional services to theirmigrant students. We recommend the remaining30 percent of MEP funds be allocated to COEbased regional centers (15 percent) and CDE(15 percent). Because state law currently establshes regional centers as the “primary methodfor the delivery of services to migrant students,”our suggested modifications to the MEP fundingmodel would require statutory change.Deriving a New Funding Allocation. Wedeveloped the 70 percent district, 15 percentcounty, 15 percent state funding allocation byaligning responsibilities under the current system with current expenditure patterns. Underour proposed service model, districts wouldhave primary responsibility for MEP instructionalservices, program administration, and migrantparent participation. As such, we believe themajority of the funds MEP centers currentlyspend on these activities should be allocateddirectly to districts. As discussed further below,there also are certain activities—such as studentrecruitment, health services, and staff development—that would make sense to continue delivering at the regional level. Based on our analysis,15 percent of the total state grant is sufficient toallow regional centers to continue offering thesetypes of services as well as cover associatedstaffing and administrative expenses. We recommend maintaining the current level of expenditures (15 percent) and services at the state level,which we also discuss below.Shift to Districts Would Help OvercomeExisting Problems. Shifting the majority of MEPfunding away from COE-based regional ce
to MEP Centers. Cur-rently, CDE distributes 85 percent of the total federal MEP grant to MEP centers based on counts of eligible migrant students. (The remaining 15 percent is maintained at CDE for program administration and statewide MEP initia-tives.) Funds are distrib-uted to the 23 centers based on a weig
Bruksanvisning för bilstereo . Bruksanvisning for bilstereo . Instrukcja obsługi samochodowego odtwarzacza stereo . Operating Instructions for Car Stereo . 610-104 . SV . Bruksanvisning i original
THAILAND AND MYANMAR Executive Summary Over the past two decades, members of the Myanmar migrant community in Thailand have been providing various forms of education to their own migrant nationals. Being part of migrant communities, their experiences and voices reflect the actual education needs of migrant workers and their dependents.
10 tips och tricks för att lyckas med ert sap-projekt 20 SAPSANYTT 2/2015 De flesta projektledare känner säkert till Cobb’s paradox. Martin Cobb verkade som CIO för sekretariatet för Treasury Board of Canada 1995 då han ställde frågan
service i Norge och Finland drivs inom ramen för ett enskilt företag (NRK. 1 och Yleisradio), fin ns det i Sverige tre: Ett för tv (Sveriges Television , SVT ), ett för radio (Sveriges Radio , SR ) och ett för utbildnings program (Sveriges Utbildningsradio, UR, vilket till följd av sin begränsade storlek inte återfinns bland de 25 största
Hotell För hotell anges de tre klasserna A/B, C och D. Det betyder att den "normala" standarden C är acceptabel men att motiven för en högre standard är starka. Ljudklass C motsvarar de tidigare normkraven för hotell, ljudklass A/B motsvarar kraven för moderna hotell med hög standard och ljudklass D kan användas vid
LÄS NOGGRANT FÖLJANDE VILLKOR FÖR APPLE DEVELOPER PROGRAM LICENCE . Apple Developer Program License Agreement Syfte Du vill använda Apple-mjukvara (enligt definitionen nedan) för att utveckla en eller flera Applikationer (enligt definitionen nedan) för Apple-märkta produkter. . Applikationer som utvecklas för iOS-produkter, Apple .
The per‐pupil allocation of migrant students is determined by the state’s New Generation System (NGS). The funds allow district to hire migrant staff and provide services to migrant students and their familie
och krav. Maskinerna skriver ut upp till fyra tum breda etiketter med direkt termoteknik och termotransferteknik och är lämpliga för en lång rad användningsområden på vertikala marknader. TD-seriens professionella etikettskrivare för . skrivbordet. Brothers nya avancerade 4-tums etikettskrivare för skrivbordet är effektiva och enkla att
