Tag Archives: Application


Migrant Education Program Coordination Website: RESULTS

Visit RESULTS.ed.gov to access technical assistance resources, a map with State contact information, a calendar of events, and more. The website includes legislation and policy documents, as well as an extensive list of policy Q&A’s. RESULTS also contains manuals and orientation materials, including but not limited to, Identification and Recruitment (ID&R), the prospective re-interviewing process, new Director’s orientation, etc. Additionally, the site houses toolkits for conducting a Migrant Education Program (MEP)-specific comprehensive needs assessment (CNA), designing a MEP service delivery plan (SDP), and developing an evaluation for your State MEP. RESULTS also contains Office of Migrant Education (OME) webinars and presentations from events like the annual National Association of State Directors of Migrant Education (NASDME) Conference, the ID&R Forum, and OME’s Annual Directors’ Meeting (ADM).

Fact Sheet: Addressing the Risk of COVID-19 While Serving Migratory Children

In response to multiple requests from grantees and other stakeholders, the Department developed the Fact Sheet: Addressing the Risk of COVID-19 While Serving Migratory Children.  This Fact Sheet provides information to assist State educational agencies (SEAs) and local operating agencies (LOAs) in determining how to continue to identify eligible migratory children and provide services to address their needs, while taking into consideration the health, safety, and well-being of staff and migratory families. To access the Fact Sheet along with additional information and guidance related to the Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, please see: https://www.ed.gov/coronavirus.

Data, Evaluations, Studies and Surveys

The U.S. Department of Education collects data annually from State Educational Agencies (SEAs) concerning the operation of the Title I, Part C, Migrant Education Program (MEP). The data are collected through Part I and Part II of the Consolidated State Performance Report (CSPR). The data provide the Department with information on: the number of eligible migrant children; student characteristics (e.g., mobility, English language proficiency, priority-for-services); student participation in MEP-funded services, staffing levels, and on the academic achievement of migrant students.

Select MEP CSPR data are included in the Department’s ED Data Express (https://eddataexpress.ed.gov/), a Web site designed to improve the public’s ability to access and explore high-value state-level education data collected by the Department. The site is designed to be interactive and to present the data in a clear, easy-to-use manner, with options to download information into Excel or manipulate the data within the Web site. The site currently includes data from EDFacts, CSPR, State Accountability Workbooks, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP), the College Board, and the Department’s Budget Service office.

Migrant Achievement Data, collected in the CSPR Part I, is located within ED Data Express.  The data, expressed as percent proficient in the content areas of Reading, Mathematics, and Science, may be viewed by Elementary School, Middle School, High School, Grade Four, and Grade Eight.

MEP Eligibility and Participation data, collected in the CSPR Part II,  is also located within ED Data Express, and may be viewed by groups, sub-groups, and data elements. The data may be selected by “group,” and migrant groups include Migrant Students Eligible for Services, Migrant Students Participating in Services – Performance Period,  Migrant Students Participating in Services – Regular School Year, and Migrant Students Participating in Services – Summer/Intersession.  Moreover, the data may be selected by “sub-group,” and include Eligible Migrant Students, Limited English Proficient Students, Priority for Service Students, Students with Disabilities, Total Migrant Participation, Participation in Instructional Services, and Participation in Support Services.  Finally, data may be selected by data element, which includes the age/grade categories of Ages 3-5, Grades K-3, Grades 4-5, Grades 6-8, Grades 9-12, Out-of-School Youth, and Total Population.

The Common Core of Data (CCD)- The CCD is a comprehensive, annual, national statistical database of information concerning all public elementary and secondary schools (approximately 91,000) and school districts (approximately 16,000). The CCD is produced by the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics.

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) – The NAEP, also known as “the Nation’s Report Card,” is the only nationally representative and continuing assessment of what America’s students know and can do in various subject areas. Since 1969, assessments have been conducted periodically in reading, mathematics, science, writing, U.S. history, civics, geography, and the arts.

Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS)SASS is the nation’s largest sample survey of America’s public and private schools, districts, principals, teachers, and library media centers.

General Demographic Information on Migrant Workers and Agriculture

National Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS) – The U.S. Department of Labor is the only national information source on the demographics and working and living conditions of U.S. farmworkers. Information has been collected from over 25,000 farm workers since the NAWS began in 1988. The survey samples all crop farmworkers in three cycles each year in order to capture the seasonality of the work. The NAWS locates and samples workers at their work sites, avoiding the well-publicized undercount of this difficult-to-find population.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Agricultural Statistics Survey (NASS), Census of Agriculture – The census of agriculture is a complete accounting of United States agricultural production. It is the only source of uniform, comprehensive agricultural data for every county in the Nation. The census includes as a farm every place from which $1,000 or more of agricultural products were produced and sold or normally would have been sold during the census year. The census of agriculture is taken every five years covering the years ending in “2” and “7.”

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Child Nutrition Programs – USDA is responsible for providing a safety net for millions of Americans who are food-insecure and for developing and promoting dietary guidance based on scientific evidence. USDA works to increase food security and reduce hunger by providing children and low-income people access to food, a healthful diet and nutrition education in a way that supports American agriculture and inspires public confidence. Child Nutrition programs administered by FNS provide healthy food to children through programs that include the National School Lunch Program, School Breakfast Program, Child and Adult Care Food Program, Summer Food Service Program and the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program.

During summer months, USDA works with community sponsors to serve millions of meals to low-income children through the Summer Food Service Program. This program helps fight hunger and obesity by reimbursing organizations such as schools, child care centers, and after-school programs for providing healthy meals to children.

Other resources

The Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE) provides links to clearinghouses, technical assistance resources and related programs.


MEP Program Performance Reports

The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993 was enacted by Congress to provide for the establishment of strategic planning and performance measurement in the Federal Government (made up of an annual performance plan and an annual performance report).

In December 2010, the Office of Migrant Education initiated a collaborative process to develop a focused set of Migrant Education Program (MEP) GPRA measures (GPRAs) that align closely with the program goal. The office consulted with the Data Quality Initiative, the MEP Coordination Workgroup, the Interstate Migrant Education Council, and the National Association of State Directors of Migrant Education during this collaborative process, which concluded with four MEP GPRAs in December 2012. The MEP GPRAs are:

  1. The percentage of MEP students who scored at or above proficient on their state’s annual Reading/Language Arts assessments in grades 3-8,
  2. The percentage of MEP students who scored at or above proficient on their state’s annual Mathematics assessments in grades 3-8,
  3. The percentage of MEP students who were enrolled in grades 7-12 and graduated or were promoted to the next grade level, and
  4. The percentage of MEP students who entered 11th grade that had received full credit for Algebra I or its equivalent.

View the MEP’s past performance:

FY 2021 GPRAs

Grantee Performance Reports

  • Consolidated State Performance Report – Grantee Performance Reports are collected through Part I and Part II of the Consolidated State Performance Report (CSPR). The CSPR is the required annual reporting tool for each State, the Bureau of Indian Education, District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico as authorized under Section 8303 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 (ESSA). The data collected provide the Department with information on: the number of eligible migratory children; student characteristics (e.g., mobility, English language proficiency, etc.); student participation in MEP-funded services, staffing levels, and on the academic achievement of migratory students.

    For more information about the CSPR visit our Resources page here.

    Select MEP CSPR data are included in the Department’s ED Data Express (https://eddataexpress.ed.gov/), a Web site designed to improve the public’s ability to access and explore high-value state-level education data collected by the Department.

Monitoring Materials

Description of Monitoring – A monitoring review is an examination of a State’s administration and implementation of a Federal education grant, contract, or cooperative agreement administered by the U.S. Department of Education (ED). OME’s monitoring activities are designed to examine the implementation of the MEP. Monitoring addresses:

    • general context within which the program operates,
    • overall organizational structure and design of the program,
    • results achieved by the program,
    • basic program operations (especially compliance with program requirements), and
    • resolution of prior findings from audits or program monitoring.
  • In addition to program-specific monitoring, OME may monitor the MEP as part of consolidated monitoring with other ESEA formula grant programs. The Office of State Support and Accountability maintains a catalog of protocols and reports from recent Performance Reviews.

Audit Materials

  • Description of Audits – At the federal level, ED’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) is an independent entity that is responsible for identifying fraud, waste, abuse, and criminal activity involving ED funds, programs, and operations. OIG conducts independent audits and other reviews and criminal and civil investigations and recommends actions to address systemic weaknesses and improve ED programs and operations. OIG also recommends changes needed in Federal laws and regulations. The Government Accounting Office (GAO) is the supreme audit institution for the United States. Federal and state auditors look to GAO to provide standards for internal controls, financial audits, and other types of government audits. Both OIG and GAO are authorized to conduct audits on usage of MEP and other program funds. The OIG conducts three types of audits: 1) external audits of grantee or contractor operations; 2) internal audits of ED administration and management; and 3) national audits of issues or problem areas having national significance and requiring corrective action at the federal level. At the State and local levels, The Single Audit Act, as amended, establishes requirements for audits of States, local governments, Indian tribes, institutions of higher education (public or private nonprofit colleges and universities), and nonprofit organizations that expend a certain amount in Federal awards during its fiscal year (currently set at $750,000). The Single Audit Act amendments are implemented through Subpart F—Audit Requirements of Title 2 of C.F.R., Chapter II, Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (2 CFR part 200).
  • Federal Audit Single Audit Clearinghouse – All completed audit packages for audits conducted in accordance with Title 2 of the  Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, (which superseded the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-133 in 2013,) must be submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse. The primary purposes of the Clearinghouse are:
    • To disseminate audit information to the public and federal agencies.
    • To support OMB oversight and assessment of federal award audit requirements.
    • To assist federal cognizant and oversight agencies in obtaining OMB Circular A-133 data and reporting packages.
    • To help auditors and auditees minimize the reporting burden of complying with Circular A-133 audit requirements.
  • Audit Compliance Supplement – The Compliance Supplement, which took effect in 2021 for audits of fiscal years beginning after June 30, 2020,lays out key requirements for many Federal programs, including the Title I Migrant Education Program. The Supplement outlines each program’s objectives, procedures, and key compliance requirements as well as audit objectives and suggested audit procedures for determining compliance with these requirements. The Compliance Supplement is reviewed annually and updated when necessary.

Legislation, Regulations, and Guidance


  • The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 ,Title I, Part C, as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015The Every Student Succeeds Act, which was signed into law on December 10, 2015, contains the major statutory provisions that apply to the Migrant Education Program. The new law supersedes the previous law.
  • Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA)FERPA is a Federal law that protects the privacy of student education records (20 U.S.C. § 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99). The law applies to all schools that receive funds under an applicable program of the U.S. Department of Education.
  • Department of Education’s General Education Provisions Act (GEPA), Section 427Section 427 requires each applicant for funds (other than an individual person) to include in its application a description of the steps the applicant proposes to take to ensure equitable access to, and participation in, its federally assisted program for students, teachers, and other program beneficiaries with special needs.


The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) is the codification of the general and permanent rules published in the Federal Register by the executive departments and agencies of the Federal Government. It is divided into 50 titles that represent broad areas subject to Federal regulation. Each volume of the CFR is updated once each calendar year and is issued on a quarterly basis.  The Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (eCFR) is not an official legal edition of the CFR, but is a continuously updated online version of the CFR and provides enhanced features that are not part of the published CFR.

  • ESEA Title I Regulations ( 34 CFR Part 200)
  • ESEA General Provisions (34 CFR Part 299): This part of the Department’s regulations establish uniform administrative rules for programs in ESEA Titles I through VII. As indicated in particular sections, certain provisions apply only to a specific group of programs.

All of Title 34 of the CFR and other pertinent regulations can be found on the Department of Education’s legislation, regulations and guidance pages.

  • National certificate of eligibility (COE) form and instructions to be used by all States to document the basis of their determinations of the eligibility of a migratory child. – On June 16, 2020, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) extended its approval of the information collection requirements associated with the National COE, for use through June 30, 2023. States have been given certain flexibility in meeting the requirements of the national COE and therefore should read the instructions carefully as they implement the requirements. The national COE is comprised of three parts:
    1. Required Data Elements, which States can organize according to State preference and need. Required Data Elements must be worded as they appear in the instructions, and cannot be changed or shortened, with specific exceptions noted;
    2. Required Data Sections, which States can place according to State preference and need, but that must be maintained in whole and unaltered, with specific exceptions noted; and
    3. State Required/Requested information, where space is available, that States can use to collect other data. State-specific required/requested information may be placed anywhere on the COE, except inside any of the Required Data sections. States may choose their own header (e.g., State name) on the COE, as long as it identifies the form as the Certificate of Eligibility. States may also include their State logos or seals.

Note: States must maintain any additional documentation the SEA requires to confirm that each child found eligible for the program meets all of the eligibility definitions. State responsibilities for documenting the eligibility of migratory children are found in 34 C.F.R. § 200.89(c).

If you have any questions about the national COE requirements, please contact your MEP program officer.

Policy Guidance

  • Non-Regulatory Guidance for Title I, Part C, Education of Migratory Children (March 2017) -This document is designed to help SEAs and LOAs use MEP funds to develop and implement supplemental educational and support services to assist migratory children. View all of the Department of Education’s major policy guidance on the policy guidance page.
  • MEP Non-Regulatory Guidance MS WORD (32 KB)

Preliminary Guidance for Title I, Part C – Pg 19

Use of MEP Funds to Provide Title I, Part A Services to Migrant Students in Targeted Assistance Schools

Schools that receive funds under Title I, Part A but do not operate schoolwide programs are known as “targeted assistance schools” (Section 1115). In the past, migrant students who were also eligible to receive Title I, Part A services would have been se rved by the Title I, Part A program in a targeted assistance school on the same basis as any other child who was eligible for services. While this is still true, under Section 1306(b) states and LEAs now have the flexibility, in some cases, to use MEP funds interchangeably with Par t A funds. However, this flexibility can be exercised only after MEP funds are first used to meet the identified needs of migrant students that–>

  • Result from the effects of their migrant lifestyle, or are needed to allow migrant students to participate effectively in school; AND
  • Are not addressed by services provided under other programs, including programs under Title I, Part A.

If MEP funds remain after these unique needs have been met, the MEP funds can be used interchangeably with Part A funds to provide services that are determined to be necessary for the migrant children who are eligible under Part A.

Except in schoolwide programs that combine MEP funds with funds from other sources, MEP funds provide services only to eligible children of migrant workers. However, no statutory or regulatory requirements prohibit a local operating agency from using co-funding arrangements to serve migrant students simultaneously with students with similar educational needs, in the same educational settings where appropriate.

Furthermore, Section 1306 does not create a statutory priority to serve migrant children eligible for services under Part A ahead of other Part A-eligible children. Rather, Section 1112(b)(8) of Part A makes clear that migrant children eligible for Part A services must be selected on the same basis as other children who are eligible to receive Part A services.

Preliminary Guidance for Title I, Part C – Pg 18

Serving Migrant Children in Schoolwide Programs

Schoolwide Programs Under the ESEA

Schoolwide programs may use federal, state and local funds to upgrade a school’s entire educational program, provided that federal funds taken as a whole supplement state and local funds that would otherwise be spent at the schoo l. Section 1114 of the ESEA permits schools and school attendance areas with 60 percent poverty in the 1995-1996 school year and 50 percent poverty in subsequent years to elect to combine funds to support schoolwide projects. The flexibility to combine funding sources helps schools use resources t o improve the entire instructional program to better serve all children in these schools. Rather than having several different categorical programs which separately provide extra assistance for a portion of a school’s population, schoolwide programs serve all students in the school while at the same time ensuring that target populations succeed.

Schoolwide programs may combine funds from other sources–>including programs authorized under Title I (Parts A, B, C, and D), and many federal discretionary grant programs5 –>with state and local education funds. Schoolwide programs that combine funds allocated under federal programs are exempt from statutory or regulatory provisions of those individual programs if they carry out activities that meet the intent and purposes of those programs. Further, schoolwide programs may not be limited to only certain grades within a school; a schoolwide program is just that–>schoolwide. It should be designed to upgrade the effectiveness of the entire school program. Although a multitude of activities can be conducted in a schoolwide program, some varying from grade to grade, any particular focus must occur within the context of the entire school reform effort.

Choosing to become a schoolwide program allows a school to marshall considerable resources in an effort to create an exceptional learning environment. For example, schoolwide programs can:

  • Accelerate the curriculum to enable all students to meet high standards;
  • Encourage and facilitate collaboration and planning among regular classroom teachers, administrators, specialists, support staff, and parents;
  • Encourage innovation in instruction, use of time, staffing, and other resources;
  • Involve parents more centrally in planning, decision making, and instructional support roles;
  • Coordinate budgets from multiple sources;
  • Integrate and streamline pupil services, including diagnostic and counseling assistance as well as health services; and
  • Consolidate and tailor professional development to a school’s particular needs.

Resource Available from the U.S. Department of Education

An Idea Book for Educators: Implementing Schoolwide Projects, a resource for policy makers and practitioners, is available from the U.S. Department of Education. The book provides ideas for planning and implementing effective schoolwide projects and includes profiles of 12 elementary schoolwide programs along with persons to contact for further information. To request a single copy, contact the Department’s Publications Hotline at (202) 401-3132.

SEAs are also required, in consultation with LEAs and schools, to establish a statewide system of schoolwide support teams (Section 1117(c)(1)). These teams are made up of individuals who know the research and practice on teaching and learning, particularly as related to low-achieving students. The school support team’s role is to review the school’s progress in enabling children to meet the state’s student performance standards, to ident ify problems in the design and operation of the instruction program, and to make recommendations for improvement to the school and the LEA. For more specific information on schoolwide programs, please see Section 1114 of the statute and the relevant section of the guidance for Title I , Part A programs.

Planning to Serve Migrant Students in Schoolwide Programs

In planning a schoolwide program that includes migrant students and MEP funds, an LEA and school need to know that:

  • Even though the MEP is a state-administered program, an eligible school may, in consultation with the LEA, combine MEP funds with other federal, state and local funds in a schoolwide program. (34 CFR 200.44)
  • While MEP funds may be combined with other program funds in order to improve the program of instruction for the entire school, the reauthorized ESEA recognizes that migrant students have unique needs that must be addressed even when migrant students p articipate in a schoolwide program. For this reason, the regulations (34 CFR 200.8(c)(3)(ii)(B)(1)) require a school that combines MEP funds in a schoolwide program to:
    • Consult with parents of migrant children or organizations representing those parents (or both);
    • Address the identified needs of migrant children that result from the effects of their migrant lifestyle or are needed to permit migrant children to participate effectively in school; and
    • Document that services to address those needs have been provided.
  • An SEA’s responsibilities under the MEP, with regard to a schoolwide program are to provide technical assistance to help the school continue to meet the needs of migrant students, to establish and maintain school support teams, and to monitor the prog ram for compliance with applicable sections of the statute and regulations.

Plans for implementing schoolwide programs are developed over a one-year period unless the LEA determines, after considering the recommendations of technical assistance providers, that less time is needed to develop and implement the schoolwide program. Parents and educators of migrant children may take advantage of this period to provide input on how to structure the schoolwide program so that the unique needs of migrant children are met and so that migrant students are included in the regular activitie s and instructional programs offered to all children in the school, notwithstanding when they arrive throughout the school year.

Example of Planning Schoolwide Projects to Meet the Needs of Migrant Students

A high school implementing a schoolwide program conducts an assessment of the needs of its migratory students as part of its comprehensive planning. Having found that many of the migratory students who enroll at the school need assistance in preparing fo r the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS), which they must pass in order to receive a diploma when they return to Texas, the school provides for tutoring services aligned to the TAAS to be offered to migratory students when they arrive at the school later in the year.

Schoolwide programs can be particularly effective in serving migrant children by:

  • Providing an “enrichment” rather than a “deficit” model of instruction;
  • Validating migrant students’ language and culture, including their migrant experiences;
  • Supporting the aspirations of migrant students and providing them with role models from the local community;
  • Implementing bilingual curricula and programs, employing bilingual staff, and providing for the full involvement of the parents of migrant children; and
  • Maintaining and transferring students’ education and health records.

Many of these components are evident in the following examples of promising schoolwide programs.

Examples of Promising Schoolwide Programs

  • Hollinger Elementary School’s K-6 Title I schoolwide program is based on a year-round calendar with an extended-day schedule; a two-way bilingual program; weekly staff development sessions; an anthropological approach to home visits that generates int erdisciplinary, multicultural units; and a full-service family support center. The school’s goal is “to provide the ultimate learning opportunity by which students are able to develop their full potential and become successful members of the community.” To this end, Hollinger has implemented programs that offer students and their families opportunities to boost academic achievement and resolve social and economic problems that interfere with schooling. These efforts include a preschool program and additional teachers who provide in-class help for lower achievin g students during reading and language arts instruction. Contact: Alicia Castillo; Hollinger Elementary School; 150 West Ago Way; Tucson, Arizona 85713; (520) 617-6755.
  • Employing a multicultural, thematic curriculum integrated through social studies and highlighting a different culture or ethnic group every ten weeks, the staff at Glassbrook Elementary School builds new learning on the knowledge and skills that stude nts bring to the school. Glassbrook has replaced pullout programs with in-class interventions in which special education, language development, and regular education teachers work together daily to instruct all children. An extended school day for all s tudents increases instructional time and offers enrichment and extracurricular activities. Bilingual instruction makes all children participants in peer coaching, cooperative learning, and learning through projects and experiments. Learning centers and a diverse support staff in all classrooms capture the interests and engage the energy of the diverse student population. Parents–>a vital resource–>are regular contributors to the multicultural and multilingual curriculum. Contact: Gina Gonzales; Glassbrook Elementary; 975 Schafer Road; Hayward, Cal ifornia 94544; (510) 783-2577.

5 Schoolwide programs may not combine formula or discretionary grant programs under the Individuals with Disabilities Act (Section 1114(a)(4)(a)).

Preliminary Guidance for Title I, Part C – Pg 17

A Focus on Teaching and Learning

Migrant educators have been pioneers in a broad range of innovative programming, particularly in developing strong advocacy and outreach programs to meet the special needs of migrant children. They, like others in the education community, have nearly eli minated remedial “pull- out” programs, choosing instead to serve migrant students through enriched, extended-time activities that offer opportunities for migrant students to be actively engaged in challenging learning experiences. Migrant educators are continuing to explore add itional opportunities for innovation provided under the ESEA, such as schoolwide programs.

Moreover, migrant educators have long recognized that attention to academics alone cannot ensure that children will achieve to high standards, especially when the health and other needs of children that affect learning remain unmet. The reauthorized ESEA reinforces the important work of many in the migrant education community by suggesting that all resources be leveraged to support effective teaching and learning and help all students achi eve to high standards. Teaching and learning is promoted for migrant students through continuing to coordinate services to better meet their health and social needs so that they may participate effectively in school.

Services Needed to Help Migrant Children Achieve to High Standards

Local education agencies receiving subgrants have considerable flexibility in determining how best to use funds to help migrant children succeed in school. MEP funds are generally used for: educational services–>activities for preschool-age chil dren and instruction in elementary and secondary schools, especially tutoring and before- and after-school programs; professional development–>training programs for school personnel to enhance their ability to understand and appropriately respond to the needs of migrant children; and comprehensive services–>advocacy, outreach, and coordination among migrant educators, parents, regular educators, other schools, and health and social service providers.

The educational disruption experienced by migrant children who move between and within states should be taken into account in designing programs for migrant students. As migrant educators in Oregon point out in a position paper entitled Education Ref orm and Its Effect on Migrant Education, “[m]igrant students pass through many school systems, which often have disparate requirements and graduation standards. Districts need to be aware of what migrant students have already accomplished, to spare them needless repetition, and ensure that despite moves and changes, their cumulative educational experiences lead toward successful outcomes.” Providing migrant students with coherent educational experiences in an era of s tandards-based educational reform linked to state-defined needs and contexts will require considerable coordination, planning, and innovation on the part of migrant educators.

In implementing their programs, LEAs that operate MEP projects:

  • Provide services to each migrant student that are comparable to services offered to other students in the district and that are needed to help migrant students achieve to high academic standards (Sections 1114, 1115, and 1120(A), which apply by reference (see Section 1304(c)(2)); and
  • Adopt policies and practices to ensure that migrant children and youth are involved in the regular school program (Section 1120A(b) and (c), which applies by reference (see Section 1304(c)(2))).

In addition, under the reauthorized ESEA (Section 1304(c)(6)), states must provide assurances that, to the extent feasible, migrant education programs and projects will provide for:

  • Advocacy and outreach activities for migrant children and families to help them gain access to other education, health, nutrition, and social services;
  • Professional development programs, including mentoring, for teachers and other program personnel;
  • Family literacy programs, including those developed under Even Start;
  • The integration of information technology into educational and related programs; and
  • Programs to facilitate the transition of secondary school students to postsecondary education or employment.

Serving LEP Students in MEP and Title I, Part A Programs

Title I, Part A and Part C (the MEP) provide that LEP students are eligible for Title I and MEP services on the same basis as other children selected to receive services, whether or not such LEP children already receive bilingual or ESL services through f ederally funded, state funded, or locally funded bilingual or ESL programs. In schools operating schoolwide programs (see following section), where the goal is to upgrade the instructional program in the entire school, all children, including LEP students, are intended to benefit from the program and the needs of all students are to be taken into account in the program design. In Title I targeted assistance schools and schools or LEAs operating a migrant education project, LEP students are to be selected for services on the same basis as other children–>on the basis of multiple, education- related, objective criteria for determining which children are failing or most at risk of failing to meet the state’s student performance standards. No longer must a local education agency demonstrate that the needs of LEP students stem from educational deprivati on and not solely from their limited English proficiency.

Title I and MEP funds may not be used to provide services that are required to be made available to LEP students by other laws (e.g., through interpretations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, the Equal Educational Opportunities Act, and state bilingual education laws). However, Title I and MEP funds may be used to coordinate and supplement those services, as well as provide other direct services to LEP students. Title I and MEP funds may be used to pay the salaries of instructional staff to work with students having academic difficulti es, including LEP students. These staff would work closely with the ESL/bilingual teachers and regular classroom teachers.

Examples of Innovative Strategies for Providing Services

  • Grafton Public Schools’ Migrant Program includes a summer program for migratory students that uses students’ first language to improve learning and achievement. Teachers and parents meet frequently as part of the program, with parents providing Spani sh instruction to the teachers. As teachers have become more fluent in Spanish, student achievement has improved, and all participants have expressed satisfaction with the program. Contact: Dean Ralfton, Director; Migrant Education; Grafton Public Schools; 725 Griggs Avenue; Grafton, North Dakota 58237; (701) 352-1930.
  • “Whole Language for Whole Families,” a program being piloted by Idaho’s New Plymouth Migrant Education Program, offers ESL instruction to migrant parents and students and provides migrant parents with strategies for assisting their children in reading and other school assignments. The adults receive instruction in large groups, small instructional groups and individually as needed. They also participate in a cooperative learning program with 8-9 year old students to learn how to tutor their children in a risk-free environment. Other related programs have been developed as a result of the success of this program. Contact: Linda Hall; Local Project Director OR Viola White, Home-School Coordinator; P.O. Box 50; Plymouth, Idaho 8365 5; (208) 278-5035.
  • California’s Mini-Corps Program provides a corps of student teachers from rural/migrant backgrounds to work directly with migrant students in classrooms, and to serve as a links between the migrant community and the school. The migrant students ben efit from the tutorial services and from having migrant student teachers as role models in their classrooms. Another result of the program is that over 5,000 bilingual teachers, most of whom are former migrants and sensitive to the needs of migrant st udents, have been trained and placed in the California school system. Contact: Maria Avila; California Mini-Corps; 510 Bercut Drive; Suite Q; Sacramento, California 95814; (916) 446-4603.
  • Florida’s Summer Institutes, which are sponsored jointly by the Migrant Education Program and the JTPA Section 402 Program, meet a wide range of needs among the secondary migrant student population. The six-week residential program is housed on colle ge campuses throughout the State. The program has five strands: 1) Middle School; 2) Upgrade; 3) High School; 4) Leadership; and 5) Dropout Retrieval. The middle school strand offers junior high students who are two or more years behind grade level, the opportunity to advance one grade level. High school students earn credits and make up clock hours toward graduation. Contact: Louis T. Marsh, State Director, Florida Department of Education; 652 Florida Education Cente r; Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400; (904) 487-3520.
  • The Colorado MEP and Young Audiences, Inc. have adapted aspects of the Artists-in-Residence program to create a unique “Migrant Rural Arts Initiative.” Four bilingual artists–>a visual artist, a theater artist, a musician, and a choreographer–>work w ith sixteen teachers and their migrant students throughout the summer migrant program in Colorado’s San Luis Valley. The artists hold an initial institute for teachers, meet with teachers individually, and work in classrooms alongside teachers to help th em integrate the arts into instruction. The artists also spend time working on their own creative endeavors while children watch and ask questions about the artistic process, an experience that reinforces the value of students’ cultural and ethnic identities. Contact: Patty Ortiz, Young Artists, Inc.; 1 415 Larimer Street, #304; Denver, Colorado 80202; (303) 825-3465.

Preliminary Guidance for Title I, Part C – Pg 16

Priority for Serving Migrant Students

While the prior statute generally required that children who were “currently migrant” (i.e., children who had made a qualifying move within the past 12 months) be given priority for services over less recently mobile migrant children, the new statute establishes a new and much different priority for the receipt of services under the MEP. Under Section 1304(d) of the new ESEA, state MEPs must give priority for services to migrant children

  • Who are failing, or most at risk of failing, to meet the state’s content and performance standards; AND
  • Whose education has been interrupted during the regular school year.

State MEPs must establish and implement appropriate procedures to identify and target services to such children. There is no single correct way to do so. However, as the first “yardstick” for determining the degree to which a migrant child is at risk of failing to meet challenging state standards, the state MEP could examine a migrant child’s performance on the assessment instruments the state (or LEA) uses to assess mastery of its established content standards Those migrant children whose results on state assessments show them to be t he furthest from meeting the state’s standards would be served first. If the state does not have assessment data on a particular migrant child (e.g., the child was not present in the district when the assessment was administered), then the state might us e other relevant information, like the degree to which the child is subject to multiple risk factors (e.g., being overage or behind grade level, eligible for free/reduced price lunch, limited English proficient) to determine the child’s need for services. Among the children determined to be failing or most at risk of failing, priority for service would be given to those children whose education has been interrupted during the regular school year. The state, in collaboration with local operating agencies, is free to determine what constitutes “educational interruption” under Section 1304(d).

The new service priority does not necessarily preclude the provision of MEP services to those migrant children who do not meet the priority. The state could still operate projects for these migrant children if it made services available to those children who meet the two elements of the priority before providing MEP services to other migrant children. For example, a state MEP operating only summer term projects could serve migrant children who reside in the state during the summer but who do not experience interrupted schooling during t he regular school year, if those migrant students who meet the service priorities are already being served.

Preliminary Guidance for Title I, Part C – Pg 15


In determining the size and recipients of MEP subgrants, SEAs must take into account the special educational needs of the state’s migrant children (as addressed through a comprehensive needs assessment and service delivery plan described in Section 1306. Also see Section 1304(b)(5).) In addition, the state (and its operating agencies) is required to give priority for services to migrant children who are failing, or most at risk of failing, to meet the state’s challenging content standards and student pe rformance standards, and whose education has been interrupted during the regular school year (Section 1306). SEAs may also wish to consider additional factors, including the number of migrant children and youth enrolled in the schools in the LEA and the ability of the LEA to meet the special needs of such children and youth. Additionally, in awarding subgrants, SEAs may wish to consider the following factors: the extent to which the LEA will coordinate services with other state and local agencies serving migrant children and youth; how the proposed use of funds will facilitate the enrollment, attendance, and success in school of migrant children and youth; and other crit eria that the SEA deems appropriate.

Example of Factors to be Considered in Making Subgrants

  • Number of students and extent of the need of students selected for participation;
  • Number of students whose education has been interrupted during the regular school year;
  • Personnel required, both numbers and types;
  • Availability of MEP funds, and availability of instructional and other services from other funding sources; and
  • Facility and equipment needs.

The statute does not authorize states to apply a hold-harmless provision when determining the amount of MEP funds to be provided to local operating agencies. (Hold-harmless provisions cap the year-to-year change in subgrant amounts (e.g., +/- 15 %), regardless of the numbers or needs of migrant students to be served each year by the various local operating agencies.) States have great flexibility in determining the best way to distribute MEP funds among their local operating agencies. However, in exercising this flexibility, S EAs need to ensure that their subgrant procedures are compatible with their responsibilities under the state-administered MEP to use program funds on a statewide basis in ways that best address the needs and service priorities of migrant children.

Preliminary Guidance for Title I, Part C – Pg 1

Table of Contents

Title page
Acronyms Used in this Document

  1. Introduction
    1. High Standards for all Children–>with the Elements of Education Aligned, so that Everything is Working Together to Help Students Reach those Standards
    2. Links With Other Education Legislation
    3. Coordination Across Education Programs
    4. Interstate, Intrastate, and Interagency Coorination
    5. Advocacy and Outreach Through Interagency Coordination
  2. Resources Targeted to Where Needs are Greatest
    1. Identification and Recruitment
    2. Student Eligibility
    3. Procedures for Documenting Eligibility
    4. Sample Certificate of Eligibility
    5. Eligibility Flow Chart
    6. Comprehensive Needs Assessment and Service Delivery Plan
    7. Subgranting
    8. Priority for Serving Migrant Students
  3. A Focus on Teaching and Learning
    1. Serving Migrant Children in Schoolwide Programs
    2. Use of MEP Funds to Provide Title I, Part A Services to Migrant Students in Targeted Assistance Schools
  4. Links Among Schools, Parents, and Communities
  5. Flexibility to Support Local School-Based and District Innovation, Coupled with Responsibility for Student Performance
  6. Appendix A –> Resources for Technical Assistance

Funding Status

The U.S. Department of Education allocates Title I, Part C Migrant Education Program funds to States through a statutory formula based primarily on the State’s migratory child count, the number of migratory children who receive summer or intersession services, and the cost of education in each State.

For general budget information, visit the budget news.


Appropriation : $375,626,000


Appropriation: $375,626,000


Appropriation: $375,626,000


Appropriation: $374,751,000


Appropriation: $374,751,000

Note: Of these amounts, the Department of Education may reserve up to $10 million each year (under ESEA section 1308) to conduct Migrant Education Coordination Activities.