MEP Data: What is Collected, How it is Used, and Why it is Important

1. MEP Data: What is Collected, How it is Used, and Why it is Important New Directors Meeting Hilton Old Town Alexandria February 28, 2012 Presented by Celeste Rodriguez, Ed Monaghan, Sarah Martinez

2. Objectives • Develop a clear understanding of the CSPR, a MEP data collection tool • Distinguish between GPRA measures and State Profiles • Clarify the purposes of collecting MEP data, for the benefit of State MEPs and the National MEP

3. Legal Reference for Program Performance and Reporting

4. Consolidated State Performance Report (CSPR) How OME Collects MEP Data

5. What is the CSPR? • The Consolidated State Performance Report (CSPR) is a mandated annual reporting tool to collect K-12 education performance data for all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. • Title IX, Part C of the statute encourages States to coordinate across programs and provides flexibility to States by allowing for consolidated plans, applications, and reporting for various ESEA programs. Thus, States applied for MEP funds through a consolidated application (§ 9302) and report performance via a consolidated annual report(§9303).

6. CSPR (cont.) • As described in §1111(h)(4-5) of the statute, the CSPR contains information required for the Annual State Report to the Secretary, and provides data for the Annual Report to Congress on ESEA programs. • CSPR data helps OME assess program performance, monitor program requirements, and target its technical assistance.

7. CSPR Part I • The MEP section of Part I includes the Child Counts (Category I and II), along with open ended questions regarding the State’s data collection, management, and quality control processes. • NOTE: Per §1303(e)(1), the Secretary has the authority to determine numbers of eligible children using such information he/she finds “most accurately reflects the actual number of migratory children”. The CSPR is currently used for this purpose.

8. CSPR Part II • The MEP section of Part II is used to inform GPRA indicators and other reporting requirements. States submit quantitative data on: • The MEP Eligible population incl. subgroups [Priority for Service (PFS), Limited English Proficient (LEP), and Children with Disabilities (IDEA)]; • Migrant student academic achievement (State Assessments, graduation and dropout rates); • MEP services provided during the reporting period; • Methods of service delivery (incl. staffing and time periods).

9. National GPRAs and State Profiles How MEP Data is Used

10. GPRAs and State Profiles Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993 (Public Law 103-62) State Profile State level Eligible and Served populations Implementation and Results focused Program Office/OESE clearance only No effect on program funding • National level • Eligible population only • Results focused • Subject to clearance process • Affects Title I, Part C appropriation

11. Purposes of the GPRA • Improve public confidence by holding federal agencies accountable for results. • Initiate program performance reform by measuring program performance against goals and reporting publicly on progress. • Improve federal program effectiveness by focusing on results, service quality, and customer satisfaction.

12. Purposes of the GPRA • Require federal program managers to plan for meeting program objectives and provide information regarding results and service quality. • Improve congressional decision-making by providing information regarding effectiveness and efficiency. • Improve internal management of the federal government.

13. GPRA Components • Strategic Planning – addresses the mission and contains goals with long-term results. • “…Improve the educational opportunities and academic success…” (OME Mission) • “To assist all migrant students in meeting challenging academic standards and achieving graduation from high school (or a GED program) with an education that prepares them for responsible citizenship, further learning, and productive employment.” (MEP Program Goal)

14. GPRA Components (cont.) • Annual Performance Plans – annual performance goals and how they will be met. • Annual Performance Reports – review success/failure to meet goals.

15. Requirements of GPRA Measure Development • Must ensure reliability and validity of measures • Must align with purposes and authorized activities of the statute • Must be approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)

16. GPRA Cycle

17. Development Timeline: Multiple Stakeholders 17

18. MEP GPRA Measures:Past, Present, Future • 13 original GPRA Measures  6 NEW GPRAMeasures • Revisions will be made to CSPR items in order to: • Target information that will be used for either GPRA performance reporting or State Profiles • Alleviate unnecessary reporting burden on States • Improve clarity and strengthen the connection between data quality and program outcomes

19. NEW GPRA Measures (pending clearance) • Measure 1.1: The percent age of students eligible for MEP services that scored at or above proficient on their state’s reading/language arts achievement test  • Measure 1.2: The percentage of students eligible for MEP services that scored at or above proficient on their state’s math achievement test • Measure 1.3: The percentage of students eligible for MEP services that passed Algebra I, or had enrolled in a higher math class, before entering 10th grade

20. NEW GPRA Measures (pending clearance) • Measure 1.4: The percentage of students enrolled in grades 7-12, and eligible for MEP services, who graduated or were promoted to the next grade • Measure 1.5: The amount of funding allocated to states per MEP student success • Measure 1.6: The percentage of consolidated records for migrant students that have been entered into MSIX

21. State Profiles: Looking Ahead • After numerous revisions, the Draft State Profile is ready for a final round of feedback from State Directors • ADM session: Thurs. March 1, 2012 (11:00 am – 12:00 pm) • 2 of the 6 NEW GPRAs are included in State Profiles (proficiency on State assessments), with a comparison between Eligible and Served populations • Profiles will contain complete data in table format, with select measures highlighted in graphics format (various chart types)

22. Making the Connection between Performance Reporting and the Quality of our Programs Why It Matters

23. Reaping the Rewards of High Quality Performance Reports State MEPs • Only gather and submit the most informative and useful data • Demonstrate your contribution to the national results of our program • Simplify the process for analyzing the MEP in your State, and facilitate collaboration with similar programs • Ability to track changes and note patterns over time • Analysis of implementation and results complements and informs the Program Evaluation, CNA, and SDP

24. Reaping the Rewards (cont.) OME/U.S. Department of Education • Inform OME, particularly MEP Program Officers, about: • How the MEP varies across States, • Changes that occur within a State, and • Where we can target our technical assistance. • Ability to demonstrate results achieved by the MEP, progress towards goal and mission • Make a strong case for the value of our program and the necessity of continued support

25. QUESTIONS??? THANK YOU!