Summary

The FRSS survey on Participation of Migrant Students in Title I Migrant Education Program (MEP) Summer-term Projects provides information on summer-term project activities in 1998, including the various types of supplemental instructional and supporting services offered by projects, and the availability and transmission of student records. An estimated 1,700 MEP summer-term projects operated in 1998, providing educational programs for about 262,000 students. A majority of MEP projects (58 percent) were relatively small, with student enrollments of less than 100. About two-thirds of the projects served students of all ages, and about half were located in rural areas. A majority of MEPs received technical support from states, including assistance in identifying and recruiting eligible students (74 percent), preparing MEP program applications (68 percent), preparing annual MEP reports (62 percent), planning support services (60 percent), and planning or conducting a needs assessment (58 percent).

The provision of instructional and social support services is an important indicator for measuring the extent to which MEP projects address the needs of migrant students. Most MEP summerterm projects operating in 1998 provided supplemental instruction in reading, other language arts, and mathematics (ranging from 87 to 96 percent), 57 percent provided science instruction, and 48 percent offered social science instruction. Targeting other instructional needs of migrant students, MEP summer-term projects offered services in bilingual education, preschool education, special education, and GED/high school equivalency instruction. The projects also offered other activities, including cultural enrichment, sports, dropout prevention, and college and vocational counseling.

MEP summer-term projects in 1998 targeted needs that may result from poverty and migratory lifestyles. A large majority of projects provided support services in home-school liaison/advocacy, transportation, and meals (84, 78, and 68 percent, respectively). Projects were less likely to provide support services in medical or dental screening and treatment, clothing, and personal life counseling (36 to 43 percent), and they were least likely to provide day care services for students or their families (13 percent).

There were some consistent differences by selected project characteristics among MEP summer-term projects providing various instructional and support services for migrant students. For most instructional and support services, projects serving only elementary-age students were less likely to make the service available to students compared with projects serving students of all ages. In addition, relatively small projects were less likely to offer the service than larger projects.

To determine students' capabilities and needs, MEP projects need access to relevant information about students' educational and health profiles. Various types of academic records were available for about three-fourths of the students at the start of the project, and for another 14 percent later in the project. Reporting on the types of information available in student records, most projects had information on last address, program eligibility, and last grade for all or most of their students (84 to 90 percent). Projects were less likely to report that they had records with transcript data and achievement test scores for all or most of their students (41 and 50 percent, respectively) mainly because these records are usually not essential for elementary-age students. Finally, about two-thirds had information on limited English proficiency needs and health status for all or most of their students.

Most MEP summer-term projects (88 percent) indicated they created or updated records based on the 1998 summer-term activities or instruction. Of these, 88 percent indicated that they included information on program eligibility, 74 percent included updates on Previous Pages, about twothirds included information on assessments, courses, and hours/credits, and about half included health assessment data. Reporting on various ways in which student records were received, about three-fourths of 1998 summer-term projects indicated that student data were already available on file. At the end of the summer-term project, 60 percent of projects forwarded records to the students' next schools; 44 percent either held records until requested or forwarded records to the state MEP office; and projects were least likely to either forward records to the multistate MEP database or give them to students to hand-carry (24 and 11 percent).

Top