Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Understanding & Complying with the Idaho Migrant Education Program Mary Lou Wells & Merced Flores Idaho Title I Conference April 2013.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Understanding & Complying with the Idaho Migrant Education Program Mary Lou Wells & Merced Flores Idaho Title I Conference April 2013."— Presentation transcript:

1 Understanding & Complying with the Idaho Migrant Education Program Mary Lou Wells & Merced Flores Idaho Title I Conference April 2013

2 Goals and Objectives Goal: The participant will understand the background and requirements of the Idaho Title I Part C Migrant Education Program. Objectives: At the end of the session, the participant will be able to: 1.Describe the purpose of the Migrant Education Program (MEP) and 1.Understand and apply the requirements for Priority for Services, Continuation of Services Provision, Comprehensive Needs Assessment, Service Delivery Plan, Fiscal Requirements, and Supplant vs. Supplement.

3 Idaho MEP Demographics

4 Priority for Services Priority for MEP-funded services to migratory children who are: A. failing, or most at risk of failing, to meet the State’s challenging State academic content standards and challenging State student academic achievement standards, B. AND whose education has been interrupted during the regular school year. Elementary & Secondary Education Act Section 1304(d)

5 Priority for Services

6 Continuation of Services Provision The “continuation of services” provision found in Section 1304(e) of the statute provides that: (1) a child who ceases to be a migratory child during a school term shall be eligible for services until the end of such term ; (2)a child who is no longer a migratory child may continue to receive services for one additional school year, but only if comparable services are not available through other programs ; and (3) secondary school students who were eligible for services in secondary school may continue to be served through credit accrual programs until graduation. COS is a permissive authority, not a requirement. Under 1304(e)(2) and (3), only students who received services at any time during their 36 month eligibility period may continue to receive services (not necessarily the same service).

7 Migrant Student Records Exchange State Education Agencies are required to promote interstate and intrastate coordination by (consistent with procedures the Secretary may require) providing for educational continuity through the timely transfer of pertinent school records (including health information) when children move from one school to another, whether or not the move occurs during the regular school year. Elementary & Secondary Education Act Section 1304(b)(3)

8 Migrant Student Records Exchange Idaho Migrant Student Information System (MSIS) Migrant Student Information Exchange (MSIX)

9 Migrant Parent Advisory Council (PAC) State Education Agencies (SEAs) and Local Operating Agencies (LOAs) are required to establish and consult with Parent Advisory Councils (PACs) in planning, operating, and evaluating Migrant Education Programs (MEPs) Elementary & Secondary Education Act Section 1304(c)(3)

10 Migrant Parent Advisory Council (PAC) State PAC meets 2-3 times a year Current State PAC consists of 9 members from Twin Falls School District, Aberdeen SD, Middleton SD, Jerome SD, and Blackfoot SD. Agendas and minutes from each meeting can be found at: ePAC.htm ePAC.htm

11 Identification & Recruitment of Eligible Migrant Children and Youth The State Education Agency (SEA) is responsible for the proper and timely identification of all eligible migrant children residing in the State. Children are eligible to receive MEP services if they meet the definition of “migratory child” and if the basis for their eligibility is properly recorded on a certificate of eligibility (COE). Elementary & Secondary Education Act Sections 1304(c)(7) and 1309(2) & 34 CFR

12 Service Delivery Plan In order to administer and manage the MEP on a statewide basis, the State Educational Agency (SEA) must develop a comprehensive State plan for service delivery 34 CFR provides the minimum components of such a plan; requires that the plan be developed in consultation with the State PAC; and requires that local operating agencies comply with the plan. Elementary & Secondary Education Act Section 1306(a) and 34 CFR

13 Service Delivery Plan (cont.) Measurable program outcomes, or MPOs, are those objectives that the Migrant Education Program (MEP) will produce to meet the unique needs of migrant children that the State Education Agency (SEA) identified through the comprehensive needs assessment. Meeting these needs will help migratory children achieve the State's performance targets, also identified in the statewide needs assessment. Elementary & Secondary Education Act Section 1306(a)(1)(D) and (a)(3)

14 Fiscal Management: Use of Funds State Education Agencies (SEAs) or Local Operating Agencies (LOAs) are required to use MEP funds for programs and projects designed to meet the special educational needs of migrant children, and more specifically those needs that are not addressed by services available from other Federal or non-Federal programs. All expenditures under the MEP are subject to the fiscal requirements found in 34 CFR Part 80 and in OMB Cost Circular A-87. Elementary & Secondary Education Act Sections 1301, 1302, and 1306(b)

15 Fiscal Management: Supplement, Not Supplant Categorical funds could be used to pay for staff development and, State Education Agencies (SEAs) must ensure that MEP funds are used to “supplement, not supplant” services provided with non-Federal funds. Migrant Education Program (MEP) funds must be used to address the needs of migratory children that are not addressed by services available from other Federal or non-Federal programs, except that migratory children who are eligible to receive services under Title I, Part A may receive those services through funds provided under that part. Another, that would be supplanting Elementary & Secondary Education Act Sections 1120A(b), 1304(c)(2), 1306(b)(2)

16 The Hierarchy of Supplementing Supplement 2 Supplement Core – General Operations & Required Program Elements Unrestricted General Fund (Examples: Regular classroom teachers, Core ELD Program, and Core textbooks) General Supplemental Resource Title I and Title III (Examples: Intervention, supplemental materials, counselors, staff development, supplemental ELD) Super Targeted Migrant Education

17 Putting Our Knowledge to the Test For each of the scenarios presented consider the following: 1.Can migrant education funding be used this way? 2.What if any additional information is needed to answer question 1? 3.If the answer to question 1 is “no,” what could be done to change it to “yes”?

18 Is it (1) supplanting and/or (2) allowable to use Migrant Education funds for: 1.Resource teacher 2.Instructional aid 3.Academic coach 4.Substitute for teacher release time 5.Music instruments 6.Nurse 7.Copy machine 8.Computer 9.Instructional materials 10.Library books

19 Supplement or Supplant? Consider this Scenario: A school is planning a summer intervention program open to all low performing students. Among the 200 students that will be invited to participate are 50 migratory children. Task: Develop at least one example of how MEP funding can be used in a supplemental manner Develop at least one example where MEP funding would be judged to be supplanting other funding

20 Supplement or Supplant? Consider this Scenario: After reviewing its latest benchmark assessments, a school determines it needs to offer test preparation academies on Saturdays in February and March to help low-performing students. There is concern that migrant education eligible pupils will lack transportation. Task: Develop at least one example of how MEP funding can be used in a supplemental manner to pay for the cost of transportation Develop at least one example where MEP funding would be judged to be supplanting other funding if used to pay for the cost of transportation

21 A Team Effort Evaluating whether a particular use of MEP funding is supplanting or supplemental often requires the benefit of multiple minds. MEP staff know what the desired action involves and what’s in the existing State Service Delivery Plan Site administration and staff know who needs assistance Educational Services/Curriculum & Instruction know what’s in place (e.g., core) MEP Coordinator and Business Managers working together to understand funding available and processes for appropriate use and coding

22 Closing Thoughts U.S. Department of Education guidance is a great resource www2.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/fiscalguid.doc

23 Contact Information Mary Lou Wells Migrant Education Program Coordinator Idaho State Department of Education (208) Merced Flores MEP Consultant Loma Linda Consultants


Download ppt "Understanding & Complying with the Idaho Migrant Education Program Mary Lou Wells & Merced Flores Idaho Title I Conference April 2013."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google