1. Mission of the Office of Migrant Education To provide excellent leadership, technical assistance, and financial support to improve the educational opportunities and academic success of migrant children, youth, agricultural workers, fishers, and their families. OME Initiatives: Student-Level Data and Efficiency Targets Proposals U.S. Department of Education Office of Migrant Education HEP-CAMP Annual Directors Meeting Alexandria, VA July 17-19, 2012

2. Draft Student Level Data Proposal Background Purposes of Student Level Data Proposal APR Sections – To Be Removed APR Sections – To Be Modified APR Sections – To Be Retained APR Sections – That Will Move to Student Level Data, and New Information 2

3. Background OME collects substantial HEP and CAMP data in the APR’s. OME has analyzed most data elements and provided information to grantees. Limitations to current data include a lack of student-level data, which is necessary to determine the effectiveness of services. Grantees provided feedback in a December, 2011 webinar that outlined specific APR items that were deemed not useful. 3

4. Purposes of Draft Student Level Data Proposal Reduce the overall data burden of grantees Allow for in-depth analyses of student-level data, to inform promising practices 4

5. APR Sections To Be Removed Section B. HEP and CAMP summative supportive, financial, and instructional services information (20 or more miles to commute, primary residence moves) Section C. HEP summative instructional services (length and frequency) The “Nature of Project Services” narrative 5

6. APR Sections To Be Modified HEP status at the end of the budget period HEP and CAMP characteristics of students (retain some and remove those that grantees have identified as not useful) HEP and CAMP student assessment information (remove most data and retain by student other test data) 6

7. APR Sections To Be Retained Section A – GPRA Data Section C – Project Model and Personnel Characteristics Section D – Goals and Objectives Section E – Project Budget Information Section F - Additional Information and Documentation 7

8. Student Level Data Section B. Tutoring, mentoring, and counseling (new information: types, by student) Services, financial support, demographic data by student 8

9. Efficiency Targets for HEP and CAMP Designed for: Commuter Projects Residential Projects Commuter-Residential Projects 9

10. Efficiency Target Overview Purpose Timeline for Development Process of Baseline and Targets Considerations in the Development Process Subpopulation Definitions Components of Efficiency Measures 10

11. Purpose of Efficiency Targets Determine the annual costs of a GED attainer (HEP) and the costs of a 1 st year completer who continues (CAMP). A tool that will assist the Office of Migrant Education (OME) in monitoring individual HEP and CAMP projects. A tool that will help projects establish the parameters of costs, within the context of project performance. 11

12. Timeline for Development Process of Baselines and Targets November 2011 – March 2012: Multiple models based upon 2010 APR data March 2012: Input from HEP-CAMP Association received, commuter-residential data refined April-July 2012: Final models developed, using 2011 APR data 12

13. Considerations in the Development Process - Limitation The Efficiency Measure does not necessarily correlate completely with the HEP GPRA 1 process or CAMP GPRA 1 and 2 processes, because persisters are not counted toward success. The Efficiency Measure should always be viewed within the context of project performance. 13

14. Considerations in the Development Process – Project Cohorts to Include GPRA Measures do not include 1 st year projects, due to start-up challenges. Profiles include all cohorts. Efficiency baseline included all cohorts, including 1 st year. OME wished to include as many projects into the 2011 baseline, reflecting as much of the national HEP and CAMP costs as possible. 14

15. Considerations in the Development Process - Outliers “Outliers” are projects that spent an inordinate amount of funds per GED attainer/1 st year completer that continued. OME chose not to include outliers, as they skewed the data unreasonably. Definition for outliers: in a “box-and- whiskers” plot, those projects that are outside the “whiskers.” Let’s look at greater detail on the next slide: 15

16. 16 6 HEP Projects 5 Points: Box (2): 25% to 75% Whiskers (2): 1.5 * Height of Box Median (1): Bar

17. 17 1 CAMP Project

18. Considerations in the Development Process – Actual vs. Expected Costs OME considered developing a baseline dependent upon effective and efficient performance, but found that it was unrealistic compared to the actual costs of most. OME chose actual costs in establishing the baseline, as these costs are a starting point. 18

19. Considerations in the Development Process – the Mean vs. Q3 (Upper Quartile) OME considered using the mean (average) costs per group, but the baseline would show over 50% of projects would not meet the 2011 baseline. OME chose the upper quartile (75%), allowing 76% of HEP projects and 72% of CAMP projects to meet the 2011 baseline. 19

20. Subpopulation Definitions In the past, grantees self-identified. As of the 2011 APR, OME gathered exact information that provides the percentage of commuters. OME used natural “breaks” in data. OME ensured a logical sequence of increased costs from commuter – commuter/residential – residential. OME ensured comparability between HEP and CAMP. OME will review cut points annually, in order to provide flexibility. 20

21. Subpopulation Definitions 21 GroupCommutersCommuter- Residential Residential HEP>=95% commuter (28 projects) 40 – 94% commuter (7 projects) 0 – 39% commuter (3 projects) CAMP>=90% commuter (12 projects) 40 - 89% commuter (9 projects) 0 – 39% commuter (18 projects)

22. Components of Efficiency Targets Baseline Improvement of 1% per year Electronic GED assessment cost ($125 per student, over three years) Inflationary Costs CAMP – 7.5% (based upon estimated college costs) HEP – 5.5% (averaged national inflationary data and college estimated costs) 22

23. HEP Baseline and Targets 23 Group2011 Cost 2012 Expected Cost 2013 Expected Cost 2014 Expected Cost 2015 Expected Cost 2016 Expected Cost HEP Commuter$7,529$7,910$8,306$8,718$9,104$9,509 HEP Commuter- Residential $11,923$12,502$13,104$13,732$14,344$14,984 HEP Residential$14,753$15,459$16,195$16,962$17,719$18,511

24. CAMP Baseline and Targets 24 Group2011 Cost 2012 Expected Cost 2013 Expected Cost 2014 Expected Cost 2015 Expected Cost 2016 Expected Cost CAMP Commuter$11,486$12,003$12,543$13,107$13,697$14,314 CAMP Commuter- Residential $13,998$14,628$15,286$15,974$16,693$17,444 CAMP Residential$18,408$19,236$20,102$21,007$21,952$22,940

25. Questions and Answers 25