Date post: | 13-Apr-2017 |
Category: |
Education |
Upload: | minnesota-english-learner-education-conference |
View: | 311 times |
Download: | 5 times |
Migrant Education Program
Coordinators’ Meeting
November 5, 2015
Bloomington Doubletree
Team MEP (back row to front row)
Noemi Treviño, Lidibette Guzman, Amber Higgins Kathleen Bibus, Rhonda Isaacs,
Julie Chi, Jacqueline Perez
2
Agenda Debrief Summer 2015
Presentations from Kids in Need Foundation and
The Sheridan Story
MEP Site Presentations
Review the 2015 Evaluation Results
Participate in Networking and Topic Discussion
Sessions
Discuss Timelines and Deliverables for 2016
3
Meeting Objectives 1) Debrief summer 2015 demographics and
services
2) Review summer 2015 evaluation results
3) Network and share ideas among colleagues
4) Learn about the Sheridan Story and Kids in
Need Foundation
5) Discuss timelines and deliverables for 2016
4
Debrief Summer 2015
Children Served (Summer Only)
Project 2013 2014 2015
Belgrade-Brooten-Elrosa 54 36 31
Bird Island 101 82 76
Breckenridge 50 54 51
Glencoe-Silver Lake 55 66 65
Moorhead 35 29 31
Owatonna 26 15 27
Rochester 93 66 65
Sleepy Eye 56 74 75
Tri City United 51 76 44
Willmar N/A N/A 40
Total Children Served 521 498 505
6
Children Enrolled (Summer Only)
7
Number Priority for Service (PFS)
(Summer Only) Project 2013 2014 2015
Belgrade-Brooten-Elrosa 21 25 21
Bird Island 48 45 41
Breckenridge 15 16 21
Glencoe-Silver Lake 16 23 23
Moorhead 0 7 9
Owatonna 0 0 0
Rochester 7 0 41
Sleepy Eye 26 22 10
Tri City United 24 47 33
Willmar N/A N/A 1
Total Number PFS 157 185 200
8
Number PFS (Summer Only)
9
Percent PFS (Summer Only)
Project 2013 2014 2015
Belgrade-Brooten-Elrosa 39% 69% 68%
Bird Island 48% 55% 54%
Breckenridge 30% 30% 41%
Glencoe-Silver Lake 29% 35% 35%
Moorhead 0% 24% 29%
Owatonna 0% 0% 0%
Rochester 8% 0% 63%
Sleepy Eye 46% 30% 13%
Tri City United 47% 62% 75%
Willmar 0% 0% 2%
Total Percent PFS 30% 37% 40%
10
Percent PFS (Summer Only)
11
Number of Migrant Students
Eligible, Served, and Identified
Title Age (5-OSY) 2013 2014 2015
Migrant students eligible during 2014-15
1,541 1,459 1,446
Migrant students served during the summer of 2015
521 498 505
Number of eligible migrant students identified in 2014-15
891 901 992
12
Migrant Students Eligible and Served
(and Identified during 2014-15)
13
Center
# Enrolled/
Registered
with TVOC
Physical
Exams
Sick
Children*
Dental
Screening
Dental
Refer-
rals
Dental
Paid with
MEP
Funds
Dental
Paid
with
MA**
Glasses
Paid with
MEP
Funds
Glasses Paid
with Insurance
or Sight For
Vision Voucher
BBE 31 25 1 17 1 0 1 0 0 BOLD 52 49 2 50 4 2 0 0 0 Breckenridge 45 37 0 42 0 0 0 0 0 GSL 50 48 10 35 3 0 0 0 0 Moorhead 46 40 0 28 4 0 0 0 1 TCU 40 19 0 28 3 0 3 0 0 Owatonna 46 23 1 23 8 2 4 0 0 Rochester 72 19 0 62 12 1 0 0 4 Sleepy Eye 73 72 2 72 10 1 3 0 0 Willmar 27 24 0 25 5 2 0 0 0
Total 482 356 16 382 50 8 11 0 5
Summer 2015 TVOC Health Services Report
14
*Children receiving physical that had a diagnosis that needed follow-up. Medicine provided if needed and paid for with MEP funds.
**MA=Medical Assistance
TVOC Health Services Summary
15
2014 2015
% students/youth enrolled with TVOC Health of all students served
90% 95%
% students/youth enrolled with TVOC Health receiving physical exams
87% 74%
% Students/youth enrolled with TVOC Health receiving dental screening
84% 79%
Programa Binacional de Educación para Migrantes
PROBEM
16
Year Name Mexican State Summer Site
2012 Ernesto Palma Gomez Jalisco Sleepy Eye
2013 Yadira Velazquez Segovia Zacatecas Sleepy Eye
2013 Teresa Guevara Leon Puebla Bird Island
2013 Lizette Mata Mora Durango Tri-City United
2014 Jose Hernandez Zacatecas Rochester
2015 Itzel Loza Trujillo Morelos Rochester
Exchange Teacher through Programa Binacional de Educación de Migrantes (PROBEM)
17
Activity Date
Disseminate Exchange Teacher Information 11/5/15
Deadline for submitting request to the Office of International Relations
for Mexican Teachers to participate by US school districts 11/19/15
Pre space allocation by PROBEM 11/23/15
Coordination between US/MX regarding required documentation of
teacher profile 1/25-29/16
Documentation review and preliminary interviews by US
representatives
1/29/16-
2/12/16
XX Mexican National Training Seminar for 2016 Teacher Exchange
Program 3/3-6/16
Schedule interview with host LEA and exchange teacher candidates TBD
Check-in period for J-1 visas, accommodations, transportation, etc… As of 3/7/16
National Evaluation Meeting in Mexico 9/2/16
Secondary/OSY (Out of School Youth)
• Appreciate all the hard work to
assist students in getting
credits/hours – Creative use of credit by exams
– Skill based learning for subjects, STAAR
testing
– Postsecondary experiences
18
Secondary Students
Identified and Enrolled
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Bird Island Breckenridge Brooten Glencoe Tri-City Moorhead Owatonna Rochester Sleepy Eye Willmar
Indentified Enrolled
19
Credits & Non-Credits
0
5
10
15
20
25
Credit Non-Credit
20
Thoughts for Next Summer…
• The person completing the Secondary/OSY tab
on the SPSR and secondary forms needs to be
trained at the Summer Kick-off Meeting in May
– Avoid inaccuracies
– Meet timelines
• Online Learning - iPads
– What is available at your districts?
• Promote Health & Dental Screening for
secondary/OSY students
21
What’s New @MMERC?
22
Summer Program Services Report
1) Services Worksheet / Columns 1 - 8
23
Summer Program Services Report
1) Services Worksheet / Columns 9 - 42
24
Summer Program Services Report
1) Services Worksheet / Columns 43-50
25
Summer Program Services Report
2) Secondary/OSY Worksheet - Columns A-P
26
Summer Program Services Report
3) PFS Worksheet
27
Both section (1) and (2) must be met
in order for a migrant child/youth to
be considered PFS.
PFS Definition
28
Migrant children/youth
only need to meet one
factor in each category to
be considered PFS.
(1) Educational Interruption
1-a) In the preceding 12 months, the
student has a QAD between September 1
and June 30
1-b) Student has missed 10 or more
consecutive days of school
1-c) Student has changed schools in the
same school district related to the child’s
migrant lifestyle
PFS Criteria – Section 1
29
(2) Failing, or Most At-Risk of Failing, to Meet
State Standards
2-a) Student scored below proficient in reading or math on
the State assessment
2-b) Student in grades 3-11 with no recent State assessment
and scored below proficient on local assessment
instruments
2-c) Student identified as non-English proficient or as an EL
using the State-adopted language proficiency assessment
2-d) Student repeated a grade level or is over-age for grade
2-e) High school student has not accrued the needed credits
to graduate with his/her peers
2-f) Out-of-school youth (OSY)
PFS Criteria – Section 2
30
• Federal law requires that the MEP must provide
services first to migrant students who have been
identified as PFS.
• An indicator in the MN Monitoring Tool will be
added that looks specifically at how local
projects identify and serve PFS students.
• Finally, Federal MEP allocations may be reduced
in the future (due to reauthorization & declining
numbers of migrants across the US) resulting in
MEPs being required to provide services to
those most in need.
Why Identifying PFS Migrant
Students is Important…
31
Randall Fallas Beita
– Region 1 & 2 Northwest MN
Rosa Reyna de Lopez
– Region 3 Central MN
Marie San Miguel
– Region 4 Southwest MN
Minerva Gomez
– Region 5 Southeast MN
Terry Hollingsworth
– Region 6 East/Metro Area
Identification & Recruitment (ID&R)
Regional Recruiters
32
Regional Recruiters’
Survey Results All Five Regional Recruiters Responded
October 2015
33
Most Common Types of Qualifying Work
34
Common Issues Faced by Families
35
• Students/youth not wanting
to attend school
• Secondary students
choosing to work
• Communication with the
employers
• Not feeling welcomed at the
schools
Common Obstacles Faced in
Recruiting Families
36
Most Effective Strategies for
Communicating with Coordinators
37
• Knocking on door (5 recruiters)
• Flyers (2 recruiters)
• Talking with people (3 recruiters)
• Word of mouth (1 recruiter)
• Communication with employers (2 recruiters)
• Visiting schools (1 recruiter)
• Facebook (1 recruiter)
Most Effective Strategies for Recruiting
38
Training that Would be Helpful for Recruitment
• Webinars
• NASDME
• TVOC resources
• Karen and Somali
cultural awareness
• Promotional
materials promoting
advantages of MEP
• MMERC training
39
MEP Coordinators’
Survey Results Five Coordinators Responded
October 2015
40
Most Effective Communication
Strategies with TVOC
41
Most Important Training Needs
42
• Recruiting and retaining
high school students
• Reporting logistics
• Balancing support and
instructional services
• Available resources
Rank Order of Job Responsibilities of
Local Recruiters
43
Most Common Needs of the Migrant
Families in the Program
44
• Keeping students in school during regular school year
• Local calendar changes and effects on families/
students
• Time needed for paperwork and data
• Determining how to allocate funds to be more efficient
• Trying to get older students to attend
• The constant change of students and helping teachers
be open and accepting to new students
• Differentiation for different skill levels
Most Challenging Obstacles Faced in
Coordinating the MEP
45
• Odyssey (only 3 respondents)
• A concern is the district offers
credit based on seat-time, not
actual grade whereas our
migrant students would need
to maintain the 70+%
District Access to Online Secondary
Courses for Credit
46
• Piloted new tools and procedures during 2015
• Districts need more support around:
– Correct labeling and storing of Title I-C funded items
– Differentiation in smaller programs
– Communication Strategies between TVOC/recruiters
– Balancing service and record keeping duties
– Support for ELs, Special Ed needs
– Recruitment ideas for older kids/secondary
– Expanding ideas for uses of MEP funding
Monitoring
47
48
49
BR
EA
K T
IME
Partnership:
Fighting Child Hunger
School supplies changing lives
50
Summer 2015 Program Presentations
51
1. Moorhead
2. Belgrade-
Brooten-Elrosa
3. Glencoe-Silver
Lake
4. Willmar
5. Rochester
Overview of the
2015 Evaluation
Results
Presented by:
Cari Semivan
External Evaluator
META Associates
1
Review the 2015 Summer
Site Visit Report
Review implementation
evaluation results
54
Agenda
Review results evaluation progress:
-- 2015 State Assessment Results
-- Progress toward MPOs
Review recommendations for 2016 based on
2015 evaluation results
Understand the data used to evaluate the
Minnesota MEP by reviewing results
Learn the results of the summer site visits,
implementation evaluation, and results
evaluation for 2015
Understand the evaluation recommendations
Incorporate recommendations into planning for
2016
55
Objectives for this Session
Migrant Education Program
Continuous Improvement Cycle
56
2015 Summer Site Visit
Report
57
2015 Summer Site Visit Report
Site visits conducted at
all 10 MEP sites this
summer
META Associates staff,
Marty Jacobson and
Cari Semivan visited 5
sites each
Site visits occurred from
July 6-10, 2015
The complete schedule
can be found on page 1
of the report
58
Site Visit Tasks
1. Review the Fidelity
of Strategy
Implementation
(FSI) tool
2. Review evaluation
data collection
procedures, forms,
and data collection
progress
3. Share a copy of the
CNA and SDP
4. Observe summer
programming
5. Interview/conduct
focus groups with
MEP staff
6. Interview/conduct
focus groups with
parents
59
MEP Site Summaries
The Summer
Site Visit Report
contains site
visit summaries
for each of the
10 MEP sites
Pages 4-7 Belgrade-Brooten-El Rosa
Pages 8-13 Bird Island
Pages 14-18 Breckenridge
Pages 19-25 Glencoe-Silver Lake
Pages 26-31 Le Center/TCU
Pages 32-35 Moorhead
Pages 36-40 Owatonna
Pages 41-45 Rochester
Pages 46-51 Sleepy Eye
Pages 52-56 Willmar
60
Fewer migrant students participating than in
previous years
Fewer secondary migrant students participating
than in previous years
Parent involvement is challenging during the
summer
The food backpack program was very successful
MEP staff across the state are extremely devoted
to migrant students and the program with many
returning to work in the program year after year
Trends Discovered Across the State
61
Provide staff with PD on effective summer
learning strategies and programming to increase
the use of research-based summer instructional
methods to make summer feel different from the
regular school year (e.g., project-based learning,
thematic-based programming and instruction).
Provide staff with PD on culturally-relevant
instruction and appropriate strategies and
supports for migrant English learners.
Evaluator Recommendations
62
Create a needs assessment toolkit unique to the
State that projects can use to determine local
needs.
Provide staff with an opportunity to share
effective strategies for involving parents in the
education of their children during the summer
program.
Create a plan for ensuring that the credit accrual
needs of migrant secondary students are met
should current credit accrual options become
unavailable.
Evaluator Recommendations, Cont.
63
Questions/comments
about the Summer Site
Visit Report or Site Visits?
64
2015 Implementation
Evaluation Results
65
31 parent activities were held during the summer
at the 10 sites with 242 parents attending
(average of 8 parents attending each activity)
All 10 sites reported parent activities on the FSI
Parent Involvement
66
67
37 professional development
activities were provided to
MEP staff during 2014-15
An average of 10.7 staff
participated in each
All 10 sites reported
professional development
activities on the FSI
Professional Development
68
69
All 10 MEP sites
completed the FSI
Mean ratings for the
Strategies ranged from
2.7 (Strategy 4e) to 3.7
(Strategies 1c/1d/2c/2d)
out of 4.0
15 of the 17 Strategies
(88%) were rated
“proficient”
Fidelity of Strategy
Implementation (FSI) Results
70
Reading
• Strategy 1a: Mean rating of 3.6
• Strategy 1b: Mean rating of 3.3
• Strategy 1c: Mean rating of 3.7
• Strategy 1d: Mean rating of 3.7
Math
• Strategy 2a: Mean rating of 3.5
• Strategy 2b: Mean rating of 3.4
• Strategy 2c: Mean rating of 3.7
• Strategy 2d: Mean rating of 3.7
Mean Ratings of Strategies
71
Support Services
• Strategy 3a: Mean rating of 2.9
• Strategy 3b: Mean rating of 3.6
• Strategy 3c: Mean rating of 3.0
• Strategy 3d: Mean rating of 3.4
Graduation/Services to OSY
• Strategy 4a: Mean rating of 3.6
• Strategy 4b: Mean rating of 3.3
• Strategy 4c: Mean rating of 3.5
• Strategy 4d: Mean rating of 3.2
• Strategy 4e: Mean rating of 2.7
Mean Ratings of Strategies. Cont.
72
Questions/comments/
feedback about the FSI
Tool or process?
73
2015 Results Evaluation
74
258 migrant students took the 2015 MCA
Reading test (35 PFS / 223 non-PFS)
27% of migrant students [n=70] met or exceeded
the standards compared to 60% of non-migrant
students
31% of PFS students [n=11] and 26% of non-PFS
students [n=58] met or exceeded the standards
Fewer migrant students met or exceeded the
standards than non-migrant students for all
grade levels (3-8 and 10)
2015 MCA Reading Results
75
Percent Scoring Proficient on the
2015 MCA Reading Test
76
255 migrant students took the 2015 MCA Math
test (33 PFS / 222 non-PFS)
23% of migrant students [n=59] met or exceeded
the math standards compared to 60% of non-
migrant students
15% of PFS students [n=5] and 24% of non-PFS
students [n=54] met or exceeded the standards
Fewer migrant students met or exceeded the
math standards than non-migrant students for
all grade levels (3-8 and 11)
2015 MCA Math Results
77
Percent Scoring Proficient on the
2015 MCA Math Test
78
*Zero of the 8 students in the 4-year graduation cohort were PFS
• 43.7% gap between the migrant graduation rate
and the non-migrant graduation rate
• 52.5% gap between the migrant graduation rate
and the State Performance Target
2014-15 Graduation Rates
79
State Graduation Rates (4-year Cohort)
Years
Performance
Target
Non-
Migrant
Students
Non-PFS
Migrant
Students
PFS
Migrant
Students
All
Migrant
Students
2014-15 90% 81.2% 37.5% N/A* 37.5%
*Zero of the 8 students in the 4-year graduation cohort were PFS
• None of the 8 migrant students in the 4-year
graduation cohort dropped out during 2014-15!
2014-15 Drop-out Rates
80
State Drop-out Rates
Years
Performance
Target
Non-
Migrant
Students
Non-PFS
Migrant
Students
PFS
Migrant
Students
All
Migrant
Students
2014-15 N/A 5.0% 0.0% N/A* 0.0%
Progress toward the Minnesota
MEP Measurable Program
Outcomes (MPOs)
81
By the end of the 2015 summer migrant program,
90% of summer sites will implement standards-
based reading curriculum and instructional
strategies appropriately as measured by a rating of
“Succeeding” or “Exceeding” on the FSI.
MPO Met? YES – 100% of the 10 summer sites
rated themselves on the FSI as succeeding (40%)
or exceeding (60%)
MPO 1.1 - Reading
82
By the end of the 2015 summer migrant program,
75% of migrant students receiving standards-
based reading instruction will improve their scores
on curriculum-based reading assessments by 5%.
MPO Met? YES – 78% of the 301 students
assessed had a 5% gain between pre/post-testing
-- 74% of the 119 PFS students
-- 81% of the 182 non-PFS students
MPO 1.2 - Reading
83
Reading Results by Site
84
Project
# Students With
Pre/Post Scores
# (%) Students Gaining
# (%) Students
Gaining by 5% or more
MPO Met?
BBE 18 14 (78%) 14 (78%) Yes Bird Island 44 44 (100%) 43 (98%) Yes Breckenridge 37 31 (84%) 31 (84%) Yes GSL 40 39 (98%) 36 (90%) Yes Moorhead 20 20 (100%) 16 (80%) Yes Owatonna 17 16 (94%) 14 (82%) Yes Rochester 46 44 (96%) 42 (91%) Yes Sleepy Eye 44 34 (77%) 26 (59%) No TCU 35 22 (63%) 19 (54%) No
Willmar did not submit reading post-test scores
By the end of the 2015 summer migrant program,
90% of summer sites will implement standards-
based math curriculum and instructional strategies
appropriately as measured by a rating of
“Succeeding” or “Exceeding” on the FSI.
MPO Met? YES – 90% of the 10 summer sites rated
themselves on the FSI as succeeding (30%) or
exceeding (60%). One site (10%) rated themselves
as developing.
MPO 2.1 - Math
85
By the end of the 2015 summer migrant program,
75% of migrant students receiving standards-
based math instruction will improve their scores
on curriculum-based math assessments by 5%.
MPO Met? NO – 69% of the 312 students assessed
had a 5% gain between pre/post-testing
-- 74% of the 118 PFS students
-- 66% of the 194 non-PFS students
MPO 2.2 - Math
86
Math Results by Site
87
Project
# Students With
Pre/Post Scores
# (%) Students Gaining
# (%) Students
Gaining by 5% or more
MPO Met?
BBE 18 18 (100%) 17 (94%) Yes Bird Island 45 43 (96%) 39 (87%) Yes Breckenridge 35 34 (97%) 34 (97%) Yes GSL 36 28 (78%) 24 (67%) No Moorhead 23 20 (65%) 20 (65%) No Owatonna 2 1 (50%) 1 (50%) No Rochester 54 54 (100%) 45 (83%) Yes Sleepy Eye 43 30 (70%) 28 (65%) No TCU 38 24 (63%) 11 (29%) No Willmar 18 6 (33%) 1 (6%) No
By the end of the 2015 summer migrant program,
90% of parents/family members who participate in
at least one parent activity will show an average
gain of 0.5 on a pre/post self-assessment on a 4-
point scale.
MPO Met? YES – 91% of the 119 parents
responding reporting increased knowledge of
content/topics presented at parent activities
6 sites submitted Form 1: Bird Island, Breckenridge,
Moorhead, Rochester, Sleepy Eye, TCU
MPO 3.1 – Support Services
88
By the end of the 2015 summer migrant program,
90% of migrant students and OSY completing a
survey will report satisfaction with the non-
instructional services provided through the MEP.
MPO Met? YES – 98% of the 318 migrant students
in grades K-11 responding (no OSY responding)
reported satisfaction (99% of elementary students,
93% of secondary students)
9 sites submitted Form 3 [Elementary Student Survey]
7 sites submitted Form 4 [Secondary Student Survey]
MPO 3.2 – Support Services
89
By the end of the 2015 summer migrant program,
75% of eligible prekindergarten-aged migrant
children will be placed in early childhood
programs and/or receive early childhood services.
MPO Met? YES – 88% of the 174 prekindergarten-
aged migrant children were placed in ECE
programs or received services
MPO 3.3 – Support Services
90
Pre-K Migrant Students Placed in ECE
Programs or Receiving ECE Services
91
MEP Site
#
Eligible Pre-K
# (%) Placed
or Served
MPO
Met?
BBE 16 15 (94%) Yes
Bird Island 33 30 (91%) Yes
Breckenridge 16 13 (81%) Yes
Glencoe-Silver Lake 13 11 (85%) Yes
Moorhead 5 3 (60%) No
Owatonna 18 16 (89%) Yes
Rochester 24 22 (92%) Yes
Sleepy Eye 21 17 (81%) Yes
TCU 18 16 (89%) Yes
Willmar 10 10 (100%) Yes
Total 174 153 (88%) Yes
By the end of the 2015 summer migrant program,
80% of staff participating in professional
development will report positive growth in their
ability to support migrant students.
MPO Met? YES – 97% of the 95 MEP staff
responding reported that MEP PD helped them
improve their skills (24% very much, 25% a lot,
22% somewhat, 9% a little)
All 10 sites submitted Form 2 [MEP Staff Survey]
MPO 3.4 – Support Services
92
MEP Staff Ratings of the Impact of MEP
Professional Development by Site
93
Working with and providing instruction to
migrant students
Connecting with and establishing relationships
with migrant students as a result of increased
understanding of student needs and the effects
of migrancy
Implementing strategies for teaching migrant
English learners
Completing the reporting requirements of the
MEP
Staff reported that they applied their
learning from PD by:
94
By the end of the 2015 summer migrant program,
80% of in-school secondary-aged migrant students
in grade 7-12 who attend an MEP summer program
for 5 days or more will obtain hours or credits that
count toward high school graduation
requirements.
MPO Met? YES – 100% of the 100 students
receiving instruction obtained hours or credits
toward graduation (76% obtained hours /
24% obtained credits)
MPO 4.1 –
Graduation/Services to OSY
95
Secondary
Courses
Completed
by Migrant
Students
96
Course(s)
Enrolled
Grade
Level
Credits
Earned
Avg
Grade
Algebra I 8 1 87%
American Government 11 1 75%
Biology A 10 1 82%
Biology B 10 1 82%
English 1A 9 3 80%
English 1B 9 3 80%
English 3B 11 1 83%
Geometry A 10 1 81%
Health 8 & 9 7 85%
Physics 11 1 87%
Spanish 1A 9 5 86%
Spanish 1B 9 5 81%
Spanish 2A 10 1 96%
Spanish 3A 10 2 77%
Spanish 3B 10 1 77%
US History B 10 1 70%
World History A 10 3 84%
Total 38 82%
By the end of the 2015 summer migrant program,
25% of OSY that receive instructional services will
demonstrate an average gain of 20% on SOSOSY
pre/post assessments or earn credits/hours.
MPO Met? YES – 100% of the 9 OSY receiving
instructional services obtained hours toward
secondary credit (no OSY took SOSOSY pre/post
assessments)
MPO 4.2 –
Graduation/Services to OSY
97
9 of the 10 MPOs (90%) were met!!
There are substantial gaps in scores between
migrant students and non-migrant students on
MCA reading and math assessments
Across the State, 15 of the 17 Strategies (88%)
were implemented at a “proficient” level (the two
that were not addressed parent activities & services to OSY)
Parents reported that parent activities helped
them increase their knowledge and skills
Staff reported that PD helped them improve their
skills for serving migrant students
In summary…
98
Staff Comments on the
Staff Survey
Application of
professional
development
Impact of the MEP
on students
Student success
stories
99
Improved reading and math skills, English
language skills, self-confidence, and social skills
Students prepared for the upcoming school year
Opportunities to visit places in the community
that students might not have otherwise
Enrichment activities that expanded student
awareness and improved skills
Opportunities for credit accrual and Texas-based
testing for secondary students
Impact on Students as
Reported by Staff (Trends)
100
Staff Suggestions
Staff suggestions
for local projects
and the statewide
MEP
Suggestions are
separated by site to
be useful to
Coordinators (will
be sorted by topic
for the report)
101
Suggestions Applicable to the
Statewide MEP
More staff to attend the
Summer Kick-off training
in May
More information on
STAAR testing
Better communication
with TMIP
Spread awareness of the
MEP in local communities
Translate forms into other
languages
Provide networking
opportunities for MEP
staff across the state
More user-friendly
MMERC website and
ordering
Increased communication
between recruiters and
MEP Coordinators/staff
Continue to refine and
reduce paperwork
102
Questions/comments/
feedback about the data/
results or the data collection
forms/processes?
103
The Evaluation Planning Team will meet in
January to review the 2016 evaluation plan,
MPOs, and data collection instruments/
processes based on the results from 2015
evaluation.
If you have any specific suggestions, please
email Cari.
Indepth training on the 2016 evaluation reporting
requirements will be provided at the Summer
Kick-off Training on May 18, 2016
What’s next?
104
Thank you for all your efforts with the evaluation ensuring that we
have our “ducks in a row”!!!
105
10
6
Questions/comments/
feedback?
Summer 2015 Program Presentations
107
1. Sleepy Eye
2. Owatonna
3. Breckenridge
4. Bird Island
108
What did your project do to
increase parent participation in
parent activities this summer?
What services/strategies were
effective for supporting migrant
English learners?
What are your suggestions for
providing statewide/regional
trainings to your summer staff (e.g.
location, timeframe)?
What services/strategies did your
project implement that helped
make the summer program feel
different than the regular school
year?
What tips can you share for
retaining dynamic staff that keep
them coming back summer after
summer?
Do you have any innovative
ideas for secondary
students/OSY that would
increase their participation during
the summer?
• Will look very similar with
slight changes made if needed (based on decisions made during the
Evaluation Planning Team Meeting in
January)
• Applications available: 1/29/16
• Applications due: 2/29/16
• Award notification: 4/1/16
• Kick-off Meeting: 5/18/16
2016 Summer Application
109
Migrant Education Program
Summer 2016
Kick off Training
Wednesday, May 18, 2016
9:00-4:00 pm
Resource, Training & Solutions
137 23rd Street South
Sartell, MN 56377
110
AmericInn Lodge and Suites
119 Lesauk Drive
Sartell MN 56377
(320) 259-0877
www.americinn.com
Mention you are with Resource Training and
Solutions and get a discount!
Kick-off Meeting Lodging Option
111
• Back to back with Kick off Meeting, either
– Tuesday, May 17 or Thursday, May 19
OR
• Wednesday, June 7 or
• Thursday, June 8 or
• Friday, June 9
OR
• 2 regional trainings hosted at a local MEP site
Statewide Training
What Works Best for Your Staff?
112
Did we meet our goals for today?
1) Debrief summer 2015
2) Review summer 2015 data and evaluation
results
3) Network and share ideas among colleagues
4) Learn about the Sheridan Story and Kids in
Need Foundation
5) Discuss timelines and deliverables for 2016
113
Deadline for submitting requests for Mexican
teachers: November 19, 2015
Applications available: January 29, 2016
Applications due: February 29, 2016
Award notification: April 1, 2016
Summer Kick-off Meeting: May 18, 2016
Statewide MEP Staff Training: TBD
Follow-up? Questions?
Wrap-up, Follow-up
114
Please complete the
meeting evaluation
That’s all folks…
115
Contact Noemí Treviño at:
(651) 582-8233
Safe travels home!
116