Migrant Education Program Coordinators' Meeting

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


1) Services Worksheet / Columns 9 - 42

24


1) Services Worksheet / Columns 43-50

25


2) Secondary/OSY Worksheet - Columns A-P

26


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

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

52

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CAcQjRw&url=http://shazzamber.com/lunch-break/&ei=c-ZYVK6IAsboiQK47IGoAQ&bvm=bv.78677474,d.cGE&psig=AFQjCNFgBhv-yXx2aDH3mKt9gq_ZvYQiWA&ust=1415198576535413

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


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

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

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





Mean Ratings of Strategies

71

Support Services





Graduation/Services to OSY





• 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


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


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


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


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


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]


89


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


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


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]


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


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 –


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%


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 –


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


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

http://www.americinn.com/

• 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:

[email protected]

(651) 582-8233

Safe travels home!

116

mailto:[email protected]

Migrant Education Program Coordinators' Meeting

Education

Transcript of Migrant Education Program Coordinators' Meeting