Skip to content
Printer-friendly version

Migrant Education Summer-Intersession

Frequently Asked Questions for the Migrant Education Summer-Intersession for fiscal year 2009-10.
1.  What is the purpose of the Category 2 child count?

According to the Title I, Part C Education of Migratory Children, Draft Non-Regulatory, the “Category 2 child count is an unduplicated count of migrant children who were served for one or more days in Migrant Education Program (MEP) - funded summer or intersession programs in the State during a 12-month period.” The Category 2 child counts are used to calculate funding for each state and by the California Department of Education (CDE), for each grantee.

2.  What is the intent of summer/intersession funding?

Summer and intersession program funding is intended to support the unique educational needs of migrant children and the additional costs associated with operating these programs. Programs should be designed not only to serve as many migrant students as possible, but also to make good use of funds by employing creativity and collaboration with other funding sources and to offer the best possible programs for the longest possible time.

3.  Are summer services required?

Yes. The California Education Code (EC) states:

Section 54444.3(a): Each operating agency receiving Title I Migrant Education funding shall conduct summer school programs for eligible migrant children in kindergarten and grades 1 to 12, inclusive. The summer school programs shall respond to the individual needs of participating pupils and shall build on and be consistent with the instructional programs offered to these pupils during the regular school year. Each summer school program shall be funded, to the extent that funds are available, by federal funds earmarked for migrant education programs . . .
4. What is considered a “service” for Category 2 funding purposes?

"Services" are those educational or educationally related activities that: (1) directly benefit a migrant child; (2) address a need of a migrant child consistent with the state education agency’s (SEA) comprehensive needs assessment and service delivery plan; (3) are grounded in scientifically based research or, in the case of support services, are generally accepted practice; and (4) are designed to enable the program to meet its measurable outcomes and contribute to the achievement of the State’s performance targets.1

The best examples of MEP-funded summer/intersession service are those that are instructional by their very nature. This includes, in particular, full-fledged on-site summer school programs meeting 5 days a week over several weeks for all or part of the day. The services may be entirely MEP-funded. However, they can also be offered in collaboration and be supplemental to the school district or other community organizations such as the public library, Boys and Girls Club, Young Men's Christian Association (YMCA), etc. As long as MEP pays for part of the overall program, the entire project qualifies.

Example 1: The Reading is Fundamental (RIF) program pays for the books, but MEP operates the distribution and ongoing academic activities related to reading.

Example 2:  The student goes to district summer school, but MEP pays for transportation. Close-Up, Outdoor Education, Portable Assistance Study Sequence (PASS), Work Study and Computer Camp are examples of instructional services frequently offered during summer or intersession.

5.  Do non-instructional services qualify for Category 2 funding?

Yes. A non-instructional service may qualify for summer funding if its purpose is to improve or support education. The non-instructional service must intend to facilitate a student’s return to school and/or improve attendance, learning or school performance. Guidance and counseling, social work outreach, health, nutrition, pupil transportation, leadership and self-esteem projects and any other supportive service programs that will decrease obstacles to reaching academic goals may be included as qualifying services. For example, a summer program might provide vision, dental screenings and treatment to a group of migrant students who were not present when required health screening occurred.

6. Does “advocacy” (resulting in access to a non-MEP funded summer/intercession service) constitute a “service” for Category 2 funding purposes?

Only in very exceptional cases. The advocacy activity must take place during the summer or intersession term, and the Local Education Agency (LEA) must demonstrate on-going sustained activities that directly benefit the student.

7.  Do summer instructional packets constitute a “service” for Category 2 funding purposes?

There may be situations in which a LEA provides instructional packets as part of a set of activities that constitute a service. This type of program should meet the four following criteria: (1) directly benefit a migrant child; (2) address a need of a migrant child consistent with the SEA’s comprehensive needs assessment and service delivery plan; (3) are grounded in scientifically based research or, in the case of support services, are generally accepted practice; and (4) are designed to enable the program to meet its measurable outcomes and contribute to the achievement of the State’s performance targets.

8.  Is there a prescribed curriculum for summer instructional packets?

No. However, the content of a summer instructional packet should consider the following factors or content elements. The summer instructional packets should:

9.  What documentation is required for Category 2 funding purposes?

All backup documentation must be maintained in paper and/or electronic files. For all summer and intersession programs the following must be documented:

If the program was for a very short duration (less than three days) and non-instructional, the MEP must be able to document the amount of MEP time, money, or resources that went into the delivery of services to migrant students.

10. What MEP services do not constitute a “service” for Category 2 funding purposes?

Activities related to identification and recruitment, needs assessment, parental involvement, program evaluation, professional development, or administration of the program are examples of activities that, while allowable, are not considered services and cannot be counted for MEP summer (A2) funding. Also, the one time act of providing instructional packets to migrant children does not meet the definition of providing a summer service since this does not meet the criteria identified listed in question seven.

11. Must districts provide facilities?

Yes. California Education Code states:

Section 54444.3. (b): Each school district, county office of education, and community college district shall, upon request, make facilities available at cost for the operation of migrant summer school programs whenever they are available. Where available, these facilities shall be suitable for the summer climate. Thesuperintendent may allow neighboring districts to jointly offer facilities if he or she determines that the use of one district's facilities for an area will adequately meet the needs of the migrant summer school program for the entire area.

If the Superintendent of Public Instruction determines that requests from prospective users of these facilities were denied without just cause, the superintendent shall reduce the district's or county superintendent's entitlement from Section A of the State School Fund by an amount equal to one thousand dollars ($1,000) or four times the costs to the prospective user for alternative facilities for the entire period for which the facilities were requested, whichever is greater.

12. Can transportation be multi-funded?

Yes. As long as the supplement/not supplant rule is followed.

Example 1: If the district has established bus routes and there are migrant children living in a remote camp, the MEP could pay the additional miles to and from the established bus route to the camp to enable children living in this camp to attend summer school.

Example 2: A district does not provide transportation for summer school. Migrant children live in a remote neighborhood, outside of the established walking distance to the school. The MEP may fund transportation costs to enable migrant children to attend summer school.


1 Francisco Garcia, United States Department of Education, “Memorandum to State Directors of Migrant Education”, memo, August 2006.

Questions:   Migrant, Indian, and International Education Office |916-319-0851
Download Free Readers