60D Comment Response Summary

Paperwork Reduction Act Submission Supporting Statement

Migrant Student Information Exchange (MSIX) Minimum Data Elements (MDEs)

August 2022

Response to Public Comments

The Department of Education (ED) solicited comments on a proposed revision to Migrant Student Information Exchange (MSIX) Minimum Data Elements (MDEs), an existing information collection, in a notice published in the Federal Register on June 17, 2022 (87 FR 36474). We describe and respond to these comments below. The commenters were broadly appreciative of the efforts made by ED to adjust the information collect. ED received a total of two public comment submissions. Both commenters identified themselves.

Background:

The Migrant Information Exchange (MSIX) is a nationwide electronic records exchange mechanism mandated under Title I, Part C of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). The Migrant Education Program (MEP) is authorized under sections 1301-1309 in Title I, Part C of the ESEA. MSIX and the minimum data elements (MDEs) are authorized under section 1308(b) of the ESEA, as amended. As a condition of receiving a grant of funds under the MEP, each State Educational Agency (SEA) is required to collect, maintain, and submit minimum health and education-related data to MSIX within established time-frames. Regulations CFR 34 § 200.85 for the MSIX issued by the U.S. Department of Education (the Department) have been in effect as of June 9, 2016. MSIX is designed to facilitate timely school enrollment, grade and course placement, accrual of secondary course credits and participation in the MEP for migratory children. The regulations help the Department determine accurate migratory child counts and meet other MEP reporting requirements.

public comments and responses

In response to our invitation in the ICN, the U.S. Department of Education (the Department) received two substantive comments.

1. California’s Minimum Data Element (MDE) Comments

Comments:

California was supportive of the change being made to MDE #9, Sex. California was also supportive of the additions of MDEs 77 and 78 to facilitate reliable interstate communication with the migratory population and to assist with deduplication of student records because there cannot be two email addresses that are the same. California also supported the addition of MDEs 79 and 80 because these two MDEs will streamline the identification and recruitment process for new arrivals to California and it will save the time spent requesting phone numbers from the previous location. In response to the proposed addition on MDE 81, California declared that it does not currently collect this information and did not see the value in doing so.

Response:

The Office of Migrant Education (OME) appreciates California’s support of the change to MDE #9, and the proposed addition of MDEs 77, 78, 79, and 80. OME understands California’s comments on their concerns with the proposed addition of MDE 81. After re-examining the potential use of this proposed MDE, OME agrees with California’s assertion that such an indicator does not add value since these regulations already impose requirements on State education agencies (SEAs) to work with parents or emancipated youth themselves to help them arrange to have private schools provide the applicable MDEs has decided to not move forward with the private school indicator, MDE #81. OME will not add it as an MDE.

2. Oklahoma’s MDE Comments

Comments:

Oklahoma provided a few comments on the existing MDEs. Oklahoma commented on MDE 54 and states that it uses option “0503 - proficiency level” all performance levels and that response option “0498 - normalized standard score” is also used, however not as frequently. Oklahoma also noted in MDE 56 that it uses the categories of advanced, proficient, basic, and below basic for its assessment interpretations. On MDE 75, Graduation/HSE Indicator, Oklahoma declared that the State only has graduation data, and not HSE data.

Response:

OME thanks Oklahoma for these comments. They are helpful and provide further insight into how Oklahoma inputs data into the MSIX system. OME would like to clarify that States are not required to input HSE data if there is no data regarding HSEDs. Additionally, the MDE values already take into account Oklahoma’s comments regarding the options needed to accurately report its assessment scores. OME is pleased that no changes to the MDEs will be required to accommodate Oklahoma’s assessment scoring methods.

1