There is a family that arrived in Immokalee on June 22, from Mexico. Mom then commutes to Plant City (does not change residences) and begins working in the tomato fields (picking tomatoes) on June 24. The work in the fields only lasted three (3) days. Is this move a short duration move and does it meet all eligibility criteria?

It appears the mother lived in Immokalee and simply commuted to Plant City. The original move from Mexico to Immokalee would not be considered a short duration move since they didn't move out of the residence in Immokalee. An example of a short duration move would be the family resides in Immokalee and then moves (changed residences) to Plant City for less than 10 days and then moves back (changed residences again) to Immokalee. Again, this doesn't seem to be the case here since the worker only commuted to a neighboring area for work.

The information documented in Section III of the COE should state the move was from Mexico to Immokalee, FL on June 22, where the worker engaged in seasonal agricultural employment (picking tomatoes) soon after the move. There should be a comment, however, indicating that the worker commuted to Plant City for the work.

The following elements are required for any/all scenarios sent to the ID&R Office in order to assist with a proper eligibility determination.

• To and from locations and dates (month/day/year) for all moves in question.

• Whether or not the worker engaged in qualifying work soon after for all moves in question - please include the qualifying activity.

• Whether the worker actively sought new qualifying work and has a recent history of moves - please include locations, dates, qualifying activity for each move - make sure are all within 36 months of the eligibility interview date.

• Whether or not all moves in question were qualifying moves (due to economic necessity, from one residence to another, from one school district to another).

• The number of children ages 0-21.

The COE may not be completed in black ink. The COE must be completed legibly in BLUE ink. Use of color ink other than blue, erasable ink, correction fluid (e.g., “White-Out” or “Liquid Paper”) is not acceptable.

• 06/18/22, from Lake City, FL to Grand Rapids, MI. Mom (MQW) engaged in packing peaches.

• 11/10/2022, from Michigan to Mexico, once the season was over, mom and the five children traveled to MX. Mom and the children took this opportunity to visit spouse/dad.

• 04/08/23, from Mexico back to Lake City, FL. Mom has not engaged nor applied and is currently looking for any work and has not found anything.

Please review and advice of the outcome.

Response: Please note that in your scenario the term "traveled" was used when the Migratory Qualifying Worker (MQW) and the children went to Mexico. The MQW and the children left MI when the Qualifying Work (QW) was over. Could the MQW and the children have afforded to stay in MI without the work? They were in Mexico for five months. This is a long period of time to say that the MQW and the children traveled to visit the spouse/dad.

Being that the MQW and the children were in Mexico for five months, we consider that they made a move to Mexico rather than they traveled to make a visit. You stated that the MQW and the children could no longer afford to live in Mexico and made a QM from Mexico to Lake City, FL on 04/08/23. Based on this scenario, Section III should be completed as follows:

• No. 1 - The children moved due to economic necessity from a residence in [City], [State], MX to a residence in Columbia, Lake City, FL, USA.

• No. 2 - The children moved with the worker.

• No. 3 - The QAD is 04/08/18.

• No. 4a - The MQW moved on 06/18/22 due to economic necessity from a residence in Columbia, Lake City, FL, USA to a residence in [County], Grand Rapids, MI, USA and engaged in QW soon after the move.

• No. 5 - The QW is Packing Peaches.

• No. 5a - We need to find out if the employment at the packing house is year-round or seasonal. If year-round, a Temporary Comment (in this case, the worker's statement) that indicates the employment lasted X months.

• No. 5b - Agricultural

• No. 6 - Complete if Temporary is checked in 5a.

• No. 7 - The residency date is 04/08/23.

Please let us know if you have any follow up questions.

If the migratory child (MC) and the migratory qualifying worker made separate qualifying moves, that is the MC moved "to join or precede" the MQW, the recruiter should complete No. 2bi in Section III of the Certificate of Eligibility (COE). Record the date the MC moved and record the date the MQW moved in. In addition, a comment is required if 2bi is checked.

Record an explanation of why the child(ren) and the MQW traveled/moved on different dates in Sec IV: Comments. The comment should include the reason for the child’s and worker’s separate moves. If the worker moved from a different school district than the child(ren), record the name of the school district in which in the worker resided immediately prior to the move.

Residency Verification confirms that the migratory child, whose eligibility has not expired because of age or 36-month limit, continues to reside in Florida and has not made a new qualifying move since the previous Performance Period (PP). Families/youth previously identified as migrant should be contacted annually to determine whether:

• the family/youth has made another qualifying move out of the district and back again since the original COE was completed *, OR

• the family/youth still is residing in the district.

*NOTE – If during the residency verification the district learns that the migratory child has made a new qualifying move, a new COE must be completed. As a Best Practice, districts should make contact with migrant families/youth annually to find out if a new move was made since the previous COE was completed.

REMINDER – The Performance Period is from September 1 to August 31 of each project year. Residency verification must be conducted for each PP in order to verify the migratory child’s continued residence in the district.

The Residency Verification may be conducted using one of the following methods:

1. Face-to-Face or Phone Interview – For non-attenders, in particular, an interview with the parent/guardian/worker may be used to verify that the migrant child/youth who was previously found eligible did reside in the district at least one day the following PP. (Non-attenders may be migrant children, preschool children not enrolled in school and/or out-of-school youth).

2. School attendance – For migrant children enrolled in school, attendance records may be used to confirm that students who were previously found eligible did attend school at least one day of the following PP. (If school attendance is used, the documentation should be accessible at the local level and available for SEA review as needed).

3. Service Logs – Districts may use date-stamped service logs documenting services were provided to verify a migrant child/youth, including non-attenders, who was previously identified did reside in the district at least one day the following PP. (If a service log is used, the documentation should be accessible at the local level and available for SEA review as needed).

REMINDER – Districts must verify every migrant child/youth whose eligibility has not expired because of age, or 36-month limit continues to reside in the district each PP.

We have an individual that traveled from Guatemala to our district in Florida with his child. The individual explained that he has a long history of agricultural work planting corn in Guatemala. The individual and the child arrived in our district on 10/27/18 and the individual actively sought qualifying work.

This is a link to the Eligibility Flowchart that will help us provide a response.

If we follow along with the flowchart, we can say that the individual made a qualifying move from Guatemala to your district in Florida and that he actively sought qualifying work soon after the move; however, we cannot say that he has a recent history of moves for qualifying work. This is because the work has to occur within the United States or its territories.

The Office of Migrant Education provides further guidance on where the qualifying work must occur.

Q. Does the Department consider the 16 territories of the United States a move within the US? If the migratory agricultural worker performed qualifying work in Guam, would that be considered within the United States? The United States currently administers 16 territories as insular areas: American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands.

For purposes of Migrant Education Program (MEP) eligibility, the Department considers qualifying moves to be moves to or within the United States. Similarly, we consider qualifying work to be within the United States. In accordance with the definition of “State” in the general provisions in section 8101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended, this includes each of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the outlying areas: American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, and the United States Virgin Islands.

Since the individual's recent history of work is not within the US (including the District of Columbia and the territories mentioned above), he does not meet the criteria for a migratory qualifying worker. As such, we cannot make an MEP eligibility determination for the child.

Question: Michael and his mom (Anna) reside in Orlando, FL. Michael is 16 years old and still in school. His mom has always worked in housekeeping but was recently laid off. Desperate to secure some type of employment, Anna, and her son move to Wynne, AR on 04/01/18 where Anna works at a sweet potato farm, planting sweet potato. On 09/01/18 Anna finds out there's a new hotel in the Orlando area and she moves back to Orlando on 09/15/22 to apply for the work at the hotel and secure housing. Michael then joins his mom on 10/01/22. You interview the family in Orlando on 11/08/18. Is Michael eligible for the MEP? If so, how can we use 10/01/22 as the "most current" qualifying move for the child? Isn't this a non-qualifying move?

Response: A Qualifying Move is a move that was made due to:

• economic necessity; and

• from one residence to another residence; and

• from one school district to another

As a reminder, both the Migratory Qualifying Worker and the Migratory Child must make a Qualifying Move.

First, we need to determine if there is a Migratory Qualifying Worker (MQW). This would be an individual, who in the preceding 36 months, made a Qualifying Move (QM) and soon after the move, engaged in new temporary or seasonal employment or personal subsistence in agriculture or fishing. According to the scenario above, Anna meets the definition of a MQW on her move to Wynne, AR where she engaged in qualifying work, soon after the move.

Now we need to determine if Michael meets the definition of a Migratory Child (MC). This would be a child who is; (1) younger than 22 years of age; (2) entitled to a free and public education under State law; (3) made a Qualifying Move in the preceding 36 months as, with or to join, or precede a Migratory Qualifying Worker.

In this scenario, we see that Michael did, in fact, make a QM on 10/01/18. This move was made due to economic necessity, from one residence to another, and from one school district to another. Michael also moved to join his parent, Anna, who is a Migratory Qualifying Worker giving Michael the status of a Migratory Child.

We have a family that made a qualifying move from Hillsborough County to Polk County after they lost their housing in Hillsborough. This family had been working in the strawberry fields in Hillsborough, however, there was an interruption in employment (possibly for a couple of weeks). In that time, the family made this subsequent qualifying move to Polk where a short time later they were rehired at the same place they worked at in Hillsborough and they commute from their residence in Polk to Hillsborough.

You asked the following questions, please see our responses added below:

Q1 Does it matter if the family moved to our county and did not “E” or “AS” or “RHM”, but when they moved, they were already working/employed in our neighboring county?

Response: A child is eligible for the FLMEP once they have made a qualifying move (i.e., move due to economic necessity, from one residence to another and from one school district to another) as, with, to-join or precede someone who has been determined a Migratory Qualifying Worker (MQW). The individual does not have to engage, or actively seek work in the current district as long as they have met all the eligibility criteria for a MQW on a previous move. In this particular case, the worker engaged in qualifying work soon after their move to Polk.

Q2 Does it matter if the family move to our county and remained employed with the same employer but there was a break in the QW?

Response: It depends, for purposes of the COE, one must document the from and to locations, not of where they got the job necessarily, but where they moved residences. According to this scenario, the employment ended in Hillsborough and then restarted once the family made the qualifying move to Polk. The individual in this case engaged in new seasonal employment soon after the move to Polk.

The ID&R Office recommends the COE be written as follows:

Section III: #1-3 (information regarding the migratory child(ren)

1: from Hillsborough County to Polk County

2a: with the worker

2b: name of worker is the child's parent/guardian

3: on the date they entered into Polk County

Section III: #4-6 (information regarding the migratory worker)

4: from Hillsborough County to Polk County

4a: engaged in new qualifying work soon after the move

5: laying plastic for strawberries

5a: seasonal

5b: agricultural

Section IV: Comments:

The worker commutes to Hillsborough for work. Work started while the family lived in Hillsborough, the employment was interrupted and restarted once the family moved to Polk.