Judy Center Evaluation, July 2004-June 2005

eQuotient, Inc. 803 Trost Avenue Cumberland, MD 21502 http://www.equotient.net e-mail: equinfo@equotient.net July 31, 2005

Page

Table of Contents
• • •

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .i

List of tables, figures, and appendices ..........................................ii 1.0 2.0 Review of Last Year’s Results...............................................1 Characteristics and Delivery of This Year’s Training ..............................................................2 Enrollment, Training, and Validation ................................11 Partner Surveys....................................................................14 Teacher Surveys ...................................................................17 Parent Surveys .....................................................................21 Child Readiness....................................................................37 Special Research Questions ................................................50 Changes Introduced.............................................................51

• • • • • • • • •

3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0

10.0 Summary and Conclusions .................................................53 Appendices.....................................................................................55

Page i

Page

List of Tables
Table 2.1 Implementation plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-8 Table 2.2 Evaluation questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 Table 2.3 Special research questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 Table 3.1 Enrollment of children by age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 Table 4.1 Activity levels of partners, percentage of partners . . . . . . . . . . .14 Table 4.2 Collaboration success, percentage of partners agreeing . . . . . . .15 Table 4.3 Goal success, percentage of partners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 Table 4.4 Partner satisfaction with Judy Center, percentage of partners . . . . . .16 Table 5.1 Years teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 Table 5.2 Teacher satisfaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 Table 5.3 Performance area ratings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19 Table 5.4 Feeling of families served by Judy Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 Table 6.1 Respondent characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22-23 Table 6.2 Programs used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24-25 Table 6.3 Learning/reading materials at home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26 Table 6.4 Activities with children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26 Table 6.5 Program interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27 Table 6.6 Satisfaction with Judy Center Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28 Table 6.7 Satisfaction with Judy Center in performance areas . . . . . . .29-30 Table 6.8 Parent participation in Judy Center activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32 Table 6.9 Parent rating of Judy Center parent activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33 Table 6.10 Reason for not attending parent activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34 Table 6.11 Improvement in child learning and habits because of the Judy Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34 Table 6.12 Learning/reading materials at home before and after Judy Center, percentage of parents . . . . . . . . . .35 Table 6.13 Activities with children, percentage of parents who did ‘frequently’ before and after Judy Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36

Page ii

Page

List of Figures
Figure 2.1 Figure 3.1 Figure 3.2 Figure 6.1 Figure 6.2 Figure 6.3 Figure 7.1 Figure 7.2 Figure 7.3 Figure 7.4 Figure 7.5 Figure 7.6 Website page visits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Enrollment by race . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 Child daycare attendance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 Parent satisfaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28 Top 10 performance areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30 Bottom 10 performance areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31 Kindergarten readiness by domain, 2004-05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38 Kindergarten readiness by domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39 FARMS readiness by domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40 Special Education readiness by domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41 Kindergarten readiness, Judy Center, County, and State . . . . .42 Kindergarten readiness by domain, Judy Center, County, and State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43 Figure 7.7 Period 4 FARMS readiness by domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44 Figure 7.8 Period 4 Special Education readiness by domain . . . . . . . . . . .45 Figure 7.9 Pre-Kindergarten readiness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46 Figure 7.10 Head Start observation study results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47 Figure 7.11 4th grade MSA proficiency levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48 Figure 7.12 3rd grade MSA proficiency levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49

Appendices
A.1 Partner Survey Instrument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55 A.2 Partner Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57 A.3 Pre-K/Kindergarten Staff Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61 A.4 First-Grade Staff Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63 A.5 Fall Parent Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65 A.6 Spring Parent Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67 A.7 Fall Parent Survey Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69 A.8 Spring Parent Survey Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73

Page iii

1.0 Review of Third Year of Program
The Beall Elementary Judy Center’s third year continued the model built during the 2000-2002 period which included pre-k (multi-age and 4-year old), kindergarten classes and on-site services delivered by a variety of local partners. Several new programs were introduced to improve child readiness for certain categories of students (special needs and FARMS) that showed achievement gaps in previous years (eQuotient, Inc. 2004). The year saw curriculum improvements, two new partners, new training activities, new family activities, and further refinement of evaluation efforts. New initiatives included an additional multi-age class, a new private provider of daycare services (Kids Korner), staff training efforts that included the Ruby Payne Framework for Understanding Poverty, new partners (e.g., YMCA Parent Power program), and expanded parental and family after school activities. These characteristics are described further in the third year evaluation report (eQuotient, Inc. 2004). The following findings from the third year report are notable: • A greater share of children with educational need were admitted to the Center during the year than the previous year. Moreover, program data show that special education referrals continued to decline. The goals and objectives listed in the grant application were met. Kindergarten students attained the readiness level milestones for the targeted domains. The overall goal was assisted by the performance of subcategories of students (FARMS and Special Needs) who achieved readiness level milestones for the same targeted domains. Parent, partner, and teacher surveys continue to show a strong level of satisfaction with the Judy Center. In addition, parents recognized sizeable improvements in child learning and development during the year. A before/after study of parental responses shows that family learning resources at home and family activities were strengthened during the year. The Judy Center ratcheted up its family programming by offering a variety of parent training and education opportunities, distributing free reading resources for families, and expanding the family reading night program. Marketing of these offerings was improved also. The Judy Center contracted with a private child care provider called Kids Korner Childcare Center to offer child care services on site during the year. Enrollment in this new Center increased. Also, the YMCA began to offer a program for parents and children called Parent Power for the full year on site. This was funded through an Adolescent Family Life Demonstration Project (AFL) grant provided by the Department of Health and Human Services to promote abstinence. Judy Center staff and partners received professional development in working with children from low-income families by participating in a Ruby Payne workshop on “Understanding Poverty.”

Page 1

2.0 Characteristics and Delivery of the Fourth Year
In year four, the Judy Center introduced several new initiatives to improve the effectiveness of the Center. This new agenda was developed using information obtained from student assessment results,external evaluation, selfevaluation, and stakeholder surveys. As in the third year of the grant, the major focus of the year’s improvements (detailed in Allegany County Board of Education 2004) were pupils who received Free and Reduced Meals (FARMS) and children with special needs. The changes are arranged into the categories Curriculum and Programs, Professional Development, and Family Activities as described further below:

Curriculum and Programs
New Multi-age classroom. A new multi-age classroom was created to serve three and four year old children.

Professional Development
Staff training. Judy Center staff continued to receive professional development in working with children from low-income families by participating in a Ruby Payne workshops and discussions. Revised Curriculum Guide. Training was provided to kindergarten teachers on the revised curriculum guide. MMSR Training. Multiple sessions of training in MMSR were offered to Judy Center staff and partners.

Family Activities
Parent Attendance. The Judy Center attempted to increase participation in its parent workshops/activities. To enhance participation, foods were used as incentives in a manner recommended by the Ruby Payne framework. Food vouchers were offered through the Infant and Toddler program in conjunction with the Food Bank. Also, food was used in a variety of other events such as “Welcome Back to School Night” and “Pre-K/Multiage. Orientation,” “Cooking for the Holidays,” the “School Food Pantry Program,” and “Creative Breakfast.” Family Support Network. Books were distributed to families who participated in evening activities with this program. Also, new parent support groups were created including the: (a) Premature Baby Support Group, (b) Down Syndrome Support Group, and (c) ADHD Support Group.

Page 2

Figure 2.1 Website Page Visits
3000

2500

2000 2003-04 2004-05 1000

1500

500

0
A u ug st p m te be r Oc b to er No m ve be r m ce be r J u an ar y Fe u br ar y M ar ch Ap ril M ay Ju ne Ju ly De

Se

Most features of the program remained basically the same as the third year. For instance, reporting and internal evaluation were carried out in much the same manner as the third year with a designated Steering Board that met on a quarterly basis and regular state meetings of Judy Center staff. Program marketing was similar to the third year, including the use of broadcast, newspaper announcements, website, and print materials. However, there was a marked increase in the number of school and afterschool activities during the year and correspondingly more announcements were distributed. In addition, website page visits increased over the 2003-2004 baseline (see figure 2.1). As will be seen later, these increases moved in tandem with parent participation levels in Judy Center family activities. The parameters for evaluation were spelled out in the proposal and are listed in table 2.1. The ultimate goals of the program are to broadly improve child learning. Intermediate objectives involve particular key curriculum components where focused inputs were anticipated to have the greatest potential impact. Strategies describe programmatic improvements and activities include specific program inputs that were to be expanded in order to realize a particular strategy. The final column briefly describes the achievement of each goal, objective, strategy, and activity. To summarize this table, every goal and objective was realized. However, there was no evidence that one strategy (increase the readiness of FARMS children in the domain of Social and Personal Skills) had achieved the intended result. All but one of the activities (co-teaching in Special Education Prekindergarten) was carried out as outlined in the original continuing grant application.

Page 3

Table 2.1 Implementation Plan Goal
By June 30, 2005, 88% of exiting kindergarten students at the Judy Center will achieve full readiness level in the composite score of the Work Sampling System indicators.

Objective
By June 30, 2005, 80% of exiting kindergarten students at the Judy Center who receive Free and Reduced Meals (FARMS) will achieve full readiness level in the composite score of the Work Sampling System.

Strategy
Increase the readiness level of FARMS children in the domain of Language and Literacy.

Activities

Achievement

1) Implement newly Goal and objective revised kindergarten realized. Readiness curriculum, includ- of children was 92% at end of year. ing use of a core Readiness of reading program FARMS children that is based on was 83%. Strategy Scientific Based Reading Research worked with readi(SBRR)as defined ness in Language and Literacy by Reading First, (2) Include the Judy improving from Center’s prekinder- 67% to 72%. Activities implegarten teacher on mented as follows: the Allegany (1) Core reading County public school’s committee program was implemented, (2) the to revise the prekindergarten cur- Judy Center Coordinator and a riculum to align Pre-K teacher with the MD attended Pre-K curEssential riculum committee Curriculum, (3) Train staff (includ- meetings, (3) staff and partners particiing Judy Center Partners) in work- pated in staff training and discussions, ing with children from low-income (4) Family Reading families by involv- Night was continued and expanded, ing them in profes(5) Utilizing a First sional development Books grant, books based on Ruby and bookshelves Payne’s work on were distributed to “Understanding low income families enrolled in the
Continued on next page

Page 4

Table 2.1 Implementation Plan Goal Objective Strategy Activities

Continued from previous page

Achievement

Poverty.” (4) Healthy Start proContinue the gram which targets Family services to children Reading Night at 3 years of age and the Frostburg books were distribBranch of the uted during Family Allegany County Fun nights, (6) An Library System dur- additional session ing the summer and of multi-age was extend the program provided. thru the school year, (5) Increase the number of books available to children in their homes by: (a) utilizing the First Books grant to provide free books to 30 low-income families for one year, (b) conducting Family Fun Nights with book giveaways, and (c) giving children’s individual bookshelves to families who participate in Judy Center activities. (6) Provide an additional session of multi-age (3-4 yr. olds) to serve 10 children with a focus on language development.
Continued on next page

Page 5

Table 2.1 Implementation Plan Goal
--

Continued from previous page

Objective
--

Strategy
Increase the readiness of FARMS children in the domain of Social and Personal Skills.

Activities
(1) Train staff in working with children from lowincome families by involving them in professional development based on Ruby Payne’s work on “Understanding Poverty.” (2) Provide twice weekly Fresh Start sessions for identified children during the summer of 2004 (3) Continue to incorporate the Second Step Violence Prevention Curriculum into the five-week summer program (4) Increase attendance at evening parent workshops/activities by offering food vouchers as incentives (a Ruby Payne strategy), (5) Provide training in MMSR for all partners, including the new Exemplars for Fall and Spring indicators.

Achievement
Goal and objective realized. Readiness of FARMS children increased. No evidence that readiness improved in Social and Personal skills. Activities implemented as follows: (1) Staff and partners participated in Ruby Payne training and discussions, (2) Fresh Start provide twice weekly sessions for summer 2004, (3) The Second Step Violence Prevention curriculum continued to be utilized during the summer program, (4) Family participation increased in workshop/activities and bags of food were used in conjunction with Food Bank, (5) Several partners (Head Start, Judy Center Teachers, and Kids Korner Staff) participated in MMSR training provided by Apples for Children or the Board of Education.
Continued on next page

Page 6

Table 2.1 Implementation Plan Goal
--

Continued from previous page

Objective
By June 30, 2005, 50% of exiting kindergarten students at the Judy Center who receive special education services will achieve full readiness in the composite score of the Work Sampling System.

Strategy
Increase the readiness level of Special Education children in the domain of Language and Literacy.

Activities

Achievement

(1) Continue to Goal and objective offer a half-day realized. Readiness multi-age class. of Special The target enroll- Education children ment will be chil- was 50% at end of dren who exhibit program. language delays, Readiness for speech or articula- Special Education tion problems, children in and/or limited liter- Language and acy experiences, as Literacy increased well as children to from 0% to 33% serve as good mod- Activities impleels. (2) Link chil- mented as follows: dren from the multi- (1) A half-day age class to other multi-age class was appropriate educa- continued. (2) tional programs to Children from speprovide a full-day cial education of educational pro- multi-age also spent gramming. (3) a half day in regular Refine the imple- Pre-k class, (3) Full mentation of the inclusion for all inclusion model in children with spethe prekindergarten cial needs was program. available. Prekindergarten However, co-teachteacher and the spe- ing was discontincial education ued—the special teacher will be coeducation teacher teachers. (4) served as a resource Continue to utilize person and the the Teacher Assistance Team model (TAT)
Continued on next page

Page 7

Table 2.1 Implementation Plan Goal
--

Continued from previous page

Objective
--

Strategy

Activities
to provide support for teachers of special education students. (5) Apply for a MSDE Discretionary Grant for Special Projects with the goal of involving at-risk prekindergarten and kindergarten students in a speech/language and occupational therapy program(s) to reduce the likelihood that special education services will be needed in the future. The Judy Center has a fully equipped Sensory Integration room that will be utilized to provide these experiences. (6) Provide books for the Family Support Network to distribute to families who participate in their evening activities.

Achievement
classroom teacher provides instruction, (4) The TAT model continued to be used for supporting children identified as being “at risk,”(5) Grant was submitted but not funded. (6) Books were provided to the Family Support Network.

Page 8

In this report, a broader spectrum of measures (see table 2.2) is used to measure program effectiveness. This includes the following elements: (1) program enrollment and attendance (were enrollment and attendance expectations for children and parents achieved?), (2) staff training, curriculum resources, and validation (were necessary staff training, program validation, and curriculum materials available as planned?), (3) partner satisfaction (how did partners rate collaboration success?), (4) teacher satisfaction (how did teachers in Pre-K, Kindergarten, and 1st grade view the Judy Center?), (5) parent satisfaction (how did parents view the Judy Center?), (6) child learning (how much did children learn according to information from pupil progress reports and other assessment data?), (7) Judy Center component standard ratings (how did parents and staff view accomplishment of Judy Center goals), and (8) answers to special research questions posed in the continuation grant proposal (see table 2.3).

Table 2.2 Evaluation questions. Issues
Children enrolled Child attendance Parent involvement Staff professional development Program accreditation Partner satisfaction Teacher satisfaction Parent satisfaction Child readiness Alignment with Judy Center Goals Special research questions

Measurement
# children enrolled in Judy Center programs by area Attendance rates # and type of parent workshops # and type training workshops attended # programs validated Partner Survey Teacher Survey Parent Survey Pupil Progress Reports, Test results Teacher survey, Parent survey Partner comments, other

Page 9

The remainder of the report is divided into seven sections. The next section (3.0) addresses pupil enrollment, family service, training, and validation strategies of the program. Section 4.0 describes the results of a steering board partner survey. Section 5.0 describes the results of an end-of year teacher survey and section 6.0 describes the findings of fall and spring surveys of parents. The fall survey asks mainly questions about parenting practices and family resources for use in designing Judy Center activities during the remainder of the year while the spring survey was designed to provide summative information about the perceived effectiveness of the Judy Center, different strategies, and overall parent satisfaction. Section 7.0 provides information on child learning achievement as revealed by performance on various pupil progress reports and tests using benchmark comparisons. Section 8.0 answers special research questions (see table 2.3) introduced in last year's continuation grant application. Section 9.0 describes changes that are anticipated for next year's Judy Center. The report ends with a summary.

Table 2.3 Special research questions Questions
(1) Are we successfully reaching more of the 0-3 population by adding programs such as Healthy Start as a partner? How do children who have participated in the multi-age program perform in the area of Language and Literacy when they become kindergartners?

(2)

Page 10

3.0 Enrollment, training, and validation
A duplicated headcount of five hundred and thirty-seven (537) students was served by programs housed at the Judy Center. This figure compares to four hundred and forty-nine (449) students served last year, an increase of nearly twenty percent. FY 2005 Judy Center funding leveraged programming that allowed 154 additional children to enroll. The unduplicated distribution of children by age is shown in table 3.1 and distribution by race for Pre-K, Kindergarten, and after-school/before school programs in figure 3.1. Child enrollment racial demographics from available partners showed that minority enrollment was less than half of the service area3.4% of children were minority versus 8.4% reported in the 2000 U.S. Census for Frostburg.

Table 3.1 Enrollment of children by age. 2003-04
Birth to 3 3-year old 4 year old 5 year old Total 43 44 97 50 250

2004-05
61 120 86 58 325

One strategy identified in the FY 2005 grant was to narrow the achievement gap for children who receive free and reduced price meals (FARMS) and for students receiving special education services. Enrollment of targeted groups for pre-kindergarten was improved from approximately 61 percent in need categories (automatic enrollment and priority enrollment) for FY 2003 to approximately 78% in FY 2004 and 80% in FY 2005. Additional resources were directed to screening (with First Step Developmental screenings increasing from 92 to 94 ) and having hearing/vision/height/weight screenings performed for all Judy Center students. Classroom capacity was increased by adding a multi-age class. In an effort to reduce costs and improve quality, the Center contracted with a private day care provider (Kids Korner) in FY 2004. Scholarships to offset some of the costs associated with childcare were offered to eligible families. Enrollment in the center has continued to expand. Total enrollment was 28 in FY 2002, 42 in FY 2003, 55 in FY 2004, and 63 in FY 2005 (see figure 3.2).

Page 11

Figure 3.1 Enrollment by Race

1%

2%

Asian Black White

97%

In an effort to improve parent-child connectedness and reinforce positive behaviors learned in school, the Judy Center continued to upgrade after-school activities and parent workshops/trainings. Family training events included YMCA directed weekly “Parent Power” workshops which involved abstinence and parenting workshops for parents and recreational activities for children (71 families served in 27 sessions) , family reading nights (12 families served in 3 sessions), Infant Massage (6 families served in one session), Effective Discipline (12 families served in 4 sessions), Reading with Child at Home (60 families served in one session). In total, 44 different parent/family sessions were offered by the Judy Center. A duplicated count of two hundred and thirty one attended. This compares to 45 sessions and one hundred and eight families for similar programming in FY 2004, and 13 sessions and 118 families participating in FY 2003. Additional activities were sponsored (such as Spring Fling, Grandparents Day, Pumpkin carving, Easter Hat Day) that attracted several hundred participants. As in previous years activities were announced in the Times-News newspaper, Judy Center flyers and/or calendars distributed to children and parents, and postings to the Judy Center website.

Page 12

Staff development goals outlined in the grant application were achieved. Staff attended Ruby Payne's workshop on “Framework for Understanding Poverty” at the beginning of the school year and in supplemental weekly focus group discussions of the Ruby Payne program during the school year. In addition, staff and partners attended MMSR training. In addition, parent training was provided on the topics of “potty training,” “attack anxiety,” “healthy cooking,” and “effective discipline.” Validation/accreditation for the Judy Center pre-k, kindergarten and multi-age programs was obtained in 2002 for a three-year period from MSDE. The Center is up for re-accreditation and will undergo this process during the next fiscal year. The Head Start program received accreditation from both National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) and MSDE during 2004. The Kids Korner daycare center is working towards obtaining MSDE accreditation for its child care program and expects to receive this accreditation in fall 2005.

Figure 3.2 Child Daycare Attendance
70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005

Page 13

4.0 Partner Surveys
Partner surveys (see Appendix A.1) were administered to the Judy Center partners in spring 2005. The survey instrument was the same one administered in spring 2003 revised and included questions about partners' level of participation in the Judy Center, collaboration success, grant achievement, Center performance on a number of features that align with the Judy Center component standards, and satisfaction with the Judy Center. The first two tables indicate that the Judy Center partners have developed good working relationships that have resulted in good levels of participation. Table 4.1 shows that two of the partners characterized themselves as being very active in the Judy Center while the remaining two partners were “somewhat active.” All four of the partners also rated collaboration success highly (see table 4.2). Partners agreed (see table 4.3) that the Judy Center had become more visible in the community, had adequate resources for its goals, was implementing strategies described in the grant, and was realizing positive results.

Table 4.1 Activity levels of partners, percentage of partners. 2002-03
Very Active Somewhat active Not very Active Inactive 25 75 0 0

2004-05
50 50 0 0

Page 14

Table 4.2 Collaboration success, percentage of partners agreeing. 2002-03
The composition of the Steering Committee members is appropriate for making Judy Center decisions. The Judy Center staff communicated openly and clearly during meetings The Judy Center staff communicated openly and clearly between meetings Member of the Judy Center staff established informal communication networks (e-mail communication, phone calls, etc.) Members of the Judy Center staff have relationships built on trust and mutual respect I understand the goals and objectives of the Judy Center project I understand my roles and responsibilities as a member of this project The Judy Center team has clear and effective decision making procedures. 100 100 87.5 100 87.5 100 100 87.5

2004-05
100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Table 4.3 Goal success, percentage of partners
Community awareness of Judy Center has increased in the past year 100 100

Resources for this project were adequate to meet objectives

100

100

The strategies of this grant have been implemented

100

100

The strategies of this grant are demonstrating positive outcomes

100

100

Page 15

Table 4.4 shows partner satisfaction compared to two years ago. All of the partners expressed that they were “very satisfied” with the Center. Additional written comments are provided in Appendix A.2).

Table 4.4 Partner satisfaction with Judy Center, percentage of partners. 2002-2003
Very Satisfied Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied Somewhat Dissatisfied Not Satisfied at All 75 12.5 12.5 0 0

2004-2005
100 0 0 0 0

Page 16

5.0 Teacher Surveys
Teacher surveys used to obtain feedback from staff in kindergarten/pre-k and first-grade teachers. The two surveys (included in Appendix A.3 and A.4) are the same as used in last year's report. They are broadly similar and ask about teacher background, satisfaction with school resources and staff and parent involvement, Center performance on Judy Center component standards, and overall satisfaction with the Center. Seven teachers in total were surveyed, including four pre-k/kindergarten teachers and three first grade teachers. As table 5.1 shows most teachers have at least five years experience in teaching.

Table 5.1 Years teaching, percentage of teachers.
1-2 3-5 5-10 11-15 16 or more 29 14 14 0 43

Table 5.2 shows that teachers are generally satisfied with resources and cooperation at Beall Elementary. However, one teacher is dissatisfied with his/her class size and three teachers are neutral about the level of parental involvement in education. Table 5.3 show that only two performance areas (i.e., quality of school meals and activities for learning computers) received minimal or inadequate ratings from any teacher.

Page 17

Table 5.2 Teacher satisfaction, percentage of teachers (5=Very Satisfied, 3=Somewhat Satisfied, 1=Not Satisfied) (5)
Quality of classroom equipment Quality of facilities Size of classes Administrative support Professional development opportunities Collaboration with teachers Collaboration with early childhood agencies Level of parental involvement in children’s education 86 57 86 86 71 100 72 14

(4)
14 43 0 14 29 0 14 43

(3)
0 0 0 0 0 0 14 43

(2)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

(1)
0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0

Page 18

Table 5.3 Performance area ratings, percentage of teachers (4=Excellent, 3=Good, 2=Minimal, 1=Inadequate, 0=NA/Don’t Know). (4) (3) (2) (1) (0)
a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j. k. l. m. n. o. p. q. r. s. t. u. v. w. Hours and days of JC operation Child care before or after day Quality of School meals (lunch, breakfast) Family case management Array of child and family support services on site Array of child services for all ages (e.g., infants and toddlers, pre-k, kindergarten) Screening for disabilities Provision of services for children with disabilities Health services (e.g., immunizations, dental assessment, vision/hearing screening) Friendliness/helpfulness of staff and teachers Supervision of children/discipline Materials for learning and play Play activities Activities for learning Art Activities for learning Music Activities for learning Physical education Activities for learninglanguage/reading/writing Activities for learning Nature/science Activities for learning Math Activities for learning Computers Progress reports and follow-up conferences Activities for parents and families (e.g., field trips, picnics) Education programs for families (e.g., parenting workshops, GED classes) Judy Center webpage Food and nutrition assistance (e.g., WIC) Cleanliness and safety of Judy Center Sufficiency of space 100 100 43 29 100 100 57 71 100 100 100 86 86 43 57 39 43 57 43 43 71 86 71 100 43 100 100 71 0 0 29 43 0 0 29 39 0 0 0 14 14 14 0 39 14 0 14 0 14 14 0 0 14 0 0 14 0 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 14 0 29 0 43 0 0 14

x. Information provided by Judy Center about upcoming activities y. z. aa. bb.

Page 19

All teaching staff felt that families served by the Judy Center were “very satisfied” with the Judy Center (see table 5.4). In addition, all three 1st grade teachers indicated that they were very satisfied with the Center and satisfied with the readiness of Judy Center students.

Table 5.4 Feeling of families served by Judy Center, percentage of teachers 2002-03
Very Satisfied Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied Somewhat Dissatisfied Not Satisfied at All Don’t Know 50 50 0 0 0 0

2003-04
62.5 25.0 0 0 0 12.5

2004-05
100 0 0 0 0 0

Page 20

6.0 Parent Surveys
Three parent surveys were administered during the school year. The first survey was given to obtain information on parental preferences for family program topics. The other two surveys were administered for evaluation purposes. The survey instruments were similar to the one's used for last year's report. The fall survey (see Appendix A.5) collected information on family resources and attitudes for use in designing curriculum improvements and outside activities for the school year. The spring survey (see Appendix A.6) collected information on parent satisfaction with various features of the Judy Center, parental assessments of child development during the school year, and information on family resources and attitudes. Since a continued effort was made to improve family services during the year, the pre-tests and post-tests were constructed to make comparisons for pre-test and post-test responses to see if the program had a positive effect on family attitudes and resources. Survey participants were given the option of providing the last four digits of their social security numbers so that pairwise matching of post-test and pre-test responses could be accomplished. As in previous years, there was a drop off in survey participation between the fall and spring (from 66 collected in the fall to 52 In the spring). Sixteen (16) responses were received in the spring from participants in the fall survey so that comparisons could be made over time. Table 6.1 shows the characteristics of Judy Center parent respondents to the fall survey. Sixty-six responses were received. Nearly sixty percent of the responding parents is thirty years or older and ninety-two percent is female. Approximately two out of three work (either full or part-time) and seventy percent are married. Nearly two-thirds has at least some college and three in five are a homeowner. Similar to the previous years, the typical Judy Center survey respondent has a higher socioeconomic level than the average Frostburg city or Allegany County resident (see eQuotient 2003) . Most parents (82%) have only one child enrolled in the Center. Most children are enrolled in pre-k and multiage programs. A growing percentage of children are enrolled in before, during, or after school programs (see Table 6.2). A higher percentage of children has special needs (thirty-two percent compared to twenty-eight percent in 2003-04 and eighteen percent in 2002-03). Among the special needs cited by parents, twelve (12) children had speech difficulties, two (2) were autistic, two had Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), one has Down Syndrome, one has hearing loss, and one has a rare disease.

Page 21

Table 6.1 Respondent Demographics, percentage of parents. Age
15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40+ Total

#
0 12 16 21 11 6 66

%
0 18 24 32 17 9 100

Gender
Male Female 8 92

Employment Status
Employed full-time Employed Part-time Not Employed and seeking job Not Employed and not seeking job Homemaker Other 49 18 3 2 25 3

Marital Status
Married Single Divorced Widowed/Widower 70 18 12 0

Continued on next page

Page 22

Table 6.1 Respondent Demographics, percentage of parents.
Continued from previous page

Educational Level
Some high school High school diploma GED Some College Associates Degree Bachelor’s Degree or higher

#

% 5 29 3 27 14 23

Own or rent home
Own Rent Live with relatives Other 59 35 3 3

Number of children
One Two Three 82 15 3

Special needs
Yes No Don’t know 22 66 2

Page 23

Table 6.2 Programs used, percentage of parents. 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05
Kindergarten 4-year old Pre-K 2-3 year old Pre-K 3-4-5 year old Pre-K 3 & 4 year old Pre-K Head Start Infant and Toddler Before school childcare After school childcare During school childcare School closing childcare Case Management Computer Classes Preschool Special Education Dental Services Partners for Success Family Support Network Frostburg Library Family Nights Preschool Partners Family Literacy (GED) Family Preservation (DSS) Fresh Start WIC Healthy Start (Health Dept) Adult seminars Nurturing Program Dr. Miller's “Breakfast Club” 28 20 7 12 20 13 6 3 5 7 0 1 3 1 2 0 3 30 4 2 42 32 11 10 32? 2 5 10 5 4 1 1 2 1 1 0 7 0 28 3 2 44 35 28 22 13 15 7 10 1 4 6 6 6 4 1 0 0 6 40 3 10 32 39 44 17 2 18 24 9 17 0 3 0 2 3 2 6 0 3 3 39 8 2 -

Continued on next page

Page 24

Table 6.2 Programs used, percentage of parents.

Continued from previous page

2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05
Family Junction YMCA-Family Center YMCA Parent Power English as Second Language Mental Health (Health Dept) Breakfast Lunch Other 0 3 0 0 1 22 26 1 0 0 1 0 26 29 1 6 4 0 3 38 42 1 2 8 42 41 2

Parents were surveyed about the availability of learning support materials in the household and parental participation in learning activities (see table 6.3). All of the parents reported that children's books were available while only slightly fewer (97%) indicated that they had televisions. Seventy-seven percent of households had computers and sixty-eight percent had Internet access. These figures are higher than last year and the year before. This upward trend, in part, may reflect the success of Judy Center efforts in building family learning resources since some of the parents have multiple children who have been schooled at the Center and many children were enrolled in Judy Center programs during previous years (e.g., Infant and Toddlers, Pre-k, multi-age programs, Kindergarten). All parents reported “frequently” praising their children for doing well and nearly all “frequently” sit and talk with their children about their day. Four in five parents reported “frequently” eating a dinner together as a family and reading with their children. Seven out of ten indicated that they “frequently” played with their children. Most “rarely” or “never” went to a library or museum with their children. Parents identified programming of interest for the upcoming year (see table 6.5). Similar to last year, parent-child activities were the most popular (identified by one in four) followed by “educational programs for 3-4-5 year olds” and “parenting classes.” Also identified by a significant number of respondents were programs for children with disabilities.

Page 25

Table 6.3 Learning/reading materials at home, percentage of parents. 2002-032 2003-04 2004-05
Children’s books Magazines for children Adult books Newspapers Television Home computer Computer with Internet access 84 41 63 60 83 61 54 97 54 68 58 93 74 64 100 55 79 67 97 77 68

Table 6.4 Activities with children, percentage of parents. Frequently Sometimes
Read a story Played with toys or played games Praised your child for doing well Visited public library or museum Visited a playground, park, or went on a picnic Eat a meal together as a family Attended an event hosted by a community or religious group Sit and talk to your child about his/her day 82 73 100 8 32 80 42 97 16 24 0 37 61 20 27 3

Rarely
2 3 0 41 8 0 23 0

Never
0 0 0 14 0 0 8 0

NA
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Page 26

Table 6.5 Program interest, #/% of parents. #
GED Childcare Family Preservation MCHIP (children’s health insurance) Educational programs for 3, 4, or 5 year olds Parenting classes Parent/child activities Programs for children with disabilities WIC Head Start Fresh Start Healthy Start Adult Training Seminars 1 4 1 2 8 9 15 8 1 2 1 1 4

%
2 6 2 3 12 14 23 12 2 3 2 2 6

The spring survey received fifty-two responses and the answers are tabulated in tables 6.6-6.9. Table 6.6 and Figure 6.1 show that parent satisfaction with the Judy Center held steady. Satisfaction levels were still lower than the levels achieved at the end of the Center's first year in 2001-2002. But, the ninety-four percent satisfaction rating (combining “very satisfied” and “satisfied”) is higher than the eighty-nine percent state-wide average satisfaction reported for all Maryland Judy Centers (MGT of America, Inc. 2003).

Page 27

Table 6.6 Satisfaction with Judy Center services, percentage of parents. 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05
Very Satisfied Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied Somewhat Dissatisfied Not Satisfied at All Don’t know/Confused or uniformed about the services provided Don’t know/No feeling about the center 79 19 2 0 0 0 0 60.7 36.1 3.3 0 0 0 0 72.7 21.2 6.1 0 0 0 0 75.5 18.9 1.9 1.9 0 0 1.9

Figure 6.1 Parent Satisfaction

Very Satisfied

Satisfied

May-2002
Somewhat Satisfied

May-2003 May-2004 May-2005

Somewhat Dissatisfied

Not Satisfied at All

Don't Know

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Page 28

Table 6.7 shows parent satisfaction with features of the Judy Center that align with the Judy Center Component Standards. Figure 6.2 displays the top 10 rated areas and figure 6.3 shows the bottom 10 rated areas as determined by weighting the responses by the following scale: (4=excellent; 3=good, 2=minimal, 1=inadequate). As in previous years all of the features were rated above 3 (good). The top rated features were “array of child services for all ages” and “hours and days of Judy Center operation.” These features were also rated in the top five last year, but their average ratings improved over the previous year. Also rated highly was “friendliness/helpfulness of staff and teachers” (which was listed second from bottom in 2003-04) and “activities for learning art” which was possibly boosted by the distribution of free arts kits to children.

Table 6.7 Satisfaction with Judy Center in performance areas, percentage of parents (E=Excellent, G=Good, M=Minimal, I=Inadequate, A=Not applicable/Not available) (E)
Hours and days of JC operation Kids Korner Childcare Center Quality of School meals (lunch, breakfast) Family case management Array of child and family support services on site Array of child services for all (e.g., infants and toddlers, pre-k, kindergarten) Screening for disabilities Provision of services for children with disabilities Health services (e.g., immunizations, dental assessment, vision/hearing screening) Friendliness/helpfulness of staff and teachers Supervision of children/discipline Materials for learning and play Play activities Activities for learning Art Activities for learning Music Activities for learning Physical education Activities for learning language/reading/writing Activities for learning Nature/science Activities for learning Math 73 34 48 35 50 76 44 35 51 82 63 65 69 73 69 60 70 58 62

(G)
23 12 38 28 34 18 26 22 39 14 35 35 31 27 29 30 28 34 32

(M)
0 0 10 0 2 2 4 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

(I)
0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

(NA)
4 52 4 35 14 4 26 41 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 10 2 8 6

Continued on next page

Page 29

Table 6.7 Satisfaction with Judy Center in performance areas, percentage of parents (E=Excellent, G=Good, M=Minimal, I=Inadequate, A=Not applicable/Not available)
Continued from previous page

(E)
Activities for learning Computers Progress reports and follow-up conferences Activities for parents and families (e.g., field trips, picnics) Education programs for families (e.g., parenting workshops, GED classes) Information provided by Judy Center about upcoming activities Judy Center webpage Food and nutrition assistance (e.g., WIC) Cleanliness and safety of Judy Center Sufficiency of space 38 60 66 47 72 25 44 68 46

(G)
32 32 28 22 28 19 24 32 48

(M)
4 4 2 4 0 8 0 0 6

(I)
0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

(NA)
26 2 2 27 0 48 32 0 0

Figure 6.2 Top 10 Performance Areas
Array of child services for all ages Hours and days of JC operation Friendliness/helpfulness of staff and teachers Activities for learning Art Information provided by Judy Center about upcoming activities Activities for learning language/reading/writing Activities for learning Music Play activities Cleanliness and safety of Judy Center Activities for learning Math 3.5 3.55 3.6 3.65 3.7 3.75 3.8

Page 30

Figure 6.3 Bottom 10 Performance Areas
Activities for learning Physical education Judy Center webpage Quality of School meals (lunch, breakfast) Sufficiency of space Activities for learning Computers Family case management Progress reports and follow-up conferences Screening for disabilities Array of child and family support services on site Provision of services for children with disabilities 3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6

The lowest rated features were “activities for learning physical education,” “Judy Center webpage,” and “quality of school meals.” As in previous years “sufficiency of space” was also rated low. Although this year's grant focused on children with special needs, “screening for disabilities” and “provision of services for children with disabilities” made the bottom ten. However, both category ratings increased over the previous year. In open-ended comments, several parents also identified a desire for additional family-child activities and parenting classes (see Appendix A.7). Table 6.8 shows that all of the parents read flyers and newsletters which are sent home with the children. Sixtythree percent reported that they “frequently” attend parent-teacher conference, which continued an upward trend from last year. A much higher percentage of parents indicated also that they had attended Judy Center after-school special events or field trips (sixty-four percent at least “sometimes” versus thirty-five percent the previous year). Only one in four parents participated in parent education or workshops during the year.

Page 31

Table 6.9 shows parent ratings of various parent-child activities that were held during the year. Levels of participation in the activities can be determined by computing the percentage of respondents who were able to rate the activities. Overall, activities achieved a much higher level of participation than in 200304. Sixty-three percentage of parents attended Judy Center orientation (Pre-K, Multi-age and/or K orientation) and sixty-one percent participated in the “Reading at Home free book initiative.” A majority of parents also indicated that they went to Easter Hat Decorating Day and Pumpkin Carving Day. The Fall Family Fun Fest, which was carried over from the previous year, saw participation improve from twentynine percent to forty-five percent. On the other, hand the YMCA Parent Power remained unchanged at approximately ten percent. Parent ratings of all these activities ranged from “good” to “excellent.” Table 6.10 indicates that when parents were not able to participate in Judy Center activities, it was generally not because of a lack of interest in the topics, but rather because of work obligations and the time of the scheduled activity. However, these factors were smaller barriers than they were for last year's cohort of parents.

Table 6.8 Parent participation in Judy Center activities, percentage of parents. Frequently Sometimes Rarely
Volunteered at the Judy Center Observed child’s classroom during the day Attended Judy Center afterschool special events oor fild trips Attended parent education meetings or workshops about job skills or parenting? Attended a parent-teacher conference Read a Judy Center flyer/ newsletter 4 16 28 22 48 36 18 22 8

Never
56 14 26

NA
0 0 2

8

12

6

66

8

63 88

16 12

8 0

13 0

0 0

Page 32

Table 6.9 Parent rating of Judy Center parent activities Excellent Good Minimal Inadequate
Creative Breakfast YMCA Parent Power Fall Family Fun Fest Family Summer Reading Night Program @ Library Grandparent's Day Family Movie Night Easter Hat Decorating Day Pumpkin Carving Day Effective Discipline Classes Veteran's Day Program Reading @ Home/Free Book Initiative Cooking Healthy for the Holidays Pre-K, Multi-age and/or K orientation PTO Open House Infant massage class Preemie Babies Support group Down Syndrome Support group ADHD Support group Budget Management Seminar Family Skate Night @ YMCA Shriner's Circus Family Support Network Christmas Party Multi-age Thanksgiving Feast 6 6 21 6 30 10 45 41 6 8 43 12 49 15 4 4 4 2 4 4 29 6 29 13 4 21 8 17 13 8 10 6 10 16 6 12 13 4 4 4 9 6 6 16 6 14 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NA
81 90 56 86 51 77 47 47 88 82 39 82 37 73 92 92 92 89 90 90 55 88 57

Page 33

Table 6.10 Reason for not attending parent activities %
Work schedule Time of activity was not convenient Not interested in topics Lack of transportation Other 48 44 17 6 23

Table 6.11 indicates that parents recognize improvements in most child learning and habits because of the Judy Center. Four in five parents report “much” improvement in counting numbers. Three quarters observed “much” improvement in recognizing letters of the alphabet, vocabulary and speaking and articulation. Two thirds saw improvements in writing and drawing,. Three out of five saw improvement in child hygiene, including washing hands and brushing teeth. These improvements were greater than what were reported by last year's cohort of parents.

Table 6.11 Improvement in child learning and habits because of the Judy Center Much
Counting numbers Recognizing letters of the alphabet Writing Drawing Speaking and articulation Vocabulary Eating nutritious and healthy meals Exercising Washing hands before meals after using toilet Brushing teeth 79 77 69 65 74 76 37 45 61 57

A little
17 15 23 29 18 22 45 47 31 35

Not at All
0 2 2 0 2 0 12 2 2 2

NA
4 6 6 6 6 2 6 6 6 6

Page 34

A before and after study of a cohort of 16 respondents who had replied to both fall and spring surveys was conducted in order to analyze the effect of the Judy Center on family resources and interaction in the home. During the year, the Judy Center redoubled its efforts to improve learning resources and the parenting skills. This is reflected in a much more elaborate list of parent-child activities that were sponsored during the year. Table 6.12 shows changes in learning/reading materials and table 6.13 shows changes in parent-child interaction. Statistically significant changes using a pairwise t-test of means are indicated by asterisks. These results indicate that parents were more likely to have magazines for children at the home and more likely to read a story and visit a playground, park, or go on a picnic after involvement with the Judy Center. These changes are more impressive because parents initially started out with more resources and interaction with children than previous cohorts.

Table 6.12 Learning/reading materials at home before and after Judy Center, percentage of parents. Before
Children’s books Magazines for children Adult books Newspapers Television Home computer Home computer with Internet Access *=.10, **=.05, ***=.01 100 50 88 75 100 100 88

After
100 75** 81 69 100 94 81

Page 35

Table 6.13 Activities with children, percentage of parents who did ‘frequently’ before and after Judy Center Before
Read a story Played with toys or played games Praised your child for doing well Visited public library or museum Visited a playground, park, or went on a picnic Eat a meal together as a family Attended an event hosted by a community or religious group Sit and talk to child about his/her day *=.10, **=.05, ***=.01 81 75 100 6 38 81 44 100

After
100* 81 100 19 63** 88 44 94

Page 36

7.0 Child Readiness
The ACBOE 2004-05 Judy Center Continuation Grant proposal outlined several child development objectives and milestones for FY 2005. They are as follows:

Goal
By June 30, 2005, 88% of exiting kindergarten students at the Judy Center will achieve full readiness level in the composite score of the Work Sampling System indicators.

Objectives
By June 30, 2005, 80% of exiting kindergarten students at the Judy Center who receive Free and Reduced Meals (FARMS) will achieve full readiness level in the composite score of the Work Sampling System. By June 30, 2005, 50% of exiting kindergarten students at the Judy Center who receive special education services will achieve full readiness in the composite score of the Work Sampling System. The data source for these indicators is the Allegany County Board of Education Kindergarten Pupil Progress Report which uses the Work Sampling System (WSS) and is aligned with 30 MMSR indicators that are divided into seven domains (Social and Personal, Language and Literacy, Mathematical Thinking, Scientific Thinking, Social Studies, The Arts, and Physical Development) and that measure pupil readiness with three levels of progress: (3) “Proficient,” (3) “In process,” or (1) “Needs Development.” Individual domain scores are obtained from aggregating domain indicators and a composite score is an aggregation of all 30 MMSR indicators. Three readiness categories are assigned based on the aggregated score: “full” readiness, “approaching” readiness, and “developing” readiness.

Page 37

Figure 7.1 Kindergarten Readiness by Domain, 2004-05

Composite Physical Development The Arts Social Studies Scientific Thinking Mathematical Thinking Language and Literacy Social and Personal 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

All FARM Special Ed.

Beall Elementary Judy Center pupils arrived at school with high readiness levels (see figure 7.1) though FARMS and Special education readiness lagged behind other students. Figure 7.2 shows this year's kindergarten performance compared to the previous three years' classes after the first period. A dramatically higher percentage of pupils was ready after the first period using the composite measure. Moreover, in every domain except social and personal, readiness was the highest of the three year period. Readiness was also higher for FARMS and Special education students than at the beginning of the previous year (See Figure 7.3 and 7.4).

Page 38

Figure 7.2 Kindergarten Readiness by Domain

Composite Physical Development The Arts Social Studies Scientific Thinking Mathematical Thinking Language and Literacy Social and Personal 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05

Page 39

Figure 7.3 FARMS Kindergarten Readiness by Domain

Composite Physical Development The Arts Social Studies Scientific Thinking Mathematical Thinking Language and Literacy Social and Personal 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

2004-05 2003-04

Page 40

Figure 7.4 Special Education Kindergarten Readiness by Domain

Composite Physical Development The Arts

2003-04
Social Studies

2004-05
Scientific Thinking Mathematical Thinking Language and Literacy Social and Personal 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Page 41

Figure 7.5 Kindergarten Readiness Judy Center, County, and State, 2004-05

Beall Elem.

Allegany

Developing Approaching Full

Maryland

0

20

40

60

80

100

Figures 7.5 and 7.6 indicate that Judy Center pupils outperformed their peers in the County and State. After the first progress report (see Figure 7.5) period, ninety-five percent of children was fully prepared compared to sixty-eight percent for Allegany County and fifty-eight percent for the State. No students were categorized as “developing” whereas five percent of the County and six percent for the State were so designated. Among individual domains, Beall Elementary Judy Center pupil readiness levels exceeds the State and County in every area.

Page 42

Figure 7.6 Kindergarten Readiness by Domain, Judy Center, County, and State, 2004-05

Composite Physical Development The Arts Social Studies Scientific Thinking Mathematical Thinking Language and Literacy Social and Personal 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Md Allegany Beall Elem.

Page 43

Pupil progress report results for students who began and ended the year at the Judy Center were also high (the composite score was 92% at the end at the end of the year) and met or exceeded benchmarks established in the grant application. For students who received Free and Reduced Meals (FARMS), overall readiness was 83% at the end of the year (see Figure 7.7). For students who received special education services, readiness was 50% at the end the year (see Figure 7.8). The specific strategies of increasing the readiness level of FARMS children in the domains of Language and Literacy were realized. For FARMS students, readiness improved from 67% to 72%. For Special Education students, it improved from 0% to 33%. However, readiness did not improve in Social and Personal skills for FARMS students. Moreover, scores for students during the 4th grading period generally lagged behind those achieved for students in 2003-04 (see Figures 7.7 and 7.8).

Figure 7.7 Period 4 FARMS Readiness by Domain

Composite Physical Development The Arts Social Studies Scientific Thinking Mathematical Thinking Language and Literacy Social and Personal 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

2003-04 2004-05

Page 44

Figure 7.8 Period 4 FARMS Special Education Readiness by Domain

Composite Physical Development The Arts Social Studies Scientific Thinking Mathematical Thinking Language and Literacy Social and Personal 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

2003-04 2004-05

Page 45

Figure 7.9 shows child performance according to the Pre-kindergarten Progress Report which, like the kindergarten progress report, is based on the WSS. The 1st marking period is based on 24 WSS indicators, the 2nd on 28 indicators, and the 3rd on all 30 indicators. The figure shows how the Pre-K program at the Beall Elementary Judy Center (including both pre-kindergarten and multi-age classes) compares to a County average that includes all six schools that have 4-year and multi-age pre-kindergarten programs (i.e., Beall Elementary, Cash Valley, George's Creek, John Humbird, South Penn, and West Side). The percentage indicator represents the percentage of students who met at least 90% of the key indicators for that marking period. The figure shows that Judy Center pupils readiness was much higher than the remaining County average for the first three periods but lagged slightly by the final period.

Figure 7.9 Pre-Kindergarten Readiness

70 60 50 40

Judy Center
30

Other Allegany Co.
20 10 0 Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Period 4

Page 46

Figure 7.10 Head Start Observation Study Results

Approaching to Learning

Change in Percentage "Consistently"

Change 03
Science

Change 04 Change 05

Language 0 20 40 60 80 100

Figure 7.10 shows changes in the readiness of children enrolled in the Head Start Pre-Kindergarten program during the past three year school years (2002-03, 2003-04, and 2004-05) according to the eight development dimensions. These dimensions include: (1) Language-Listening and Understanding/Speaking and Communicating, (2) Literacy, (3) Mathematics, (4) Science, (5) Creative Arts, (6) Social and Emotional Development, (7) Approaches to Learning, and (8) Physical Health and Development. Three rating categories are used: C-consistently observed (more than 80% of the time), O=Occasionally Observed (between 40% and 79% of the time), and NY=Not yet observed (less than 39% of the time). The figure shows that child progress occurred in each category with an average baseline of 4% in category C versus a final average of 54%. Although entering students exhibited the lowest readiness scores for the three year period (the average baseline indicator was 18% in 2003 and 30% in 2004), pupils experienced the largest net increase in readiness of the three cohorts.

Page 47

Mixed evidence of the effectiveness of the Judy Center is provided by MSA reading and math proficiency levels. The percentage of fourth graders (many of whom were enrolled in kindergarten during 2000-01) that achieved advanced and proficiency levels in reading increased from 67% in 2004 to 87% in 2005 and math from 60 in 2003 and 89 in 2005. These proficiency levels were better than Allegany County and the State (see Figure 7.11). However, the percentage of third graders (many of whom were enrolled in kindergarten during the 2000-01 year) saw little change in proficiency levels (see Figure 7.12). Reading proficiency dropped from 77 percent to 75 percent and mathematics rose from 71.7 percent to 72.2 percent.

Figure 7.11 MSA 4th Grade Proficiency Levels Beall Elementary, Allegany County, and the State

Maryland--Math

Allegany County--Math

Beall Elementary--Math

Maryland--Reading

2004 2005

Allegany County--Reading

Beall Elementary--Reading 0 20 40 60 80 100

Page 48

Figure 7.12 MSA 3rd Grade Proficiency Levels Beall Elementary, Allegany County, and the State

Maryland--Math Allegany County--Math Beall Elementary--Math Maryland--Reading Allegany County--Reading Beall Elementary--Reading 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

2003 2004 2005

Page 49

8.0 Special Research Questions
As part of the 2004-05 Judy Center continuation grant application, the Allegany County Board of Education posed two questions about the procedures and effectiveness of the Center. The questions and answers are arranged as follows: • Are we successfully reaching more of the 0-3 population by adding programs such as Healthy Start as a partner? The Healthy Start program reached 44 families during the year. An estimated 25 percentage of these families were added by including Healthy Start as a partner. • How do children who have participated in the multi-age program perform in the area of Language and Literacy when they become kindergartners? Seven of the thirty seven kindergarten pupils were enrolled in multi-age pre-kindergarten the previous year. Of these seven, forty-three percent (three of the seven) were at fullreadiness in the Language and Literacy domain according to the first progress report. By the end of the year, eighty-six percent (6 of 7) were at full-readiness. All seven were at full readiness according to the composite measure.

Page 50

9.0 Changes Introduced
The Judy Center will introduce several changes over the fiscal year 06 funding cycle. However, the basic model and areas of emphasis on FARMS and Special Education students will continue (details can be found in Allegany County Board of Education 2005) because of the significant gaps in readiness that continue to exist between these subgroups and other children. Major changes include a new focus on scientific thinking readiness. In addition, the Center will begin to examine the influence of gender differences in learning to address gaps in male and female readiness found in this year's MMSR results. Action steps for new programming are arranged into the categories Curriculum and Programs, Professional Development, and Family Activities as described further below.

Curriculum and Programs
New program objective. The Judy Center will add a new objective and strategies to strengthen scientific thinking readiness. Expansion of market area. Beall Elementary will expand its pre-k service area to three entire elementary school districts, including Mt. Savage and Frost Elementary in addition to the home school of Beall Elementary. Staff and program expansion. A half-day multi-age class will be discontinued, but the number of children served will remain the same because these children are being moved to larger classrooms in the remaining two multi-age classes. One pre-k and one kindergarten class will be created. Curriculum development. Judy Center staff will serve on a Allegany County public school committee to begin to revise the pre-k curriculum to align with the MD Voluntary State Curriculum. Science Learning. The Judy Center will provide field trips, hands on activities, exploration centers, new curriculum materials, new instructional activities, and a science book parentchild activity to improve student readiness in scientific thinking. Science Book Parent-Child Activity. The Judy Center will begin a home study program that involves children in the exploration of science through reading.

Page 51

Professional Development
Reading Institute. Judy Center staff and partners will receive training on the pre-k Houghton Mifflin reading core program and the associated assessments created by the author of DIBELS. Science Learning. Judy Center staff will participate in professional development that focuses on instructional delivery to encourage scientific exploration and thinking. Ruby Payne Training. Judy Center staff will continue ongoing training on Ruby Payne's framework for understanding poverty. Emphasis will be on the the use of mental models to improve student cognitive skills.

Family Activities
Parent reading workshops. Staff will provide parent workshops for parents on strategies they can use at home to improve child reading skills. Family Reading Night. This program will be expanded from summer to occur throughout the year. Gender differences discussions. Staff will participate in focus group discussions with partners to examine gender differences in classroom learning experiences. Special needs training. Staff will provide training for parents on strategies they can use to encourage social and personal development of children will special needs including (a) disabilities tolerance parent training, (b) Down's syndrome support group, (c) ADHD support group, and (d) Preemie Babies. Fathers and Families Grant. The Center is partnering with the YMCA to provide monthly activities to involve fathers in their children’s education and lives.

Page 52

10.0 Summary and conclusions
The fourth funding cycle (FY 2005) for the Beall Elementary Judy Center improved service delivery to enhance child readiness in targeted categories of students (FARMS and Special Education) that showed proficiency gaps in previous years. A slightly higher share of children with educational need were admitted to the Center this year than last year. New initiatives included an additional multi-age class, staff training efforts that included the Ruby Payne framework for understanding poverty and the MMSR indicators, and expanded parental and family after school activities. The goal and objectives established in the grant continuation application were met. One activity (co-teaching in Special Education Prekindergarten) was not carried out in the manner described in the grant application. Partner surveys indicate a relatively high degree of participation and cooperation. Staff, and parent surveys continue to show a strong satisfaction with the Beall Elementary Judy Center. Teachers continue to agree that the amount of resources and cooperation available at Beall Elementary were good and that teachers were satisfied with the Judy Center. Parent satisfaction levels remained high in the current survey and are above state Judy Center statewide averages. Parents recognized improvements in child learning and development during the year. A before/after study of parental responses shows that family learning resources at home and family activities were strengthened during the year. Progress report results from the Allegany County Board of Education and HRDC assessment data indicate that child learning and development occurred during the year. School readiness for each of the targeted groups (i.e., students receiving free and reduced school meals, students receiving Special Education services) and exceeded milestones established for the domains of Social and Personal skills and Language and Literacy. As in previous years, moreover, Kindergarten students outperformed County and State peers. HRDC Head Start also showed significant improvement while students enrolled in Judy Center pre-k programs lagged their county counterparts slightly by the final progress report period.

Page 53

REFERENCES
Allegany County Board of Education. 2002. Continuation Grant Application for Judith P. Hoyer Early Child Care and Education Center Grants (Judy Centers). (June 3, 2002) Allegany County Board of Education. 2003. Continuation Grant Application for Judith P. Hoyer Early Child Care and Education Center Grants (Judy Centers). (May 25, 2003) Allegany County Board of Education. 2004. Continuation Grant Application for Judith P. Hoyer Early Child Care and Education Center Grants (Judy Centers). (June 2, 2004) Allegany County Board of Education. 2005. Continuation Grant Application for Judith P. Hoyer Early Child Care and Education Center Grants (Judy Centers). (June ?, 2005) eQuotient, Inc. 2002. Allegany County Judy Center Evaluation: January 2001-June 2002. Cumberland, MD: eQuotient, Inc. eQuotient, Inc. 2003. Allegany County Judy Center Evaluation: July 2002-June 2003. Cumberland, MD: eQuotient, Inc. eQuotient, Inc. 2004. Allegany County Judy Center Evaluation: July 2003-June 2004. Cumberland, MD: eQuotient, Inc. Maryland State Department of Education. 2003. Children Entering School Ready to Learn: School Readiness Information. Baltimore: MSDE. MGT of America, Inc. 2004. Judith P. Hoyer Early Child Care and Education Enhancement Program Evaluation: Final Results Brief. Rephann, Terance. 2001. Technology Literacy Challenge Grant Evaluation. September 2000-August 2001. Cumberland, MD: Allegany College of Maryland. University of Maryland School of Public Affairs and Maryland State Department of Education. 2003. A Guide for Results and Performance Accountability and Evaluation in Judy Center Partnerships. U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Summary File 1.

Page 54

A.1 Partner Survey Instrument

Page 55

A.2 Partner Comments

Page 57

Is there anything that could be done differently regarding the education of children? [I] wish the program could expand to other sites in the jurisdiction to involve all children 0-5! I feel that Judy Center staff make positive and consistent efforts to ensure quality services are provided to the children and families. How do you think children have benefited from the Judy Center grant? Effective collaboration and case management leads to better services being provided to children and families (i.e., duplication in services has decreased due to collaboration). The variety and quality of activities and program available to children and families is topnotch. Academics are important, but the social support provided is of the most benefit. I think many children have been better prepared to enter kindergarten and 1st grade. Also, there are several families we would not be able to serve if it were not for the Judy Center. If you participated in the free monthly food bag program, did you find that it increased family involvement with your program? Yes, as much as can be expected within the first year. The monthly food bag program will continue to enhance family involvement as word spreads and awareness increases. To some degree it certainly helped maintain involvement more consistently with service providers. Do you have any additional comments or suggestions? Excellent program! We greatly enjoy working with the Judy Center.

Page 59

A.3 Pre-K/Kindergarten Staff Survey

Page 61

A.4 First-Grade Staff Survey

Page 63

A.5 Fall Parent Survey

Page 65

A.6 Spring Parent Survey

Page 67

A.7 Fall Parent Survey Comments

Page 69

I would like to see the Judy Center provide Maybe small plays or skits once in a while. Doing a great job! My child is doing great progress and only been in school a short time. More papers to practice letters and number for the children to practice at home. I would like to receive a more detailed report on the activities my child participated in that day, especially as it pertains to his speech and OT sessions. We want to continue working on the same things his teachers are working on when he comes home. Excellent program with very helpful services and kind, caring staff. To continue to provide these services They already provide everything I need. So far a great program that I see. More Judy Centers I would like to thank the Judy Center for providing my child with a good start in her educational journey. She enjoys her classmates and teachers very much. (1) Swimming classes, (2) Lessons on good citizenship, assertiveness, civic consciousness, good behavior My son was in the infants and toddlers program. If the ladies I had contact with at that time are any reflection of the Judy Center as a whole, then I would have nothing but good things to say about the services and people who work there. I think the Judy Center is just fine. Do you have any comments or questions about the Judy Center? I have been pleased with the Judy Center. How often does the Judy Center reevaluate a student's IEP?

Page 71

I think the Judy Center programs have helped my daughter a lot. The Judy Center programs are the best for helping our kids to get an early start in education. You are doing a great job. Keep up the good work. I think the Judy Center is wonderful with a lot of great services. The pre-k and kindergarten opportunities have been invaluable to my children's development. I have seen many great improvements in them. Keep up the great work! This is a very good program. My son is learning so much. Thank you. My son and I love the Judy Center's programs and staff. The Judy Center really is a wonderful program. I think the Judy Center is great -- very helpful and informative. Great job! Everything has exceeded my expectations. Thanks. Just a comment. My daughter really enjoys attending this program. I thank you.

Page 72

A.8 Spring Parent Survey Comments

Page 73

In what ways has the Judy Center helped your child? The Judy Center has helped with her speech Counting, letters. He is talking. Didn't talk at all before. In identifying possible ADHD Writing her name and her manners. Several ways: (1) Made her more assertive, (2) less shy, (3) more articulate, (4) more social, (5) more interesting! Has given my child a head start in learning. Center has helped broaden his interest in science, culture, music, art and geography. Judy Center has provided a positive atmosphere for social interaction. Our child has become better able to communicate his needs and interact with others. He understands what others are saying and can be understood by those he talks to. Learning skills; ability to communicate teaching choices to make. She looks forward to going to school and the day care everyday. The learning tree program has made many improvements with my child such as speech, OT, counting, and many more. She has learned many values and many things that we would not be able to teach her at home because of our jobs. He now knows that learning can be fun. Much more confident of herself and improvement in respect for others and property. Highly recommended program. The Judy Center has helped my child prepare for school. [He] has come a long way and is doing great.

Page 75

1. toilet training. 2. talking a little more coherently. 3. routine schedule. She has gotten to be more social with kids her own age. And she can go places without me. Before I had to be with her all of the time. She does things for herself. My child has become more outgoing and willing to try new things. Without the Judy Center, my child would be sitting in front of the TV without any knowledge of anything else existing. My child would not be able to communicate with me. She has progressed so much in the year and half she has attended. Thank you so much for all your support and help. It has helped out a lot because this is the only school with a program for early intervention program. Help her to adjust to being away from parents. The Judy Center helped potty train my child. Is working with him because of speech problems. They have helped him with his social skills as well as involving him in education. The Judy Center has helped teach my child respect among other things. I have seen my child's social skills improve, interaction with other children, not shy or fearful to try new things and visit new places. Improved letter recognition. My child is interested in so many of the classroom activities. He is so excited each day to explain what they did in class. He shares with other children and eats more solid foods. Making friends, socialization, listening. She can talk much better than before. She knows her alphabet and is even beginning to spell words. Word/letter/sound recognition.

Page 76

Writing his name, saying his ABC's, sharing with others, explaining things he does that day at school, singing. My child has done well with her learning skills, manners and learning to share, taking turns. It got them very excited about reading the free books. I was quite [pleased] at how well Mitchell can read by himself. He has a thorough knowledge about "Poison Center" and "Fire/smoke emergencies." Behavior It has helped her to come out of her shell. The center has helped her to learn to share and play with other kids. Maturity, caring, intelligence, work habits and homework Provided before and after school child care. Child loves math and "math fun night" was a blast!!! He is more verbal, knows more about animals, insects, etc. Not sure yet. To potty train. In what ways has the Judy Center helped you and/or other members of your family? With food Supportive during stressful family issues. They are very easy to call and share information for the benefit of the child. Helped a lot. It made them realize she's not a baby anymore. Judy Center helped my son with social skill, social interaction, which helped me encourage his social development.

Page 77

By helping our son improve his communication skills the Judy Center has helped our family. WIC has helped us greatly and the activities that are available are great. Help me with my grandson and better direction in doing best for him. It has helped me to let her do things for herself instead of doing things for her. Judy Center has given me new ideas on how to keep our family close and stay involved with what my child is learning. When I have a problem or concern I know I can call and get the help I need. Help me with the stress of my children and has shown our family that my kids are just kids not kids with disabilities. Made it possible to have day care for our child. The Judy Center has helped with many personal problems and offered support and understanding. They have informed me of special programs and helped me to get back on my feet. Daycare assistance support. Financially with my child's day care expense. I would not be able to handle the expense if it were not for the Judy Center. Thank you! Kid's Korner staff are just wonderful. We were so pleased with all of the many activities they do with the kids. You can tell the staff members really care for the kids. Afternoon pre-k awesome. Again, they really care and it shows. Gives me support with my child. I know my child is being taken care of by great individuals and that gives me peace of mind! They have helped with financing daycare and with supplies of food. They answer all of our questions and are there when you need them. Thank you! Playing with others.

Page 78

Made me feel good about sending my 4 year old to school. And helps make school a good time for my son so he wants to be there. We moved into the area just last year. Judy Center has helped us integrate into the community rapidly. Now, I'm greeting people on the street, and all of us have lots of friends and acquaintances. It gives my son an education and its free. So I don't have to worry about day care fees. None What activities would you like to see added at the Judy Center for your child and/or family? I would say that you got it all covered. (1) Assertiveness among shy children, (2) "culture" appreciation, (3) how to stand up to school bullies, (4) how to withstand negative peer pressure. Nothing comes to mind. More field trips to closer locales (Idlewild was a bit too far away) and parent/student activities at school. Nothing at this time. Computer--have things on mine that have helped him in learning. A day when the parent can come and volunteer in their child's classroom for a day. Autism support group. Maybe even some training on autism. Things for computers. The school maybe get involved in the NARR program. More info about and programs for autisms. More parenting classes or support groups. Mommy and me playgroup. Note. They have been wonderful.

Page 79

None. More family activities that all the family may enjoy. Continue to have math fun night! Some kind of event highlighting career women in math and science. I think it's close to perfect. More interactive activities involving parent, teacher, and student.

Page 80

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful