Judy Center Evaluation

July 2011-June 2012

96 Red Cedar Road Barboursville, VA 22923 e-mail: [email protected]

Terance J. Rephann

Judy Center Evaluation, July 2011-June 2012

Terance J. Rephann 96 Red Cedar Road Barboursville, VA 22923 e-mail: [email protected] July 31, 2012

Page

Table of Contents

List of tables, figures, and appendices ................................................................................ii-iii Executive Summary ............................................................................................................... iv 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 Review of Last Years Results .......................................................................................1 Characteristics and Delivery of This Years Training .....................................................2 Enrollment, Training, and Validation ...........................................................................7 Partner Surveys .........................................................................................................12 Teacher Surveys ........................................................................................................17 Parent Surveys...........................................................................................................20 Child Readiness.........................................................................................................30 Special Research Questions ......................................................................................35 Changes Introduced ..................................................................................................36 Summary and Conclusions ........................................................................................37

References ...........................................................................................................................38 Appendices ..........................................................................................................................40

Page

List of Tables
Table 2.1 Implementation plan..................................................................................................3-4 Table 2.2 Evaluation questions .....................................................................................................5 Table 2.3 Special research questions ............................................................................................6 Table 3.1 Enrollment of children by age .......................................................................................7 Table 3.2 Judy Center enrollment by age and program, 2011-12 ..................................................8 Table 3.3 Kindergarten enrollment by need ..................................................................................9 Table 4.1 Allegany County Judy Center Partners and Roles ....................................................12-13 Table 4.2 Activity level of partners .............................................................................................14 Table 4.3 Collaboration success .................................................................................................14 Table 4.4 Goal success...............................................................................................................15 Table 4.5 Performance area rating ..............................................................................................15 Table 4.6 Partner satisfaction with Judy Center ...........................................................................16 Table 5.1 Years teaching .............................................................................................................17 Table 5.2 Teacher satisfaction .....................................................................................................17 Table 5.3 Performance area ratings .............................................................................................18 Table 5.4 Adequacy of materials at Judy Center ..........................................................................19 Table 5.5 Feeling of families served by Judy Center .....................................................................19 Table 6.1 Respondent characteristics .....................................................................................20-22 Table 6.2 Learning/reading materials at home ............................................................................22 Table 6.3 Activities with children ...............................................................................................23 Table 6.4 Satisfaction with Judy Center Services .........................................................................23 Table 6.5 Satisfaction with Judy Center services by site, percentage of parents, Spring 2012.....................24 Table 6.6 Satisfaction with Judy Center in performance areas, Beall Elementary .........................25 Table 6.7 Satisfaction with Judy Center in performance areas, John Humbird Elementary ...........26 Table 6.8 Satisfaction with Judy Center in performance areas, South Penn Elementary ...............26 Table 6.9 Parent participation in Judy Center activities ...............................................................27 Table 6.10 Improvement in child learning and habits because of the Judy Center ..................28-29 Table 8.1 Correlation between Selected Parent Characteristics and Parental Participation ................35

ii

Page

List of Figures
Figure 3.1 Enrollment by race ......................................................................................................8 Figure 3.2 Child daycare attendance ............................................................................................9 Figure 3.3 Health screenings ......................................................................................................10 Figure 3.4 Family training participation ......................................................................................11 Figure 6.1 Parent satisfaction ......................................................................................................24 Figure 7.1 Composite kindergarten readiness, All, FARMS, and Special Education, 2004-2011 .........30 Figure 7.2 Kindergarten readiness by Domain for All Students, 2004-2011 ................................31 Figure 7.3 Composite full readiness, Judy Center, County, and State 2004-2011 ........................32 Figure 7.4 Kindergarten readiness by domain, All, FARM, and Special Education, 2011 ...................33 Figure 7.5 Kindergarten Scores by Domain for Fall 2010 and Spring 2012 .................................33 Figure 7.6 Third Grade MSA Proficiency, 2011, Maryland, Allegany County, and Judy Center ................34

Appendices
A.1 Fall Parent Survey Comments ...............................................................................................40 A.2 Spring Parent Survey Comments ...........................................................................................44

iii

Executive Summary
During FY 2012, the Allegany County Judy Center entered the second decade of support from the Maryland State Department of Education. During the year, the Center continued its multiyear focus on Beall Elementary and John Humbird Elementary sites and began to expand its reach to a new site at South Penn. The Judy Center implementation plan this year was very similar to the previous year. However, goals and objectives focused on the domains of Social and Emotional Development and Language and Literacy for both schools. Scientific Thinking was not the focus of efforts undertaken during the year. FY 2012 saw most of the programming and activities that were used during the fiscal year 11 funding cycle intact. Several new or expanded activities were introduced, including the expansion of summer camp to seven weeks and the adoption of a behavior hotline at each school. Table 2.1 of this report summarizes progress made in the implementation plan toward the goals, objectives, and milestones in the grant. Activities supporting these goals are also listed. These activities were carried out as described in the plan Child readiness generally improved in FY2012 over FY2011. Beall Elementary students arrived at school with readiness levels similar to the previous two years at 95% while John Humbird Elementary pupils improved from 75 percent readiness to 85 percent readiness. Therefore, the two locations combined improved. However, readiness declined in two areas: mathematical thinking and physical development. Moreover, students who had previous Judy Center experience did not show higher performance on the math portion of the MSA as other students. These results suggest that the area of mathematical thinking should be the focus of additional work since it provides core skills that are needed for academic success later on. Judy Center Beall Elementary and John Humbird pupils combined outperformed their peers in the State and matched the County in terms of overall readiness. Ninety percent of Beall Elementary students with prior Judy Center experience were at full readiness in 2011, which is up from the previous year level of 87 percent. Considerable child learning progress occurred during the 2011-2012 school year. Ninety percent of students entered at full-readiness in the fall and ninety-two exited at full readiness in the spring as measured by the composite score. Progress was charted in every single domain except for the Arts. The results were basically the same by school. Ninety two percent of all Beall Elementary students were fully ready by spring 2012 as measured by the composite score compared to ninety-one percent of John Humbird Elementary students. But, John Humbird Elementary students made up much lost ground since they started at a lower readiness level in the fall (85%). Survey results were very positive as in previous years. Partner surveys indicate a relatively high degree of participation and cooperation. Staff and parent surveys continue to show strong satisfaction. Teachers continue to agree that the amount of resources and cooperation available were good and that teachers were satisfied with the Judy Center. Parents recognized improvements in their childrens learning and development during the year.

iv

1.0 Review of Tenth Year of Program

FY 2011 capped a decade of funding commitment from the Maryland State Department of Education to the Allegany County Judy Center. Over the decade, the Center has expanded in size and scope from a few pre-k classrooms and selected childhood and family services focused on Beall Elementary to multiple sites (at Westernport, John Humbird) and an expanded array of services that addressed each of the Judy Center components in a comprehensive manner for all early childhood age groups, children with special needs, and families. Assessment and evaluation has also increased, with more assessment measures being used that are disaggregated in order to evaluate the progress of different cohorts of students over a longer time period. The tenth year evaluation report described other accomplishments and challenges during the year:
v Progress toward goals and objectives in the Judy Center continuing grant application was good.

The goals and objectives in the social and personal, language and literacy, and scientific learning for Beall Elementary were on target to be met. The goals and objectives for the composite score and language and literacy for John Humbird Elementary were also on target to be met. Milestones were also achieved with one exception: Parent involvement milestones of 100 percent parent involvement in 3 or more activities were unlikely to be met but considerable improvement was observed at John Humbird Elementary with participation rates nearly doubling. The activities were carried out as specified in the original continuing grant application
v The duplicated number of children in Judy Center programs decreased from 387 in FY 2010 to 349

in FY 2011, in part because of reduced WIC counts.

v The number of health screenings increased over the previous year to a record level of 1,272. v WSS results indicate that children with prior pre-k Judy Center experience performed less well

at the start of Kindergarten than the previous year, with 87 percent of Beall students were at full readiness compared to 98 percent the previous year.
v Beall Elementary arrived at school with readiness levels similar to the previous two years while

John Humbird Elementary pupils improved from 66 percent readiness to 75 percent readiness. Therefore, the two locations combined improved somewhat. However, special education student readiness declined to the lowest level over the period 2004-2010. Readiness in each domain also improved with the exception of the arts.
v 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. Generally, parents of John Humbird Elementary students reported greater skill gain than Beall Elementary parents. Skill gains for Beall Elementary students are similar to what was reported in previous Judy Center evaluation reports.
v Family participation in Judy Center after-school activities continued to climb. Parent workshops/

trainings increased from a duplicated headcount of 962 in FY10 to 1,045.

2.0 Characteristics and Delivery of the Eleventh Year

FY 2012 saw the expansion of Judy Center programs into three schools and service delivery indicators increased markedly in nearly every area as a result. The year saw many programming and activities that were used during the last fiscal year funding cycle retained. In addition, the Judy Center continued to improve its curriculum, programming, and activities, including the following:
v A new Judy Center was introduced at the South Penn Elementary School in South

Cumberland in 2012.
v Summer Camp at the Beall Elementary and John Humbird Elementary sites was

expanded from 5 to 7 weeks and the enrollment numbers increased at each site.
v Literacy programs with families were expanded as a result of funding received through a YMCA

Barbara Bush Grant. This included starting a family literacy night at John Humbird Elementary.
v A Behavior Hotline was established at Beall Elementary and John Humbird Elementary sites. v Interact Story Theatre performed in Kindergarten and Pre-K classes to help improve

child interest in reading.

v New parent training topics such as classes on bullying and 7 Habits for Healthy

Families were offered. In addition, the implementation plan was changed to incorporate data reporting on the new South Penn Elementary site. 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 improve child readiness for elementary school. These goals are supported by objectives that target particular learning domains for specific categories of at risk students. Milestones represent particular numerical targets for assessment measures. Activities describe programmatic emphases 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, milestone, and activity. To summarize this table: progress toward goals and objectives in the Judy Center continuing grant application was good. The composite score goals were achieved although objectives in the social and personal, and language and literacy for Beall Elementary were slightly lower than the targets to be met. The goals and objectives for the composite score, language and literacy score and social and development score for John Humbird Elementary are also on target to be met. For both Beall and John Humbird office referrals were lower than the 3% targeted rate. The activities were carried out as specified in the original continuing grant application.

Table 2.1 Implementation Plan

Goal
By the fall of 2012, 90% of all entering students at Beall Elementary who receive FARMS will achieve full readiness level in the area of Social and Emotional Development. 1. By the fall of 2012, 90% of entering kindergarten students at Beall Elementary who receive Free and Reduced Meals will achieve full readiness level in the area of Social and Emotional Development as determined by the WSS indicators. 2. By the fall of 2012, the number of office referrals per month will be less than 3% of the total school population. This data will be collected and monitored monthly. 3. Student attendance will be monitored daily. 1. By the fall of 2012, 90% of entering kindergarten students at Beall Elementary who receive Free and Reduced Meals (FARMS) will achieve full readiness level in the area Language & Literacy as determined by the WSS indicators. 2. By the fall of 2012, 60% of entering kindergarten students at Beall Elementary who receive Free and Reduced Meals will score in the proficient range in the DIBELS assessment. 1. Parent involvement will be measured monthly using a spreadsheet. Our goal is to have every parent attend three parent/child activities during the school year. 2. Parents will be contacted prior to each activity to encourage their participation. 3. Sign-in sheets will be used to track attendance. 4. Parent surveys will direct the activities that we provide.

Objective

Milestone

Achievement
Goal, objective, and milestones are on target to be achieved in fall 2012. 95% of students had achieved full readiness as measured by the composite score in fall 2011. However, only 87% of FARMS students had achieved full readiness level in the area of Social and Emotional Development. Office referrals were 1.4% of the population. Attendance was monitored. All activities were delivered. Goal on target to be achieved in fall 2012. 95% of students had achieved full readiness as measured by the composite score in fall 2011. However, only 82.6% of FARMS students had achieved full readiness level in the area of Language and Literacy. 73% of FARMS students scored in proficient range on DIBELS in spring 2012. All activities were delivered.

By the fall of 2012, entering Kindergarten students at Beall Elementary will have a composite score of 87% as measured by the Work Sampling scores.

By the fall of 2012, entering kindergarten students at Beall Elementary will have a composite score of 87% as measured by the Work Sampling Scores.

By the fall of 2012, 90% of all entering kindergarten students at Beall Elementary who receive FARMS will achieve full readiness level in the area of Language & Literacy.

By the fall of 2012, entering kindergarten students at Beall Elementary will have a composite score of 87% as measured by the Work Sampling Scores. By the fall of 2012, we will see a 10% increase in parent involvement as measured by sign-in sheets during the 2011/2012 school year. As a direct result of the increased parent involvement, a student composite score of 87% will be met as measured by the Work Sampling Scores. We will increase parent involvement by 10% during the 2010/2011 school year.

Goal and objective are on target to be achieved in fall 2012. Milestone of parent participation is not likely to be met. 95% of students had achieved full readiness as measured by the composite score in fall 2010. Parent involvement as measured by sign-in sheets during the 2011-12 school year increased by 35% from 2010-11 levels. All activities were delivered.
Continued on next page

4
Continued from previous page

Table 2.1 Implementation Plan

Goal
By the fall of 2012, 50% of all kindergarten students at John Humbird Elementary who receive FARMS will achieve full readiness in the Language and Literacy Domain as measured by the Work Sampling System Scores. 1. By the fall of 2012, 50% of entering kindergarten students at John Humbird Elementary who receive Free and Reduced Meals (FARMS) will achieve full readiness level in the area Language & Literacy as determined by the WSS indicators. 2. By the fall of 2012, 50% of entering kindergarten students at John Humbird Elementary who receive Free and Reduced Meals will score in the proficient range in the DIBELS assessment. By the fall of 2012, the number of office referrals per month will be less than 3% of the total school population. This data will be collected and monitored monthly.

Objective

Milestone

Achievement
Goal, objective, and milestones are on target to be achieved in fall 2012. 85% of students had achieved full readiness as measured by the composite score. 70.3% of FARMS students had achieved full readiness level in the domain of Language and Literacy. 78% of FARMS students scored in proficient range on DIBELS in fall 2011. Attendance was monitored. All activities were delivered.

By the fall of 2012, entering kindergarten students at John Humbird Elementary will have a composite score of 65% as measured by the Work Sampling System scores.

By the fall of 2012, entering kindergarten students at John Humbird Elementary will have a composite score of 65% as measured by the Work Sampling System scores.

By the fall of 2012, 65% of all entering kindergarten students at John Humbird Elementary who receive FARMS will achieve full readiness in the domain of Social and Emotional Development.

Goal and objective are on target to be achieved in fall 2012. 85% of students had achieved full readiness as measured by the composite score. 83.8% of FARMS students had achieved full readiness level in the domain of Social and Emotional Development. The number of office referrals was 2.6%. Attendance was monitored. All activities were delivered.

In this report, a broader spectrum of measures (see table 2.2) is used to measure program effectiveness. This includes the following elements: (1) marketing and outreach efforts (did the Judy Center meet expectations for program marketing and conduct outreach to other schools in the county?) (2) program enrollment and attendance (were enrollment and attendance expectations for child programs and family activities achieved?), (3) staff training, curriculum resources, and validation (were necessary staff training, program validation, and curriculum materials available as planned?), (4) partner satisfaction (how did partners rate collaboration success?), (5) teacher satisfaction (how did teachers in Pre-K, Kindergarten, and 1st grade view the Judy Center?), (6) parent satisfaction (how did parents view the Judy Center?), (7) child learning (how was school readiness improved according to information from pupil progress reports and other assessment data?), (9) Judy Center component standard ratings (how did parents, staff and partners view accomplishment of Judy Center goals), and (10) answers to special research questions posed in the continuation grant proposal (see table 2.3). Table 2.2 Evaluation questions. Issues Marketing and outreach Children enrolled Parent involvement Staff professional development Program accreditation Student discipline Partner satisfaction Teacher satisfaction Parent satisfaction Child readiness and progress Alignment with Judy Center Goals Special research questions regarding effects of initiatives on social and personal development and language and literacy Measurement Public school outreach activities, Parent survey results # children enrolled in Judy Center programs by area #, type, and level of participation in parent workshops, Parent survey results # and type training workshops attended # programs validated # Referrals and attendance Partner survey results Teacher survey results Parent survey results Summer camp survey MMSR results, DIBELS assessments, MSA scores Teacher survey, Parent survey, MSDE Accreditation and site evaluation comments MMSR results

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 years continuation grant application. Section 9.0 describes changes that are anticipated for next years Judy Center. The report ends with a summary. Table 2.3 Special research questions Question (1) (2) What are the correlates for level of parent participation in Judy Center Activities? Were the strategies and activities to address pupil disciplinary problems successful during the fiscal year?

3.0 Enrollment, training, and validation

Programs housed at the Judy Center during FY 2012 served an unduplicated headcount of 491. The duplicated headcount was 631 compared to a duplicated count of 349 during FY 2011. Much of this growth can be attributed to the expansion of the Judy Center into the South Penn Elementary School in Cumberlands South End. The unduplicated distribution of children by age is shown in table 3.1 and the unduplicated distribution by race for Pre-K, Kindergarten, and after-school/before school programs in figure 3.1. Table 3.2 provides a breakdown of 2011-12 attendance by age and Judy Center Program. 155 pupils were enrolled in Kindergarten programs. Table 3.3 indicates that approximately 77 percent of Beall Elementary and John Humbird kindergarten students participated in the Free and Reduce Price Meals (FARM) program and 15 percent were enrolled in Special Education. Child enrollment racial demographics from available partners showed that minority enrollment was higher than the service area36.0% of children were minority versus 11.8% percent of the total population reported in the 2010 U.S. Census. The Census estimate includes a large minority population in state and federal correctional institutions.

Table 3.1 Unduplicated Enrollment of children by age. 2009-10 Birth to 3 3-year old 4 year old 5 year old Total 78 70 135 115 398 2010-11 51 67 151 120 349 2011-12 101 71 159 160 491

Table 3.2 Judy Center enrollment by age and program, 2011-12 Birth to 3 Infant and Toddlers YMCA Playgroup Kids Korner Daycare Autism Class WIC Head Start Special Education Beall Pre-K John Humbird Pre-K South Penn Pre-K Beall Multi-age Beall Kindergarten John Humbird Kindergarten South Penn Kindergarten South Penn Special Ed Total 101 4 79 169 160 36 42 39 74 63 36 57 29 40 26 6 11 5 15 8 13 5 3 year old 4 year old 5 year old

Figure 3.1 Enrollment by Race

2% 3%

32%

Native American (N=8) Hispanic (N=14) Black (N=158) White (N=309)

63%

Table 3.3 Kindergarten enrollment by need* % Free and Reduced Price Meals English Language Learners Special Education 77 0 15

* Students may participate in more than one program. The Judy Center met or exceeded benchmark or previous year performance levels. Enrollment in the Kids Korner daycare center increased slightly from 87 in FY 2011 to 88 in FY2012 (see Figure 3.2). These totals reflect both Judy Center children and other elementary school age children. The total number of health screenings (1,465) was the highest ever. However, screenings for two categories decreased (i.e., hearing, vision). Office referrals at Beall Elementary and John Humbird Elementary met benchmark levels specified in the implementation plan (i.e., the number of office referrals per month were less than 3% of the total school population). Beall Elementary averaged 407 students throughout the year and office referral totals during the school year were 53 for a monthly average of 1.4%. John Humbird averaged 287 students and office referral totals during the school year were 67 for a monthly average of 2.6%. Therefore, the rates never exceeded 3 percent.

Figure 3.2 Child Daycare Attendance, 2002-2012

140 120 100 Percentage 80 60 40 20 0 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012

Fig. 3.2 Child Daycare Attendance, 2002-2012

Figure 3.3 Health Screenings, 2004-2011 Figure 3.3 Health Screenings, 2004-2011
350 300 # of children 250 200 150 100 50 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Dental Vision Hearing Growth and Nutrition Immunizations Amblyopia Blood Lead Testing Mental Health

Year

In an ongoing effort to improve parent-child connectedness and reinforce positive behaviors learned in school, the Judy Center continued to offer during school and after-school activities and parent workshops/trainings. Family training/workshops and events included a well-attended School Readiness Fair at the Country Club Mall in Cumberland and numerous holiday programs and activities. A record duplicated count of 1,406 attended. This is a 35 percent increase over the previous year record total of 1,045 attendance (see Figure 3.4). As in previous years, activities were announced in the Times-News newspaper, on the radio, in Judy Center monthly newsletters with activity calendars and/or flyers distributed to children and parents.

10

Figure 3.4 Family Training and Activity Participation, FY 2003-FY 2012

Figure 3.4 Family Training and Activity Participation, FY 2003-FY 2012

1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012

Judy Center staff and partners underwent a number of trainings during the year. Newly hired Judy Center staff, Special Education staff and Head Start staff participated in MMSR training. Judy Center, Kindergarten, Special Education and Head Start staff also participated in July in a two-day Special Education training workshop provided by a noted autism specialist, Dr. Paul Livelli. Four kindergarten teachers (all from the new South Penn Elementary site) attended the annual kindergarten conference in Baltimore. The Beall Elementary and John Humbird Judy Center pre-k and kindergarten programs obtained re-accreditation by the MSDE in spring 2009. The Kids Korner daycare center obtained MSDE re-accreditation for its Beall Elementary childcare program in spring 2009 and new accreditation for its Cash Valley site. Head Start was re-accredited in 2010. The MSDE reaccreditation process for pre-k and kindergarten is currently in progress.

11

4.0 Partner Surveys

Partner surveys were administered to the Judy Center partners in spring 2012. These partners are listed in Table 4.1 along with their principal roles in the Judy Center program. Table 4.1 Allegany County Judy Center Partners and Roles Agency/Organization/Department Allegany Co. Public Schools Partners for Success Family Support Network Family Literacy/GED programs Pre-k classrooms Kindergarten classrooms Multiage classrooms Child Find Clinic Preschool Special Education Infants & Toddlers Program Nutritional services (provision of meals) Allegany Co. Health Dept. Nursing Services Dental Screenings Mental Health Dept. Frostburg State University Education Dept. Psychology Department Foreign Language Department
continued on next page

Principal Role(s) Education, Health, and Family Education Services; Case management; Adult Education

Health Screening and Services

Provision of Student Interns for Program Support

12

Table 4.1 Allegany County Judy Center Partners and Roles Agency/Organization/Department HRDC, Inc. Head Start Department of Social Services Family Preservation Program YMCA Family Center

continued from previous page

Principal Role(s) Early Childhood Education

Parenting Education

Child and Family Activities

WIC
Nutrition Apples for Children Md. Cooperative Extension Allegany Co. Public Libraries Kids Korner Childcare Personnel Training Nutrition Training Support Child and Family Literacy Childcare and Family Activities

Lion's
Club
VisionScreenings,School Readiness Fair

The survey instrument was the same as ones administered in previous years and can be found in the Appendix of previous reports (e.g., Rephann 2011). It included questions about partners level of participation in the Judy Center, collaboration success, grant achievement, Center performance on selected features that align with the Judy Center component standards, and satisfaction with the Judy Center. A total of eleven out of eighteen partners sent surveys responded to this years survey. The first two tables indicate that the Judy Center partners continue to maintain good working relationships. Table 4.1 shows that partners reported being somewhat more active than in in the last two years. As in previous years, all of the partners 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, was implementing strategies described in the grant, and was realizing positive results.

13

Table 4.2 Activity levels of partners, percentage of partners (11 respondents in 2011-12). 2008-09 Very Active Somewhat active Not very Active Inactive 67 33 0 0 2009-10 40 50 10 0 2010-11 14 86 0 0 2011-12 64 27 9 0

Table 4.3 Collaboration success, percentage of partners agreeing (11 respondents in 2011-12). 08-09 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. 100 100 100 100 09-10 100 100 100 100 10-11 100 100 100 100 11-12 100 100 100 100

100 100 100 100

100 100 100 100

100 100 100 100

100 100 100 100

14

Table 4.4 Goal success, percentage of partners (11 respondents in 2011-12). 08-09 Community awareness of the Judy Center has increased in the past year. Resources for this project were adequate to meet objectives. The strategies of this grant have been implemented. The strategies of this grant are demonstrating positive outcomes. 100 89 100 100 09-10 100 100 100 100 10-11 100 100 100 100 11-12 100 100 100 100

Table 4.4 shows partner assessment of various features of the Judy Center. The ratings all of the characteristics were high. Table 4.5 Performance area ratings, percentage of partners (4=Excellent, 3=Good, 2=Minimal, 1=Inadequate, 0=NA/Dont Know) (11 respondents in 2011-12). (4) a. Child care before or after school care b. Array of child and family support services on site c. Array of child services for all ages (e.g., infants and toddlers, pre-k, multi-age, kindergarten) d. Free summer camp for children e. Screening for disabilities f. Provision of services for children with disabilities g. Health services (e.g., Dental assessment, vision/hearing screening) h. Friendliness/helpfulness of staff i. Activities for parents and families (e.g., field trips, family literacy nights, infant & toddler playgroups) j. Education programs for families (e.g., parenting workshops, GED classes) k. Information provided by Judy Center about upcoming activities l. Food and nutrition assistance (e.g., WIC) 82 91 91 82 73 82 100 100 91 82 73 82 (3) 0 0 0 9 9 0 0 0 0 18 18 14 (2) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (0) 18 9 9 9 18 18 0 0 9 0 9 18

15

Table 4.5 shows partner satisfaction compared to the previous three. All of the partners expressed that they were satisfied or very satisfied with the Center. All of the responding partners also indicated in a separate survey question that involvement with the Judy Center has been cost effective. Table 4.6 Partner satisfaction with Judy Center, percentage of partners 11 respondents in 2011-12). 2008-09 Very Satisfied Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied Somewhat Dissatisfied Not Satisfied at All 89 11 0 0 0 2009-10 70 30 0 0 0 2010-11 86 14 0 0 0 2011-12 82 18 0 0 0

16

5.0 Teacher Surveys

Teacher surveys used to obtain feedback from staff in kindergarten/pre-school. The survey is similar to those used in previous years and is included in those reports. It asks about teacher background, satisfaction with school resources and staff and parent involvement, Center performance on Judy Center component standard areas, and overall satisfaction with the Center. All thirteen of the surveyed teachers at John Humbird Elementary, South Penn and Beall Elementary responded. As table 5.1 shows this years teacher pool contains four relatively new teachers. The others have substantial prior teaching experience. Table 5.1 Years teaching, percentage of teachers (13 respondents). 1-2 3-5 5-10 11-15 16 or more 31 0 0 23 46

Table 5.2 shows that pre-k teachers are generally satisfied with resources, support and collaboration, professional development opportunities, and parental involvement. However, the lowest relative rating was obtained for the category of collaboration with early childhood agencies. Table 5.3 shows that many categories received Dont know ratings, including child care, case management, child and family support services, screening and provision of services for disabilities. With the extension of the Judy Center to sites at John Humbird and South Penn Elementary, may of these services are not yet fully available. Table 5.4 indicates that teachers perceived resources at the Judy Center to excellent on average. Table 5.2 Pre-K Teacher satisfaction, percentage of teachers (5=Very Satisfied, 3=Somewhat Satisfied, 1=Not Satisfied) (13 respondents). (5) Quality of classroom equipment Judy Center support Professional development opportunities Collaboration with other teachers Collaboration with early childhood agencies Level of parental involvement in childrens education 85 100 67 67 54 46 (4) 15 0 17 17 15 38 (3) 0 0 17 17 15 15 (2) 0 0 0 0 15 0 (1) 0 0 0 0 0 0

17

Table 5.3 Performance area ratings, percentage of teachers (4=Excellent, 3=Good, 2=Minimal, 1=Inadequate, 0=NA/Dont Know) (13 respondents). (4) a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j. k. l. n. o. p. Support from Judy Center staff Behavioral support Child care before or after day 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 Providing a variety of field trip experiences Health services (e.g., immunizations, dental assessment, vision/hearing screening) Friendliness/helpfulness of staff and teachers Play activities Progress reports and conferences Judy Center newsletter Information about upcoming activities 100 46 38 38 45 46 38 50 100 80 92 42 82 64 100 100 (3) 0 39 0 0 0 23 0 0 0 0 8 8 0 0 0 0 (2) 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (0) 0 0 62 62 55 31 62 50 0 20 0 50 18 36 0 0

m. Education programs for families

18

Table 5.4 Adequacy of materials at Judy Center (4=Excellent, 3=Good, 2=Minimal, 1=Inadequate, 0=NA/Dont Know) (10 respondents). (4) a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. I. Activities/materials for learning art Activities/materials for learning music Activities/materials for learning PE Activities/materials for learning language/reading/writing Activities/materials for learning nature/science Activities/materials for learning math Activities/equipment for learning to use computers Materials for learning play Activities for parents and families 100 100 80 100 80 100 80 100 25 (3) 0 0 20 0 20 0 0 0 50 (2) 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 (1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 (0) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25

All teaching staff felt that families served by the Judy Center were satisfied with the Judy Center (see table 5.5). These ratings were the highest of the last five years. Table 5.5 Feeling of families served by Judy Center, percentage of teachers (N=10). 2007-8 Very Satisfied Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied Somewhat Dissatisfied0 Not Satisfied at All Dont Know 57 43 0 0 0 0 2008-9 57 43 0 0 0 0 2009-10 67 33 0 0 0 0 2010-11 38 50 12 0 0 0 0 0 2011-12 77 23 0

19

6.0 Parent Surveys

Two parent surveys were administered during the school year. The survey instruments were similar to previous years and can be found in previous year reports (Rephann 2011). The fall survey collected information on family resources and attitudes for use in designing curriculum improvements and outside activities for the school year. The spring survey 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. Table 6.1 shows the characteristics of Judy Center parent respondents to the fall survey based on the 74 respondents (out of 251 total parents for a response rate of 29 percent). The demographics of respondents are similar in many respects to previous years. About half of the responding parents is thirty years or older and ninety-one percent is female. Approximately sixty percent work (either full or part-time), a lower percentage than last year. Sixty-six percent is married. Approximately sixty percent has at least some college and half are homeowners. The typical Judy Center survey respondent has a socioeconomic level to the average Allegany County resident. Most parents (79%) have only one child enrolled in the Center. The same percentage of survey respondents reported having children with special needs as in previous years (29%). Twenty-nine percent of parents reported having another child enrolled at the Judy Center in the past. Table 6.1 Respondent characteristics, percentage of parents, Fall 2011 (74 respondents). Age 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40+ Total Gender Male Female 7 67 # 0 17 21 15 15 6 74 % 0 23 28 20 21 8 100.0 % 9 91

continued on next page

20

Table 6.1 Respondent characteristics, percentage of parents, Fall 2011 (74 respondents). Employment Status Employed full-time Employed Part-time Not Employed and seeking job Not Employed and not seeking job Homemaker Other Marital Status Married Single Divorced Widowed/Widower Educational level Some high school High school diploma GED Some College Associates Degree Bachelors degree or higher Own or rent home Own Rent Live with relatives

continued from previous page

% 46 15 5 3 18 12 % 66 21 12 1

4 27 4 29 16 16

48 42 10
continued on next page

21

Table 6.1 Respondent characteristics, percentage of parents, Fall 2011 (74 respondents). Number of children One Two Three Four Special needs Yes No

continued from previous page

79 20 1 1

29 71

Parents were surveyed about the availability of learning support materials in the household and parental participation in learning activities (see table 6.2). A similar percentage to previous years reported having books, magazines, and television. A slightly higher percentage reported a computer. Families with newspapers have declined over the past five years. Nearly all parents reported frequently praising their children for doing well and nearly all sit and talk with their children about their day. Nine in ten reported eating dinner together as a family (see table 6.3). Nine in ten played with toys or played games with their children and three quarters read to their children. Six in ten parents frequently visited a playground, park, or went on a picnic with their children. Table 6.2 Learning/reading materials at home, percentage of parents, Fall 2006-2011 (74 respondents in 2011) 2007 Childrens books Magazines for children Adult books Newspapers Television Home computer Computer with Internet Access 100 55 74 69 95 78 71 2008 100 55 79 67 97 79 78 2009 100 48 75 56 92 80 77 2010 96 42 70 49 89 80 81 2011 100 48 82 53 93 86 80

22

Table 6.3 Activities with children, percentage of parents, Fall 2011 (74 respondents). Frequently 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 84 86 97 15 55 92 19 93 Sometimes 15 13 3 45 40 8 44 7 Rarely 1 1 0 30 5 0 28 0 Never 0 0 0 15 0 0 8 0 NA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

The spring survey received 40 responses from the Beall Elementary site and10 responses from the John Humbird site and 24 responses from the South Penn site for a total of 74 responses (out of 251 total parents for a response rate of 16 percent). The answers are tabulated in tables 6.4-6.10. Table 6.4 and Figure 6.1 show that parent satisfaction with the Judy Center remains high at 91 percent. However, the percentage of parents reporting that they dont know was much higher than previous years. This uptick is due to the addition of the new sites. (17 percent reported that they didnt know at South Penn and 10 percent at John Humbird). Satisfaction levels at the three sites were:78 very satisfied at Beall, 67 percent at South Penn, and 50 percent at the John Humbird site (see Table 6.5). Table 6.4 Satisfaction with Judy Center services, percentage of parents, Spring 2006-Spring 2012 (74 respondents). 2007 Very Satisfied Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied Somewhat Dissatisfied Not Satisfied at All Dont know/Confused or uniformed about the services provided Dont know/No feeling about the center 72 17 0 0 0 0 1.9 2008 72 23 4 0 2 0 0 2009 78 19 0 0 0 0 3 2010 87 9 1 0 0 0 0 2011 79 15 3 0 0 1 3 2012 70 20 1 0 0 1 7

23

Table 6.5 Satisfaction with Judy Center services by site, percentage of parents, Spring 2012 (74 respondents) Beall Very Satisfied Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied Somewhat Dissatisfied Not Satisfied at All Dont know/Confused or uniformed about the services provided Dont know/No feeling about the center 78 20 0 0 0 2 0 John Humbird 50 39 10 0 0 0 10 South Penn 67 17 0 0 0 0 17

Table 6.6 shows parent satisfaction with features of the Beall Elementary Judy Center. Table 6.7 shows the satisfaction with selected features for the John Humbird Elementary site. Table 6.8 shows parent satisfaction with features for the South Penn Elementary site. Satisfaction at all sites was generally high. However, a relatively large percentage of parents could not evaluate several features of the newer Judy Center sites at John Humbird and South Penn such as case management and provision of services for children with disabilities. In open-ended comments, several parents also identified a desire for additional services such as daycare at the new sites, information, and parent and child activities related to literacy (see Appendix A.2).

Figure 6.1 Parent Satisfaction, 2002-2012

100 90 80 Percentage 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Figure 6.1 Parent Satisfaction, 2002-2012

Don't Know Not Satisfied at All Somewhat Dissatisfied Somewhat Satisfied Satisfied Very Satisfied

24

Table 6.6 Satisfaction with Judy Center in performance areas, percentage of parents (E=Excellent, G=Good, M=Minimal, I=Inadequate, A=Not applicable/Not available), Spring 2012, Beall Elementary (40 respondents). (E) Child care before or after day Family case management Improving childs behavior/attendance Array of child and family support services on site Array of child services for all ages Screening for disabilities Provision of services for children with disabilities Health services Friendliness/helpfulness of JC staff Friendliness/helpfulness of teachers Supervision of children/discipline Materials for learning and play Play activities Activities for learning art Activities for learning music Activities for learning language/ reading/writing Activities for learning nature/science Activities for learning math Activities for learning computers Activities for physical activities Progress reports and follow-up conferences Activities for parents and families Education programs for families Information provided by Center about upcoming activities Judy Center newsletter Food and nutrition assistance 38 34 46 30 71 46 34 74 82 82 69 77 77 74 69 74 74 72 61 74 71 79 55 76 79 55 (G) 8 8 18 11 16 10 11 10 15 15 20 13 13 15 21 15 15 15 3 18 18 16 16 18 16 8 (M) 0 0 0 3 0 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (I) 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 (NA) 54 58 36 57 13 38 20 15 2 2 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 34 8 11 5 29 5 5 37

25

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), Spring 2012, John Humbird Elementary (10 respondents). (E) Family case management Behavior management Provision of services for children with disabilities Health services Friendliness/helpfulness of staff and teachers Supervision of children/discipline Materials for learning and play Activities for parents and families Education programs for families Information provided by Center about upcoming activities 25 12 25 63 88 50 88 75 38 63 (G) 38 37 12 12 0 25 12 25 12 25 (M) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 12 (I) 0 12 0 0 0 12 0 6 0 0 (NA) 38 38 63 25 12 12 0 0 38 0

Table 6.8 Satisfaction with Judy Center in performance areas, percentage of parents (E=Excellent, G=Good, M=Minimal, I=Inadequate, A=Not applicable/Not available), Spring 2012, South Penn Elementary (24 respondents). (E) Family case management Behavior management Provision of services for children with disabilities Health services Friendliness/helpfulness of staff and teachers Supervision of children/discipline Materials for learning and play Activities for parents and families Education programs for families Information provided by Center about upcoming activities 36 55 48 57 86 64 59 77 52 68 (G) 18 13 14 10 9 14 18 5 14 22 (M) 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (I) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (NA) 45 31 38 33 5 23 23 18 33 9

26

Table 6.9 shows that eighty-seven percent of the Beall Elementary parents, seventy-five percent of John Humbird Elementary parents, and fifty-seven percent of South Penn Elementary parents frequently read flyers and newsletters, which are sent home with the children. Fifty-three percent of Beall parents reported that they frequently attended parent-teacher conference while eighty-eight percent of John Humbird parents and sixty-eight of South Penn parents reported doing so. Fifty-three percent of Beall Elementary parents indicated that they attended a Judy Center after-school event. Other activities showed much lower participation levels. Table 6.9 Parent participation in Judy Center activities, percentage of parents, Spring 2012, (40 Beall Respondents, 10 John Humbird, and 24 South Penn Respondents). Frequently Beall Elementary Site Came to do parent/child activity Observed childs classroom Attended JC after-school event or field trip Attended parent education meeting or workshop Attended parent-teacher conference Read a JC flyer/newsletter John Humbird Elementary Site Volunteered in childs classroom Observed childs classroom Attended parent-teacher conference Read a JC flyer/newsletter Attended the School Readiness Fair South Penn Site Volunteered in childs classroom Observed childs classroom Attended parent-teacher conference Read a JC flyer/newsletter Attended the School Readiness Fair 5 18 68 57 9 5 18 23 33 5 32 32 0 5 0 45 23 9 5 68 14 9 0 0 18 12 12 88 75 12 25 37 0 25 12 38 25 0 0 12 12 12 0 0 62 12 12 12 0 0 32 3 53 11 53 87 39 16 26 11 26 8 16 18 8 11 8 0 13 58 8 63 13 5 0 5 5 5 0 0 Sometimes Rarely Never NA

27

Table 6.10 indicates that parents generally recognize improvements in child learning and habits because of the Judy Center. The biggest improvement varied by site. Speaking and articulation were the areas of biggest improvement at Beall Elementary, Counting numbers was rated highest at John Humbird, and writing/drawing was highest at South Penn. Over half of parents at John Humbird and South Penn reported improvement in every surveyed learning area, while fewer than half of Beall parents reported improvement in eating nutritious and healthy meals and behavior. These results seem to comport with the generally higher readiness of Beall Elementary students at the beginning of the school year as indicated by MMSR scores. Table 6.10 Improvement in child learning and habits because of the Judy Center, Spring 2012, (40 Beall Respondents, 10 John Humbird, and 24 South Penn Respondents). Much Beall Elementary Site Counting numbers Recognizing letters of the alphabet Writing/Drawing Speaking and articulation Vocabulary Eating nutritious and healthy meals Behavior Exercising Asking to be read to John Humbird Elementary Site Counting numbers Recognizing letters of the alphabet Writing/Drawing Speaking and articulation Vocabulary Asking to read to Eating nutritious/health meals Behavior/following routines 89 78 78 67 67 78 67 67 11 22 22 22 33 0 22 33 0 0 0 11 0 22 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 83 81 89 83 49 44 61 57 16 8 14 6 14 38 42 25 30 0 0 0 0 0 5 3 8 5 8 8 6 6 3 8 2 2 8 A little Not at All NA

continued on next page

28

Table 6.10 Improvement in child learning and habits because of the Judy Center, Spring 2012, (40 Beall Respondents, 10 John Humbird, and 24 South Penn Respondents). Much South Penn Elementary Site Counting numbers Recognizing letters of the alphabet Writing/Drawing Speaking and articulation Vocabulary Asking to read to Eating nutritious/health meals Behavior/following routines 76 76 82 71 81 76 57 71 14 10 18 24 14 10 29 24 A little

continued from previous page

Not at All 10 5 0 0 5 14 14 0

NA 0 10 0 5 0 0 0 5

29

7.0 Child Readiness Progress

Evidence on achievement towards milestones outlined in the Judy Center continuing grant application showed progress towards the goals and objectives outlined in the continuing grant application as reported in section 2. These milestones were based on separating Beall Elementary and John Humbird site results. This section examines time trend readiness progress for the schools, domains, and student subcategories such as FARMS, Special Education, and students with previous Judy Center experience. Beall Elementary arrived at school with readiness levels similar to the previous three years while John Humbird Elementary pupils showed continued rapid improvement from 66 percent readiness in 2009 to 75 percent readiness in 2010 to 85 percent readiness in 2011. Therefore, the two locations combined improved further to 90 percent in 2011 (See Figure 7.1). Both FARMS and Special Education subgroups also saw significant readiness increases over the previous year in composite readiness. Readiness in each domain also improved with the exception of the mathematical thinking and physical development. Decreases in these domains also occurred in these areas for the FARMS and Special Education children (see figure 7.2). Therefore, additional focus and follow-up may be needed for each of these areas.

Figure 7.1 Composite 7.1 Composite Kindergarten Readiness, Figure Kindergarten Readiness, All, FARMS, and Special Education, 2004-2011
All, FARMS, and Special Education, 2004-2011
100

90

Judy Center--All Judy Center--FARM Judy Center--SPED Maryland--All Maryland--FARM

80

70

60

Maryland--SPED Allegany--All

50

Allegany--FARM Allegany--SPED

40

30 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

30

Figure 7.2 Kindergarten Readiness by Domain for All Students, 2004-2011

Figure 7.2 Kindergarten readiness by Domain for All Students, 2004-2011

100
Social and Personal

95 90 85 80 75
Social Studies Language and Literacy

Mathematical Thinking

Scientific Thinking

70 65 60 55 50 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

The Arts

Physical Development

Composite

Figure 7.3 indicates that Beall Elementary and John Humbird pupils combined outperformed their peers in the State and achieved parity with the County in terms of overall readiness. State readiness scores have steadily improved during the last three years while Allegany County has remained constant at a higher level of readiness at 90 percent. Allegany County Judy Center readiness levels started out at a much higher level when it covered only one school (Beall Elementary) but decreased initially when it extended coverage to the John Humbird Elementary site. After three years, the both sites combined show readiness levels similar to the county. Also, 90 percent of students with prior Judy Center experience were at full readiness in 2011, which is up from the previous year level of 87 percent. As in previous years FARMS and Special education readiness lagged behind other students (See figures 7.1 and 7.4).

31

Figure 7.5 show that child-learning progress occurred during the 2011-2012 school year. Ninety percent of students entered at full-readiness in the fall and ninety-two exited at full readiness in the spring as measured by the composite score. Progress was charted in every single domain except for the Arts, which dropped slightly from 95 percent to 92 percent readiness during the year. Ninety-two percent of Beall Elementary students were fully ready by spring 2012 as measured by the composite score compared to ninety-one percent of John Humbird Elementary students.

Figure 7.3 Composite Full Readiness, Judy Center, County, and State 2004-2011

Figure 7.3 Composite Full Readiness, Judy Center, County, and State 2004-2011
Maryland

100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Allegany Beall Elementary John Humbird South Penn Westernport All Judy Center Prior JC Experience

32

Figure 7.4 Kindergarten Readiness by Domain, All, FARM,FARM, and Education, 2011 Figure 7.4 Kindergarten Readiness by Domain, All, and Special Special Education, 2011

Social and Personal Language and Literacy Mathematical Thinking Scientific Thinking Social Studies The Arts Physical Development Composite

All

FARM

Special Ed.

20

40 Percentage

60

80

100

Figure 7.5 Figure 7.5 Kindergarten Scores by Domain for Fall 2011 and Springand Spring 2012 Kindergarten Scores by Domain for Fall 2011 2012
Social and Personal

Language and Literacy

Mathematical Thinking

Scientific Thinking Fall Social Studies Spring

The Arts

Physical Development

Composite

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

33

Some additional evidence of the effectiveness of the Judy Center is provided by MSA reading and math proficiency (see Figure 7.6). The percentage of third graders at Beall Elementary that were enrolled in Judy Center pre-kindergarten during the 2008-09 school year and that achieved advanced and proficiency levels in reading and math were 92 percent and 81 percent respectively in 2012 . These compare to proficiency rates of 94 percent in both reading and math for third grade Beall students with no prior Judy Center experience. The Judy Center student proficiency rates during the previous year were lower than both Allegany County (90%) and the State of Maryland (88%) for math but higher than Allegany County (88%) and State of Maryland (85%) for reading.

Figure 7.6 Third Grade MSA Proficiency, 2012, Maryland, Allegany County, and Judy Center

Figure 7.6 Third Grade MSA Proficiency, 2012, Maryland, Allegany County, and Judy Center

Maryland

100.0
Allegany

95.0
All Third Grade

90.0
Prior Judy Center Experience

85.0
No Prior Judy Center Experience

80.0

75.0

70.0 Reading Math

34

8.0 Special Research Questions

As part of the 2011-12 Judy Center continuation grant application, the Allegany County Board of Education posed two questions about child progress during the year: v What are the correlates for level of parent participation in Judy Center Activities? Table 8.1 below shows the correlation between selected parent characteristics and parent intention to participate during the school year. This information was obtained from the fall parent survey and is based on 74 responses. Responses were coded as Female=1 if the respondent was female (or Female=0 if parent respondent was male, Full-time worker=1 if the respondent worked full-time (or 0 otherwise), Married=1 if the respondent was married (or 0 otherwise), College Education=1 if the respondent had a four year college education (or 0 otherwise), and Home Owner=1 if the respondent was a homeowner (or 0 otherwise). Results indicate that being employed full time has a high relative negative correlation for visiting school, volunteering at school and attending activities during the school day. Other types of participation are less negatively correlated with work status. Females were more likely to attend a parent activity during school hours than males, to volunteer and attend an evening parent activity. Curiously, college attended parents were less likely than other parents to participate in each of the activities surveyed. Table 8.1 Correlation between Selected Parent Characteristics and Parental Participation Attend ParentTeacher Conference 0.1595 0.0523 -0.0599 0.3478 -0.1358 0.2436 Communicate with Teacher -0.0563 0.1396 -0.1093 0.1106 -0.2029 0.0955 Attend Parent Activity During School -0.1214 0.2035 -0.2195 0.1493 -0.1294 0.0641 Attend Evening Parent Activity 0.0665 0.1833 -0.1435 -0.0446 -0.1165 -0.0955

Variable Age Female Full-time worker Married College Education Home Owner

Visit School -0.1884 0.0335 -0.2871 -0.0489 -0.2635 0.0136

Volunteer -0.1756 0.1561 -0.4453 0.0664 -0.0993 -0.0430

35

v Were the strategies and activities to address pupil disciplinary problems successful during the fiscal year? During the year, the Judy Center established three new activities in support of the Social and Emotional Development domain. These activities included expanding Summer Camp at the Beall Elementary and John Humbird Elementary from 5 to 7 weeks and the enrollment numbers increased at each site, establishing a Behavior Hotline at Beall Elementary and John Humbird Elementary sites, and holding new parent classes on bullying and 7 Habits for Healthy Families. During the year, Beall Elementary received a total of 53 office referrals for 407 children compared to 38 office referrals for 417 children during the 2010/2011 school year. Although the target of fewer than 3 percent rate of office referrals was met, the uptick in referrals provides no evidence in support of the effectiveness of these particular activities.

9.0 Changes Introduced

The Judy Center will maintain most of the programming and activities that were used during the fiscal year 12 funding cycle. However, the sites monitored will change. For Beall Elementary, goals and objectives will be the same. John Humbird Elementary will not be monitored. Instead, South Penn goals, objectives are included and cover Language and Literacy, Social and Emotional Development, and Mathematical Thinking. Among the new or expanded activities to be conducted during the FY 2013 year are the following: v Summer Camp will begin to be offered at the South Penn Elementary site. v A behavioral hotline will be established at the South Penn site. v New parent training will be provided, including training by Family Junction and a math night will be scheduled for parents to work on math problems with their children. v A smart table will be purchased for use in the K classrooms.

36

10.0 Summary and conclusions

The latest funding cycle (FY 2012) for the Beall Elementary Judy Center continued the model and coverage developed during previous three years, including activities designed to enhance child readiness for FARMS students. The domains of focus decreased from three (social and personal development, language and literacy, and scientific thinking) to two (social and personal development and language and literacy). Kindergarten child readiness levels increased from last year, largely because of progress at the John Humbird Elementary site. Students at the Beall Elementary site showed the same high readiness levels (95%) as last year. However, Kindergarten readiness did not improve in the domains of mathematical thinking and physical development. Moreover, 3rd grade students who had previous Judy Center experience did not show higher performance on the math portion of the MSA as other students. These results suggest that the area of mathematical thinking should be the focus of additional work since it provides core skills that are needed for academic success later on. Other measured indicators show similar progress. Parent participation levels in Judy Center and partner sponsored activities continued to increase during the 2011-12 school year by over 34 percent from the previous year. Survey results are also very positive. Partner surveys indicate a relatively high degree of participation and cooperation. Staff and parent surveys continue to show a strong satisfaction. Teachers continue to agree that the amount of resources and cooperation available were good and that teachers were satisfied with the Judy Center. Parents recognized improvements in their childrens learning and development during the year. Progress toward goals and objectives in the Judy Center continuing grant application was good. The goals and objectives in the social and personal and language and literacy domains for Beall Elementary are close to being met. However, the domains for FARMS children lag slightly the established milestones. The goals and objectives for the composite score, language and literacy and social and personal domains for John Humbird Elementary are also on target to be met. The school exceeds each of the established milestones.

37

REFERENCES
Allegany County Board of Education. 2012. Continuation Grant Application for Judith P. Hoyer Early Child Care and Education Center Grants (Judy Centers). (June 2011) Allegany County Board of Education. 2011. Continuation Grant Application for Judith P. Hoyer Early Child Care and Education Center Grants (Judy Centers). (June 2010) eQuotient, Inc. 2011. Allegany County Judy Center Evaluation: July 2010-June 2011. Cumberland, MD: eQuotient, Inc. Maryland State Department of Education. 2011. Children Entering School Ready to Learn: School Readiness Information. Baltimore: MSDE. Maryland State Department of Education. 2011. Maryland Report Card. http://www.mdreportcard.org

38

A.1 Fall Parent Survey Comments

40

I would like to see the Judy Center provide: Evening activities for families I think it is good the way it is. I think they provide a lot of good resources. Nothing more than it provides now. The Judy Center offers so much. But most importantly it offers love, support, care, compassion and understanding. Info on disabilities-cerebral palsy and special ed. Etc. coping with it as a family, etc. Weekly updates in writing about how they did for the week. The Judy Center has been very helpful! None. They provide so much already. Summer camp with a variety of activities to do. Transportation for families who want to attend programs/events for their children in or outside of school but the events are for school More openings in the daycare center. Also, I would like to become more aware of new employment opportunities. Other comments I am already impressed with all the Judy Center has to offer. My son and I love the program. The Judy Center programs that my family has used have been wonderful! I would like to thank everyone at the Judy Center for helping pay for daycare last year. IT really came in handy. I just really appreciate all you have done for my child and me. No, the Judy Center is a nice program. The Judy Center is a godsend to us and many other families. Could never ever say enough good things about the staff and program. Yes. I want to say thank you. Because not only does the J.C. offer things to families, theyre generously caring supportive, kind and understanding all the time. And it truly shows. My child has been in this program since he was 3 years old and I am so thankful for it. It has really been helpful in my childs learning.

42

We thank you all so much for everything you have done for my child. Is there any funding for Kids Korner childcare? Not really. Just would like more information about it and the items I marked above. I feel the Judy Center does a wonderful service to our community. We love everything they do for our children. The Judy Center has been great for my 3 children. Im very pleased with how helpful all the staff has been and continues to be.

43

A.2 Spring Parent Survey

44

In what ways has the Judy Center helped your child? BEALL ELEMENTARY Socialization, intellectual abilities Lots Helped her get early learning She has learned about sharing and manners Learn to write his name and count Improved social habits and assist with a school setting routine. In every way we notice a big difference from the start of school to the end. Thank you. To socialize, speak better and encouraging him to want to learn. More well rounded Opportunity to interact with children her age. She has learned a lot of things My child now has more outgoing personality, listens better and loves to read. Helped him interact with other children, learning number and alphabet. Learning ABCs and counting They attend Kids Korner and have attended multi-age and pre-school. Provided learning experiences that I could not do as a parent. My children have grown from the Judy Center. Speech therapy, Kids Korner, summer program, Infant toddler program all help him socially. More outgoing. Lots! Learning like ABC, reading, etc. Just teaching the basics (ABC, 123) and being with others. It gave my son a head start on his education alone, but also has helped his speech greatly,

46

JOHN HUMBIRD ELEMENTARY 2011 summer camp helped familiarize her with school and literacy nights gave her free books. Although our family has not participated in any event offered, it seems like you all run a great program and help a lot of children. Keep up the good work. Thank you all. Let my kid do activities. Free trips that we cant go to! It enforces the values for learning that we embrace at home. Reading The Judy Center helped me with achieving my GED. I have been trying for some time now to reach that goal and because of the Judy Center I now have that and am now on my way to making a better life for my family. Much appreciation. SOUTH PENN Made it an option for my son to go to 200 and experience something new, and learn about the animals. My child enjoys reading and talking about the books, Through the summer camp, he was able to go on several field trips and gain experiences with his peers. My son was able to take a field trip in Pre-k thanks to the Judy Center. The activities that are available to all the students, she has loved but she has not had any individual assistance. Continuing to learn throughout the summer. Has helped with his vision screenings, starting to want me to read to him, has been behavior little bit better. Gave my son a change to go to the zoo. Free books, my son loves to read. Behavior, academic Assisted with suggestions regarding behaviors management. My child has had opportunities for trips that the school may not have had without the Judy Center. Mrs. Baker said that the Judy Center also provided for teacher training and attendance at conferences as well as teaching materials and supplies. Educational purposes.

47

The Lions club vision screenings. Free book initiative. Field trips. Encouraging education especially reading. Always well organized and fun. Continue learning and play well with others. Too many to name. We enjoy that the Judy Center helps with activities for the children. What activities would you like to see added at the Judy Center for your child and/or family? BEALL ELEMENTARY Knowing that there is support if needed With having WIC free meal Summer camp is a big help Provide daycare in mornings and afternoons WIC Being a full time employee, Judy Center has helped my child and by helping her education. We help our child with homework so we spend a lot more family time together instead of mom/son or son/father. Supported healthy habits. Above programs helped my son tremendously, building his confidence in social settings. Support. Lots! Getting information about pre-k Wasnt for 3 year old, pre-k and multi-age I feel that my so might have been behind this year, I taught him things at home but these programs I feel is what really helped him. SOUTH PENN ELEMENTARY Literacy events that help parents by giving ideas on how to read with their children. Free books are a great plus. Offering summer camp this year at South Penn!

48