Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
eQuotient, Inc.
803 Trost Avenue
Cumberland, MD 21502
http://www.equotient.net
e-mail: equinfo@equotient.net
June 30, 2003
Judy Center Evaluation
i
Page
Appendices .............................................................................................. 59
Judy Center Evaluation
ii
List of Tables
Table 2.1 Judy Center partners, 2002-03 ............................................ 4
Table 2.2 Implementation plan....................................................... 6-10
Table 2.3 Evaluation questions ........................................................... 11
Table 2.4 Special research questions ................................................. 12
Table 3.1 Enrollment of children by age ........................................... 14
Table 3.2 Enrollment in before/after school
childcare programs ............................................................. 15
Table 4.1 Activity levels of partners ................................................... 18
Table 4.2 Collaboration success .......................................................... 19
Table 4.3 Goals success ........................................................................ 20
Table 4.4 Performance area ratings ............................................ 22-23
Table 4.5 Partner satisfaction with Judy Center ............................... 24
Table 5.1 Years teaching ..................................................................... 24
Table 5.2 Teacher satisfaction ............................................................ 25
Table 5.3 Performance area ratings ............................................ 26-27
Table 5.4 Feeling of families served by Judy Center ........................ 28
Table 6.1 Respondent characteristics .......................................... 30-31
Table 6.2 Programs used ............................................................... 32-33
Table 6.3 Learning/reading materials at home ............................... 34
Table 6.4 Activities with children ....................................................... 35
Table 6.5 Program interest ................................................................. 36
Table 6.6 Satisfaction with Judy Center services ............................. 37
Table 6.7 Satisfaction with Judy Center in
performance areas ........................................................ 39-41
Table 6.8 Family participation in Judy Center activities............ 39-41
Table 6.9 Improvement in child learning .......................................... 42
and habits because of the Judy Center ............................. 43
List of Figures
Figure 3.1 Enrollment by race .............................................................. 15
Figure 3.2 Attendance rate ................................................................... 16
Figure 4.1 Partner satisfaction with
Judy Center, 2002 and 2003. ............................................... 21
Figure 6.1 Parent satisfaction with Judy Center
services, fall 2001, spring 2002, Spring 2003. ................... 37
Figure 6.2 Top 10 performance areas .................................................. 38
Figure 6.3 Bottom 10 performance areas ........................................... 38
Figure 7.1 Kindergarten readiness by
domain, 2002 and 2003 ........................................................ 45
Figure 7.2 Kindergarten readiness by period .................................... 46
Figure 7.3 Kindergarten readiness,
Judy Center, County, and State .......................................... 46
Judy Center Evaluation
iii
Appendices
A.1 Monthly Calendar ................................................................ 59
A.2 Newspaper Articles .............................................................. 60
A.3 Judy Center Webpage and .................................................. 61
Beall Elementary Webpage
A.4 Partner Survey Instrument ................................................ 62
A.5 Partner Comments ............................................................... 63
A.6 Pre-K/Kindergarten Staff Survey ...................................... 64
A.7 First-Grade Staff Survey ..................................................... 65
A.8 Fall Parent Survey ................................................................ 66
A.9 Spring Parent Survey .......................................................... 67
A.10 Fall Parent Survey Comments ............................................ 68
A.11 Spring Parent Survey Comments ....................................... 69
A.12 HRDC Head Start Early Childhood
Observation Record ............................................................. 70
Judy Center Evaluation
1
The Judy Center’s second year program activities were a continuation of the
successful model constructed during the start-up year with added enrollment,
curriculum, partners, training, validation, and evaluation goals. These planned
improvements were aligned with Judy Center component standards.
Enrollment was to be expanded by adding a new Kindergarten section and
upgrading the summer program. Peripheral support services in the areas of
health, nutrition, and family education were to be created. The continuation
grant proposal also described an effort to increase overall learning outcomes
for children and a new emphasis on science learning. Partners (listed in table
2.1) were increased to include three new organizations (italicized in the table).
Training and validation were to be expanded in order to improve the quality
of child education and care services.
Judy Center Evaluation
4
Some features of the program remained basically the same as the first year.
For instance, reporting and internal evaluation were carried out in much the
same manner as the first year with a designated Steering Committee that met
on a quarterly basis and monthly meetings of state-wide Judy Center staff. Also,
marketing of the program continued along the same lines, by using broadcast,
newspaper announcements, website, and print materials. Staff introduced a
new calendar (see Appendix A.1) to keep parents abreast of special activities.
Also, local newspapers were used more often for public announcements (see
Appendix A.2). On the other hand, the Judy Center webpage (see Appendix A.3)
was not updated since it was introduced in 2001 and includes program and
contact information that is quite dated. Given the relatively low levels of
webpage usage and the characteristics of Judy Center clients (only half reported
having Internet access), emphasizing more widely accessible print and broadcast
marketing materials makes sense.
The parameters for evaluation were spelled out in the proposal and are listed
in table 2.2. 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, objective, and strategy proposed in the grant was realized. A handful of
activities described were not fully implemented because of problems in
scheduling or practical difficulties encountered.
Judy Center Evaluation
6
In this report, a broader spectrum of measures (see table 2.3) 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 view
the Judy Center?), (4) teacher survey (How did teachers in Pre-K, Kindergarten,
and 1st grade view the Judy Center?), (5) parent surveys (How did parents view
the Judy Center?), (6) child learning (How much did children learn according to
information from pupil progress reports and other evaluations?), (7) Judy Center
component standard ratings (How did partners and other stakeholders—i.e.,
parents and staff-rate effectiveness of the program), and (8) answers to special
research questions about the availability of community resources posed in the
continuation grant proposal (see table 2.4).
Issues Measurement
Question
How many children in the target area are being served by private
(2)
providers of early childhood services?
How can the Judy Center be maintained when the funding cycle
(9)
ends?
What specific requests for services have been received from parents
(11)
beyond the target area?
Judy Center Evaluation
13
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 an end-of-year
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 asked 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 and overall parent
satisfaction. Section 7.0 provides information on children’s learning and
achievement as revealed by performance on various pupil progress reports and
tests using benchmark comparisons. Section 8.0 describes partner evaluations of
Judy Center performance using the Judy Center component standards. Section 9.0
answers special research questions (see table 2.4) introduced in last year’s
continuation grant application. Section 10.0 describes changes that are anticipated
for next year’s Judy Center. The report ends with a summary and conclusions.
Judy Center Evaluation
14
Birth to 3 78
3-year olds 75
5-year olds 88
Total 351
Judy Center Evaluation
15
1% 3%
3%
American Indian
Asian
Black
White
92%
One declared strategy of the FY 2003 grant was to expand the number of children
in before/after school child care programs. Table 3.2 shows an age breakdown of
enrollment in these programs. Total enrollment increased from twenty-eight
(28) children to forty-two (42).
2001-02 2002-03
Multi-age 1 2
Pre-K 13 10
Head Start 2 3
K 2 11
6+ (1st grade+) 10 16
Total 28
28 42
42
Judy Center Evaluation
16
Another goal of this year was to increase the level of family involvement,
particularly in after-school activities and parent workshops/trainings. Family
training was arranged around the themes of parenting, computer training,
reading, tobacco cessation, and child development. Thirteen separate workshops/
activities were held, and a duplicated number of 118 families participated. These
activities were announced in Judy Center flyers, newspaper articles, radio
announcements and/or calendars distributed to children and parents. It is difficult
to ascertain, however, if the level of participation increased or decreased over
last year’s figures because comparable figures are not available.
Staff development goals outlined in the grant application were largely attained.
A duplicated number of fifteen staff trainings occurred, an increase over the
previous year. Staff development sessions were held on MMSR, nutrition issues,
childcare behavior management, family involvement, special education, and
other curriculum issues.
The first two tables indicate that the Judy Center partners have developed solid
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 six partners were “somewhat active.”
All eight of the partners also rated collaboration success highly (see table 4.2),
although one partner indicated that cooperation is not as thorough as it might
be. 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.
Very Active 25
Somewhat active 75
Inactive 0
Judy Center Evaluation
19
I understood my roles
0
and responsibilities as a 100
member of this project.
Community awareness
of the Judy Center has 0
100
increased in the past
year.
Table 4.4 shows partner assessment of various features of the Judy Center. The
ratings for most characteristics were high. Only two features were given a low
grade by any partner. One partner gave “case management” a “minimal” rating
and two partners gave “space sufficiency” the same “minimal” rating.
Thehighest ratings were in the areas of auxiliary services for children (such as
health care, mental health, etc.). Most partners indicated that they were not
familiar with how the Center was performing in presenting various elements of
the curriculum (e.g., activities for art, music, physical education, language/
reading/writing, math, science).
Judy Center Evaluation
21
Figure 4.1 shows partner satisfaction with the Judy Center this year in comparison
with the previous year. All of the partners expressed at least some level of
satisfaction with the Center and the proportion indicating that they were “very
satisfied” doubled over last year. In written comments (see Appendix A.5) ,
partners described how the Judy Center “one stop shop” service coordination
model resulted in benefits for both children and families. The only problems
that the partners identified were space limitations and the possibility of
increasing community awareness above current levels.
Very Satisfied
Satisfied
Somewhat Dissatisfied
Apr-2003
Don't Know
0 20 40 60 80
Percentage
Judy Center Evaluation
22
Friendliness/helpfulness of staff
j. 62.5 37.5 0 0 0
and teachers
Supervision of
k. 12.5 50 0 0 37.5
children/discipline
Very Satisfied 33 75
Satisfied 56 12.5
Somewhat Dissatisfied 0 0
1-2 33.3
3-5 33.3
5-10 0
11-15 0
16 or more 33.3
Judy Center Evaluation
25
Table 5.2 shows that teachers are generally satisfied with the amount of
resources and cooperation at Beall Elementary. However, three teachers were
only “somewhat satisfied” with the quality of the Beall Elementary facilities and
half indicate some degree of concern about parental involvement. Ratings of
features in Table 5.3 show that only three categories (i.e., activities for learning
computers, activities for parents and families, information provided about
upcoming activities, sufficiency of space) received minimal ratings from one or
more teachers. A few teachers indicated that they were not familiar with some
of the auxiliary services (e.g., screening and services for disabilities).
Quality of facilities 50 0 50 0 0
Friendliness/helpfulness of staff
j. 66.7 33.3 0 0 0
and teachers
Supervision of
k. 66.7 33.3 0 0 0
children/discipline
All of the staff felt that families served by the Judy Center were either “very
satisfied” or “satisfied” with the Judy Center (see table 5.4). In addition, all three
1st grade teachers indicated that they were satisfied with the Center. One
teacher indicated that he/she was “very satisfied” with the readiness of Judy
Center students and two were “satisfied.” The teachers offered no additional
written comments about the Center.
Very Satisfied 50
Satisfied 50
Somewhat Satisfied 0
Somewhat Dissatisfied 0
Don't Know 0
Judy Center Evaluation
29
Table 6.1 shows the characteristics of Judy Center parent respondents to the
first survey. Eighty-seven responses were received. Over half of the parents
are thirty years or older and ninety percent are female. Three out of four work
(either full or part-time) and are married. Nearly two-thirds has at least some
college and over three-fifths is a homeowner. Therefore, the profile of a Judy
Center parent respondent indicates a higher socio-economic level than the
average Frostburg city resident as indicated by 2000 U.S. Census data (for
Frostburg, 53.3% of residents 25 years and older have some college, 46.2% over
the age of 15 are married, and 47.2% of housing units are owner-occupied),
even considering the relatively high proportion of college-aged adults in the
population because of the presence of Frostburg State University. Also, these
indicators are higher than the average county resident in all areas but owner
occupied housing (at the county level, 37.5% have at least some college, 58.3%
are married, and 70.2% housing units is owner occupied).
The overwhelming proportion (88%) of Judy Center parents has only one child
enrolled in the Center with the majority of children being four years old.
Approximately one in five of these children has special needs. Among the special
needs cited by parents, ten (10) children had speech difficulties, three (3) had
hearing problems, one had diabetes, one had asthma, and three (3) had emotional
or other behavioral problems.
Judy Center Evaluation
30
15-19 0
20-24 17
25-29 27
30-34 30
35-39 19
40+ 7
Total 100
Gender %
Male 10
Female 90
Employment Staus %
Employed full-time 46
Employed part-time 28
Homemaker 12
Other 8
Marital Status
Married 77
Single 17
Divorced 6
Widowed/Widower 0
Judy Center Evaluation
31
continued
Table 6.1 Respondent Demographics, percentage of parents
Educational level %
GED 2
Some College 28
Associates Degree 14
Own 62
Rent 35
Other 3
Number of children
One 88
Two 9
Three 3
Ages of children %
1 1
2 2
3 13
4 51
5 28
Over 5 5
Percentage with
%
special needs
Yes 18
No 81
Don't know 1
Judy Center Evaluation
32
Table 6.2 shows that most parent respondents have children enrolled in
Kindergarten (42%), Pre-K (31%), or multi-age programs. Food programs such
as lunch (29%) and breakfast (26%) were also popular. Twenty-eight percent
of parents responded that they participate in the WIC program. Ten percent of
parents utilize after-school day care and five percent use before school day
care. These percentages are slightly different than last year with proportionally
more parents reporting children enrolled in Kindergarten, Pre-K, and multi-
age programs, and proportionally fewer children enrolled in programs like
Infant and Toddler, Head Start, and other associated programs.
Kindergarten 28 42
Head Start 20 3
Case Management 0 1
Dental Services 3 2
Preschool Partners 2 1
Fresh Start * 0
WIC 30 28
Nurturing Program 2 2
Family Junction 0 1
YMCA-Family Center 3 0
Breakfast 22 26
Lunch 26 29
Other ("Nurse") 1
The survey asked parents about the availability of learning support materials in
the household and parental participation in learning activities (see tables 6.3
and 6.4). A large majority of parents (84%) reported that children’s books were
available. As many as that indicated that they had televisions (83%) and parents
reported that their children watched a median of 2.75 hours of television each
day. Also, sixty-one percent of households had computers and 54% had Internet
access. These figures are somewhat lower than the averages reported in a 2001
technology survey of all Allegany County public school children (there 73% of
children reported having home computers and 62% overall had Internet access-
see Rephann 2001). Three quarters of parents reported reading and playing
with their children “frequently” though more than half “rarely” or “never” went
to a library or museum with their children (see table 6.4). Other responses
include: “Go for walks and go swimming,” “nature walks,” “pray,” “church,”
“visits the fire station,” “fishing trips, walks in the woods, camping, and misc.
outdoor activities,” “talk a lot ... and travel,” “phonetics, piano lessons, religious
education,” “parades and other events,” and “play video games with them.”
Children's books 84
Adult books 63
Newspapers 60
Television 83
Home computer 61
Other 9
Judy Center Evaluation
35
Read a story 74 21 4 0 1
Visited a playground,
park, or went on a 33 34 22 11 0
picnic
Attended an event
hosted by a
33 34 22 11 0
community or
religious group
When parents were asked about programs that they might be interested in
during the upcoming year, parent-oriented activities were most popular (see
table 6.5). Eight respondents picked “parenting classes,” four “family
preservation,” and three “G.E.D.” Open-ended comments (see Appendix A.10)
offered were mostly positive.
Judy Center Evaluation
36
Parenting classes 8
Childcare 4
Family Preservation 4
Head Start 3
GED 3
MCHIP 1
WIC 1
Fresh Start 1
Dental 1
Computer 1
The spring survey received sixty-one 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 remained high, albeit somewhat lower than the levels achieved at
the conclusion of its first full year in 2002. Possibly, the newness of the Center
last year contributed to the higher ratings and some of the novelty has “worn
off” with greater time and familiarity. Still, the ninety-seven percent (97%)
satisfaction rating (combining “very satisfied” and “satisfied”) is much higher
than the eighty-nine percent (89%) state-wide average satisfaction reported
for all Maryland Judy Centers (MGT of America, Inc. 2003).
Judy Center Evaluation
37
Very Satisfied
Satisfied
Somewhat Dissatisfied
Spring-03
Don't Know
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Satisfied 36.1
Somewhat dissatisfied 0
Table 6.7 shows parent satisfaction with the various features of the Judy Center
and Figure 6.2 displays the top 10 rated 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). It is important to note that all
of the features were rated above 3 (good).
Friendliness/helpfulness of staff
Activities for learning language
Activities for learning math
Activities for learning nature/science
Materials for learning and play
Food and nutrition assistance
Activities for learning physical education
Array of child and family support
Supervision of children/discipline
Array of child services
Sufficiency of space
Quality of School meals
Hours and days of JC operation
Screening for disabilities
Progress reports and follow-up conferences
Activities for parents and families
Activities for learning computers
Cleanliness and safety of Judy Center
Activities for learning music
Health services
The bottom rated feature of the Judy Center was “sufficiency of space” followed
by “quality of meals.” Other areas rated lower included hours of operation,
screening for disabilities, progress reports for parents, activities for learning
computers and music, cleanliness and safety, and health services. In open-ended
comments, several parents also identified a desire for additional child care hours
of operation (see Appendix A.11). As will be described in section 10, several
changes will be introduced next year that target some of these areas: a greater
focus will be placed on children with special needs, activities for parents will be
improved, and more computer activities will be introduced.
continued
Friendliness/helpfulness of staff
62.3 31.1 1.6 0 4.9
and teachers
continued
Table 6.8 shows that parents are likely to read flyers and newsletters but fewer
than half report that they “frequently” attend parent-teacher conference. Much
lower levels are indicated for participation in other parent after-school activities,
both involving children and parent education. On special days like “Shadowing
Day” parent attendance is high, as parents follow their child’s schedule for the
day. Aside from such designated days, parents may not feel encouraged to
volunteer or observe children’s behavior during the day because of the potentially
disruptive effect it may have on the class setting and child learning. Therefore,
the lower figures for the other categories are expected.
Judy Center Evaluation
42
Volunteered at the
8.2 4.9 4.9 77 4.9
Judy Center
Observed child's
classroom during 8.2 36.1 37.7 14.8 3.3
the day
Attended Judy
Center after-school
3.3 27.9 14.8 49.2 4.9
special events or
field trips
Attended parent
education meetings
or workshops about 3.3 9.8 6.6 73.8 6.6
job skills or
parenting?
Attended a parent-
24.6 52.5 4.9 11.5 6.6
teacher conference
Table 6.9 indicates that parents recognize a big improvement in most child
learning and development as a result of their enrollment in the Judy Center.
Three in four parents report “much” improvement in counting numbers and
recognizing letters of the alphabet. A large majority has observed much
improvement in speaking and articulation, vocabulary, drawing, and writing.
About half of the parents saw large improvements in child hygiene, including
brushing teeth and washing hands. Additional written comments from the spring
survey are included in Appendix A.11.
Not at
Much A little NA
NA
All
The ACBOE 2002-03 Judy Center Continuation Grant proposal outlined several
child development objectives and milestones for FY 2003. These are as follows:
Goal
By June 30, 2003, exiting kindergarten students at the Judy Center will improve
the full readiness level for all WSS domains by 10% above the 2001 readiness
baseline (an increase from 54% to 64%).
Objectives
By June 30, 2003, 36% of exiting kindergarten students at the Judy Center will
reach full readiness level for the WSS domain of Language and Literacy (an
increase from the 2001 readiness baseline of 29% to 35%).
By June 30, 2003, 16% of exiting kindergarten students at the Judy Center will
reach full readiness level for the WSS domain of Scientific Thinking (an increase
from the 2001 readiness baseline of 6% to 16%).
By June 30, 2003, 55% of kindergarten students at the Judy Center will reach full
readiness level for the WSS domain of Social and Personal Skills (an increase
from the 2001 readiness baseline of 49% to 55%).
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
Judy Center Evaluation
45
readiness with three levels of progress: (3) “Proficient,” (2) “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.
Figure 7.1 shows that the Beall Elementary Judy Center had exceeded the
readiness goal and objectives by the first grading period. Overall readiness as
measured by the composite score was 86% at the end of the first marking period.
Also, the individual domains of Language and Literacy (64%), Scientific Thinking
(76%), and Social and Personal Skills (78%) exceeded their respective milestones
after the first period. The figures also show this year’s Kindergarten performance
compared to last year’s class. A higher percentage of pupils were ready after the
first period using the composite measure as well as in five of the seven individual
domain areas: language and literacy, mathematical thinking, scientific thinking,
social studies, and the arts. Figure 7.2 indicates, however, that pupils made steady
progress throughout the year and that ninety-six percent were fully ready by
the end of the year.
Composite
Physical Development
The Arts
2002
Social Studies
Mathematical Thinking
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Judy Center Evaluation
46
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Period 4
Still, figures 7.3 and 7.4 indicate that Judy Center pupils outperformed their peers
in the County and State. After the first progress report (see Figure 7.3) period,
eighty-six percent (86%) of children was fully prepared compared to sixty-one
percent (61%) for Allegany County and fifty-two percent (52%) for the State. Just
as important, no students were categorized as “developing” whereas six percent
(6%) of the County and seven percent (7%) for the State were so designated.
Beall Elem.
Developing
Allegany Approaching
Full
Maryland
0 20 40 60 80 100
Judy Center Evaluation
47
Among individual domains, Beall Elementary Judy Center pupil readiness levels
exceed the State and County in every area. Whereas Beall Elementary lagged
the State and County last year in the science domain, significant improvements in
the science curriculum and materials resulted in a huge boost to child readiness
in this domain.
Composite
Physical Development
The Arts Md
Social Studies
Allegany
Scientific Thinking
Beall Elem.
Mathematical Thinking
0 20 40 60 80 100
80
70
60
Judy Center
50
30
20
10
0
Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Period 4
Figure 7.6 shows the performance of children enrolled in the Head Start Pre-
School program during the 2002-03 school years according to the eight
development dimensions (see Appendix A.12 for the HRDC Head Start Early
Childhood Observation Record). These dimensions include: (1) Language-
Listening and Understanding/Speaking and Communicating, (2) Literacy, (3)
Mathematics, (4) Science, (5) Creative Arts, (6) Social and Emotional
Physical/Health Development
Approach to Learning
Social/Emotional
"Consistently"
Final
Percentage
Creative Art
Base
Science
Math
Literacy
Language
0 20 40 60 80 100
Judy Center Evaluation
49
Total Score
Social Studies
Science
Math Composite
2001-02
Mathematics Computation
Mathematics 2002-03
Language Composite
Language Mechanics
Language
Reading
0 20 40 60 80
Percentile
Judy Center Evaluation
50
At the conclusion of the 2002-03 school year, Judy Center partners conducted a
self-assessment using the Judy Center component standards. These ratings were
compared to the self-assessments made at the end of the 2001-02 year. Both sets
of ratings are shown in figure 8.1 with the 2002-03 indicated by an “A” and 2001-02
indicated by a “B.” The most recent assessment places each of the components
above “4” (though one sub-component: standard IV (b)-program accreditation is
aligned and coordinated among all early child care and education programs-is
below 4 in part because of the failure of Head Start to gain accreditation at the site
during the year). Improvement ratings were evident in six of the eleven (full day/
full year services, family support services, early identification, health related
services, staff development aligned with MMSR, and parent involvement) areas.
One area (provision for breakfast and lunch) was the same, and four declined (family
case management, integration of early education services, preschool special
education, and accreditation/validation). The average component standard
increased slightly from 4.55 in 2001-02 to 4.59 in 2002-03.
As part of the 2002-03 Judy Center continuation grant application, the Allegany
County Board of Education posed 12 questions about the procedures and
effectiveness of the Center. The questions and answers are arranged as follows:
• Are children with the greatest educational need being adequately recruited,
identified and enrolled in appropriate early childhood programs to increase
their readiness for kindergarten?
Yes. In the multi-age class, all students have suspected special needs such as
speech, language, etc. For Pre-K, three selection criteria are used in the
enrollment of 4-year olds: (a) automatic enrollment (highest need), (b) priority
enrollment (need), and (c) open enrollment. According to this year’s figures,
twenty students are enrolled from the automatic category, ten from the priority
category, and nineteen from the open category. Therefore, over 60% of children
enrolled in Pre-K have considerable educational need.
• How many children in the target area are being served by private providers
of early childhood services?
According to data from the Maryland Child Care Resource Network, there are
six certified family child care providers within the area of the Beall Elementary
district. These centers have a combined capacity of eighty-six children.
School readiness data from the MSDE indicate that Kindergarten students who
received home/informal care performed at a slightly higher level than those
who received Pre-K care during the previous year. Whereas eighty-six percent
(86%) of Pre-K/Judy Center students was at full readiness for Kindergarten,
ninety-one percent (91%) of home/informal care children was at full readiness.
Special education referrals have decreased during the past year. There were
six special education referrals during the 2001-2002 school year - 4 in
Kindergarten and 2 in 1st grade. During the 2002-2003 school year, the total
dropped to two - 1 in Kindergarten and 1 in 1st grade.
Judy Center Evaluation
52
The testimony of Judy Center staff suggests that the Frostburg State University
produced videos that are aired on the local public access channel are increasing
the awareness of the Judy Center. There is little evidence, however, that the Judy
Center website is supporting marketing efforts. The website contains no current
information. Evidence of website use as revealed by the number of website hits
has decreased over the past year, and the percentage of parents that are unaware
of the site (sixty-six percent according to the parent survey) is high.
• Has involvement by the partners provided a cost effective program for all
participants?
• Has the Case Management Team process reduced the duplication of services
being offered to parents?
The Case Management process has reduced duplication of services by: (a)
decreasing the time, cost, and inconvenience of collecting information from
parents, (b) receiving better information for targeting services from experiences
of partners with particular families, (c) identifying the right provider to provide a
particular service, and (d) creating a comprehensive service delivery plan which
is coordinated with other partners, including coordinated home visits.
• Is the Judy Center “model” being adopted and replicated in other settings in
Allegany County?
No, not in pure form. There have been some expansion activities (e.g., flyer
distribution, after-school trainings/workshops) for George’s Creek and Frost
Elementary school district parents during the school year. In addition, during
the summer of 2003, the Judy Center will co-sponsor an MMSR math workshop
for all Pre-K, and Kindergarten in the County, including special educators, to begin
to disseminate some of the methods (but not the model) used by the Judy Center.
• How can the Judy Center be maintained when the funding cycle ends?
Referrals to the principals office for discipline have not decreased. However, it
should be noted, that there were approximately 20-22 more Kindergarten
children in 2002-03 than the previous year. During the 2001-2002 school year,
there were eighteen total referrals from Kindergarten and nine from 1st grade.
During the 2002-03 year, there have been twenty-four referrals for
Kindergarten and twenty-one from 1st grade. Unduplicated referrals have also
increased. In 2001-02 one student was referred to the office from Kindergarten
and three from 1st grade. In 2002-03, five Kindergarten students were referred
and five from 1st grade.
Staff, however, report individual situations where intervention has led to clear
behavioral improvements. For instance, one behaviorally challenging 3-year old
male child was provided with one-on-one assistance through the Judy Center.
This intervention has reportedly resulted in enormous behavioral changes.
• What specific request for services have been received from parents beyond
the target area?
There have been few requests from parents beyond the target area this year. The
requests received fall into three general areas: (1) requests for information about
the Allegany County Health Department parenting program, (2) requests for
information about enrolling in the summer program, and (3) a specific request
from a parent from Garrett County who was seeking information about services
for an autistic child. Fourteen of the Pre-K children enrolled at the Judy Center
are from out-of-district. However, out-of-district interest is expected by Judy
Center staff to increase as “word-of-mouth” about the Center increases.
Judy Center Evaluation
54
Fresh Start Program. The Judy Center will increase the number of
Fresh Start weekly sessions from the current level of one to two
for eligible children during the summer of 2003 and provide free
transportation.
Professional Development
Family Activities
Reading Night. The Judy Center will continue the Family Reading
Night program, conducted in conjunction with the Allegany County
Library System throughout the summer.
Free Reading Resources. The Judy Center will expand the reading
resources available to families and children at their homes by: (1)
holding Family Fun Nights with free book distribution, (2) applying
for a First Books grant to provide free books to 20 low-income
families, and (3) distributing free bookshelves to families who
participate in Judy Center reading activities.
Parent training. The Judy Center will host a parent training and
education program, in conjunction with the Allegany County Health
Department, that focuses on the 40 developmental assets that are
important for child growth and development.
Partnerships
The second funding cycle (FY 2003) for the Beall Elementary Judy Center
expanded and refined the model built during the initial year of operation which
included a multi-age Pre-K class, 4-year-old Pre-K class, two kindergarten
classes, and the affiliated services of partners such as HRDC (e.g., Head Start,
Childcare) and Allegany County Health Department (e.g., WIC, Dental Screening,
Fresh Start). In addition, a number of new programs and initiatives were
introduced. These improvements were aligned with Judy Center component
standards and were designed to help child development in targeted areas. New
initiatives included an additional Kindergarten class, expanded before and after
day care slots, a center nurse, new staff training efforts, several new partners
(e.g., APPLES for Children, Cooperative Extension Service, Allegany County
Library System), and new curriculum modules and materials. The goal and
objectives established in the grant continuation application were met and each
strategy was realized. A few activities were not carried out in the manner
described in the grant application for a number of reasons, but the absence of
these activities had no effect on attaining the objectives of the grant.
Partner, staff, and parent surveys indicate a high and sometimes rising level of
satisfaction with the Beall Elementary Judy Center. Survey data suggests that
the partners have a high and rising level of satisfaction with the Judy Center,
have developed good working, cooperative relationships, have realized
satisfactory levels of participation, and perceive that the Judy Center has become
more visible in the community, has adequate resources for its goals, was
implementing strategies described in the grant, and was realizing positive
results. A staff survey conducted for the first time this year shows that teachers
are generally satisfied with the amount of resources and cooperation available
at Beall Elementary, are satisfied with the Judy Center, and feel that families
served by the Judy Center were satisfied with the Judy Center. Parents indicated
in surveys that their levels of satisfaction remained high and well above state
Judy Center statewide averages; however, the levels were lower than last year
Judy Center Evaluation
57
possibly because some of the novelty of the Center had worn off during the past
year. Also, parents recognized a big improvement in child learning and
development during the year. A few common areas of concern were identified
by partners, staff and parents-they include facilities and space, levels of parent
involvement or parent notification, and the limited number of activities for
children involving computers.
Results from Allegany County Board of Education and HRDC assessment data show
that the Beall Elementary Judy Center contributed to child learning and
development. For Kindergarten students, school readiness improved for all of
the individual domains and exceeded the selected benchmarks. Pre-K students
enrolled in both Judy Center Pre-K programs as well as HRDC Head Start also
showed improvement. Additional indirect evidence of the effectiveness of the
Judy Center is provided by 2nd grade CTBS test score data. Second graders
improved their relative scores on this test over the previous year.
At the conclusion of the 2002-03 year, Judy Center partners evaluated the Center
using the Judy Center Component Standards. Results indicate a slight overall
improvement in Center performance with regression in a few areas. One
continuing area of concern is the lack of validation for the HRDC Head Start
program. Although originally establishing a goal for accreditation in 2002, this
goal has never been realized and has affected the ability of the Center to offer a
complete package of accredited programs.
Other results of the study show that the Judy Center is accomplishing many State
mandated goals but wider dissemination of the model is limited and its
sustainability is uncertain. It is providing services to targeted children and
administering care to a relatively large percentage of area children. Program
data suggests that it may be having a salutary impact on special education
referrals but little impact on referrals for discipline. There has been some
outreach to adjoining school districts and some degree of parent interest in the
Judy Center outside the district. However, the ability of the County to fund the
Judy Center at Beall Elementary and replicate it elsewhere in the County when
State funding is discontinued remains an open question.
Judy Center Evaluation
58
REFERENCES
eQuotient, Inc. 2002. Allegany County Judy Center Evaluation: January 2001-
June 2002. Cumberland, MD: eQuotient, Inc.
Epstein, Joyce L., Lucretia Coates, Karen Clark Salinas, Mavis G. Sanders, and Beth
S. Simon. 1997. School, Family, and Community Partnerships: Your Handbook
for Action. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
MGT of America, Inc. 2003. Judith P. Hoyer Early Child Care and Education
Enhancement Program Evaluation Brief.
A.1
Monthly Calendar
60
A.2
Newspaper articles
61
A.3
Judy Center Webpage and
Beall Elementary Webpage
62
A.4
Partner Survey Instrument
63
A.5
Partner Comments
Is there anything that should have been done differently regarding the education
of children 0-5, and family services?
Some of the above areas were difficult for me to rate, but I hear all
positive comments and my experience with the management staff
has been a good one.
How do you think children have benefited from the Judy Center grant?
The Multi-age classroom has helped those children who are 3-4
increase their language and social skills to ready them for Pre-K
or Kindergarten. Having WIC on site has also been beneficial in
connecting families with resources they may not have been aware
of otherwise. Children with mental health needs have been able
to participate in a program geared towards their needs. The group
is here on site. So parents do not have to worry about
transportation issues to another facility
The Judy Center Program has helped parents identify and utilize
numerous community resources. Judy Center Program provides a
sound support system towards the move to self-sufficiency by families.
A.6
Pre-K/Kindergarten Staff Survey
65
A.7
First-Grade Staff Survey
66
A.8
Fall Parent Survey
67
A.9
Spring Parent Survey
68
A.10
Fall Parent Survey Comments
I feel the staff at Judy Center is very competent. I never worry
about leaving my children there for childcare.
No. I’m very impressed with the Judy Center programs and
especially the staff.
Great program.
Kellen loves school and daycare and comments on how nice his
teachers are. I appreciate having the childcare facilities on site
for after school hours.
The Judy Center has been very helpful in finding resources for
myself and my family.
I am very pleased with the way the Judy Center is run. My daughter
is very happy to come to the center and she has very good things
to say about her caretakers.
69
A.11
Spring Parent Survey
In what ways has the Judy Center helped your child?
Jacob and Joey enjoy the Judy Center. It has greatly helped their
social skills and learning.
When I moved here and started working they took care of both
boys while I worked. There were no openings in the school for
Pre-K and Headstart. Thank you.
The Judy Center has given my child a chance to meet and play with
new friends. My child has also learned more of her colors,
numbers, and letters.
The Judy Center has not only helped with my son’s education. It
has helped him socially.
My child is in Beall Elementary kindergarten which is staffed by
BOE teachers. He has a one-on-one aide who is also a county
employee. The Judy Center does provide his emergency nursing
care. She provided forms for his teachers to indicate his behavior
change once on medication.
Kindergarten has really improved over the past years. Kids are
learning much more at a younger age.
The Judy Center has helped him in many ways (meeting other
children, going to school, was not away from us at all until Pre-K)
Mrs. Kurtz and Mrs. Robinson are wonderful role models and their
enthusiasm shows through. The children love them. Nurse Jackie-
very helpful. Children better prepared for kindergarten.
My son has come a long way since he started attending the Judy
Center. Much improvement. Very satisfied.
Countless ways.
My child has learned a lot from the Judy Center by counting, singing,
sharing, [and] her manners.
He has come along way with his speech and every day he seems to
enjoy school more.
My child has learned much much more in the Pre-K program than
my oldest son did in a Pre-K program at Frostburg State University
that I had to pay for (1995). We are very pleased with how much
she knows.
It has helped him focus on being kind and courteous and respectful.
In what ways has the Judy Center helped you and/or other members of your
family?
Knowing that the Judy Center is always there for help or to answer
questions.
Being a single parent is difficult. The Judy Center staff is very helpful
with whatever I’ve needed them for.
Gives me peace of mind to go to work and know my kids are in a
good place where they are treated well.
I don’t have to worry about her safety because I know she is well
taken care of and that relieves a lot of stress for me.
Enabled me to work.
My child has tried to come home and teach her siblings what she
has learned in school.
WIC.
The Judy Center has provided my child with a great start in his
education. Also, with me volunteering it made me realize that I
am in the wrong profession. I went back to school so that I can
one day get employment in working with children.
Starting my new job. The Judy Center took my children right in for
daycare.
Countless! I have never come to the Judy Center with any problem
that someone has not helped in some way.
We are involved with WIC and it has been a very big help with food
and also food and nutrition education.
It has helped him focus on being kind and courteous and respectful.
What activities would you like to see added at the Judy Center for your child
and/or family?
Any that would help to better all the children and their families.
Not really any but I would like for the hours to be extended in the
evenings so that I could work some overtime.
Earlier opening time for parents who parents who have to work at
7am.
I believe the Judy Center covers all areas of activities for children
and families.
A.12
HRDC Head Start Early Childhood
Observation Record