Judy

Ju

3 1 0 2 e n ly 2012-Ju

, n o i t a u l a v E r Cente

Terance J. Rephann

96 Red Cedar Road Barboursville, VA 22923 e-mail: trephann@gmail.com

Judy Center Evaluation, July 2012-June 2013

Terance J. Rephann 96 Red Cedar Road Barboursville, VA 22923 e-mail: trephann@gmail.com July 31, 2011

 Page

Table of Contents i
List of tables, figures, and appendices.................................................................................ii-iii Executive Summary................................................................................................................ iv 1.0 Review of Last Years Results............................................................................................1 2.0 Characteristics and Delivery of This Years Training..........................................................2 3.0 Enrollment, Training, and Validation................................................................................7 4.0 Partner Surveys..............................................................................................................12 5.0 Teacher Surveys..............................................................................................................17 6.0 Parent Surveys................................................................................................................20 7.0 Child Readiness Progress................................................................................................29 8.0 Special Research Questions...........................................................................................34 9.0 Changes Introduced......................................................................................................36 10.0 Summary and conclusions............................................................................................37 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........................................................................................8 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.....................................................12-14 Table 4.2 Activity level of partners..............................................................................................14 Table 4.3 Collaboration success..................................................................................................15 Table 4.4 Goal success................................................................................................................15 Table 4.5 Performance area rating...............................................................................................16 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, South Penn Elementary................26 Table 6.8 Parent participation in Judy Center activities................................................................27 Table 6.9 Improvement in child learning and habits because of the Judy Center..........................28

ii

 Page

List of Figures
Figure 3.1 Figure 3.2 Figure 3.3 Figure 3.4 Figure 6.1 Figure 7.1 Figure 7.2 Figure 7.3 Figure 7.4 Figure 7.5 Figure 7.6 Figure 7.7 Figure 8.1 Figure 8.2 Enrollment by race......................................................................................................7 Child daycare attendance...........................................................................................9 Health screenings.....................................................................................................10 Family training participation.....................................................................................11 Parent satisfaction.....................................................................................................24 Composite kindergarten readiness, All, FARMS, and Special Education, 2004-2012.......................................................29 Kindergarten readiness by domain for All Students, 2004-2012................................30 Kindergarten readiness by domain by Judy Center School, 2012...............................30 Composite full readiness, Judy Center, County, and State 2004-2012.......................31 Kindergarten readiness by domain, All, FARM, and Special Education, 2012..................................................................32 Kindergarten Scores by domain for Fall 2012 and Spring 2013.................................32 Third grade MSA proficiency, 2012, Maryland, Allegany County, and Judy Center............................................................33 Partner satisfaction, 2003-2013.................................................................................34 Partner activity level, 2003-2013..............................................................................35

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

iii

Executive Summary
In FY 2013, the Judy Center introduced a new site at South Penn and discontinued service at John Humbird Elementary with Beall Elementary remaining as a base site. The Judy Center implementation plan this year involved many of the same elements and activities as last year. However, these services are now introduced at the new South Penn Elementary site. The goals and objectives for Beall Elementary remained the same and focused on the domains of Social and Emotional Development and Language and Literacy. In addition to these same two domains, South Penn had additional goals and objectives centering on Mathematical Thinking. Because South Penn was new, initial milestones were established at a lower level than Beall Elementary. 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 lagged levels achieved in the past several years. Beall Elementary arrived at school with slightly lower readiness levels than the previous four years while South Penn entered its first year at a relatively low level of readiness in fall 2012. Therefore, the two locations combined achieved only a 72.5 percent readiness level in 2012 (See Figure 7.1). This was the lowest composite readiness level in the last 8 years for the Allegany County Judy Center. Since South Penn Elementary was added as a new Judy Center site in 2012, students there did not have the same level of exposure to the early childhood services as Beall Elementary students during earlier developmental years. Therefore, it is not surprising that they lagged Beall Elementary students in readiness levels. These results suggest there was definite need at South Penn and support the decision to expand services there. Judy Center Beall Elementary and South Penn pupils combined lagged their peers in the State and County in terms of overall readiness. However, 93.3 percent of students with prior Judy Center experience enrolled at Beall Elementary were at full readiness in 2013, which is up from the previous year level of 90 percent. Considerable child-learning progress occurred during the 2012-2013 school year. Although only 72.5 percent of students entered at full-readiness in the fall, ninety-four percent exited at full readiness in the spring as measured by the composite score. This exit readiness level was actually higher than the ninety-two percent full readiness achieved with last years Judy Center cohort focused on Beall Elementary and John Humbird Elementary in FY 2012. Progress was charted in every single domain with the most impressive progress in Language and Literacy, which increased from 57.25 percent readiness to 90.4 percent readiness. Ninety-five percent of Beall Elementary students were fully ready by spring 2013 as measured by the composite score compared to ninety-two percent of South Penn Elementary students. Survey results were very positive as in previous years. Partner surveys indicate a relatively high degree of participation and cooperation, and they indicated in open-ended comments that they were prepared to offer even more cooperation and additional services. 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 Eleven Year of Program

FY 2012 represented the second decade of Maryland State Department of Education support for the Allegany County Judy Center. In the second decade, the Judy Center was operating at three sites (Beall Elementary, John Humbird Elementary, South Penn Elementary) and offered an 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. The Center was also running summer camps and offering an extensive School Readiness Fair at the Country Club Mall to introduce the community to the varied services offered by the Center and its multiple agency and nonprofit organization partners. The eleventh 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 composite score goals were achieved although objectives in the social and personal, and language and literacy for Beall Elementary were slightly lower than targets. The goals and objectives for the composite score, language and literacy score and social and development score for John Humbird Elementary were also on target to be met. For both Beall and John Humbird Elementary, office referrals were lower than the 3% targeted rate. The activities were carried out as specified in the original continuing grant application.
v The duplicated number of children in Judy Center programs increased from 349 in FY 2011 to

631 in FY 2012. Much of this growth could be attributed to the expansion of the Center into Cumberland South End elementary schools.
v The total number of health screenings increased over the previous year to a new

record level of 1,465.

v WSS results indicate that children with prior pre-k Judy Center experience performed as well as

other students at the start of Kindergarten than the previous year, with 90 percent at full readiness compared to 87 percent the previous year.
v Beall Elementary arrived at school with readiness levels similar to the previous three years while

John Humbird Elementary pupils improved from 66 percent readiness to 75 percent to 85 percent readiness during the period the Judy Center was operating there. Therefore, the two locations combined improved to 90 percent readiness in 2011. Both FARMS and Special Education subgroups saw significant readiness increases over the previous year in composite readiness.
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.
v Family participation in Judy Center after-school activities continued to climb. Parent workshops/

trainings increased from a duplicated headcount of 1,045 in FY11 to 1,406 in FY12.

2.0 Characteristics and Delivery of the Twelfth Year

In FY 2013, the Judy Center shrank from three sites to two sites: one at Beall Elementary and the other at the site of South Penn Elementary. 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 Summer Camp was offered at the South Penn Elementary site. v A behavioral hotline was established at the South Penn site. v New parent training, including training by Family Junction and a math night, was offered for parents

to work on math problems with their children.

v A smart table was purchased for use in the K classrooms.

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. The final column briefly describes the achievement of each goal, milestone, and activity. To summarize this table: the activities were carried out as specified in the original continuing grant application but progress toward goals and objectives in the Judy Center continuing grant application was mixed. The composite score goals were on target to be achieved for Beall Elementary with fall MMSR scores falling slightly short of targets. The target-achievement gaps for South Penn Elementary were much wider, suggesting that they were less likely to be achieved based on fall MMSR data. However, as data presented later in section 7 shows, South Penn students did exceed goal benchmarks by the fourth quarter. Moreover, South Penn students did not receive full Judy Center early childhood services during the previous school year.

Table 2.1 Implementation Plan

Goal By the fall of 2013, 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 2013, 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 2013, 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 on target to be achieved in fall 2012. 87.5% of students had achieved full readiness as measured by the composite score in fall 2012. However, only 82.5% of FARMS students had achieved full readiness level in the area of Social and Emotional Development. Office referrals were 1.1% of the population. Attendance was monitored. All activities were delivered.

By the fall of 2013, entering Kindergarten students at Beall Elementary will have a composite score of 87% as measured by the Work Sampling scores.

By the fall of 2013, entering kindergarten students at Beall Elementary will have a composite score of 87% as measured by the Work Sampling Scores.

By the fall of 2013, 90% of all entering kindergarten students at Beall Elementary who receive FARMS will achieve full readiness level in the area of Language & Literacy.

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.

Goal on target to be achieved in fall 2013. 87.5% of students had achieved full readiness as measured by the composite score in fall 2012. However, only 72.5% of FARMS students had achieved full readiness level in the area of Language and Literacy. 51% of FARMS students scored in proficient range on DIBELS in spring 2013. All activities were delivered.

By the fall of 2013, entering kindergarten students at South Penn Elementary will have a composite score of 80% as measured by the Work Sampling System scores. By the fall of 2013, 62% of all kindergarten students at South Penn 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 2013, 62% of entering kindergarten students at South Penn 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 2013, 50% of entering kindergarten students at South Penn Elementary who receive Free and Reduced Meals will score in the proficient range in the DIBELS assessment.

Goal and objective are not likely to be achieved in fall 2013. 52.3% of students had achieved full readiness as measured by the composite score. 38.5% 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.

Continued on next page

Table 2.1 Implementation Plan

Continued from previous page

Goal By the fall of 2013, 65% of all entering kindergarten students at South Penn Elementary who receive FARMS will achieve full readiness in the domain of Social and Emotional Development. 1. By the fall of 2013, 65% of entering kindergarten students at South Penn 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 2013, 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. 1. By the fall of 2013, 86% of entering kindergarten students at South Penn Elementary who receive Free and Reduced Meals (FARMS) will achieve full readiness level in the area Mathematical Thinking as determined by the WSS indicators. 2. By the fall of 2013, 60% of entering kindergarten students at South Penn Elementary who receive Free and Reduced Meals will score in the proficient range in the DIBELS assessment.

Objective

Milestone

Achievement Goal and objective at risk for not being achieved in fall 2013. 52.3% of students had achieved full readiness as measured by the composite score. 52.3% of FARMS students had achieved full readiness level in the domain of Social and Emotional Development. The number of office referrals was 6.3%. Attendance was monitored. All activities were delivered.

By the fall of 2013, entering kindergarten students at South Penn Elementary will have a composite score of 80% as measured by the Work Sampling System scores.

By the fall of 2013, entering kindergarten students at South Penn Elementary will have a composite score of 80% as measured by the Work Sampling System scores.`

By the fall of 2013, 86% of all entering kindergarten students at South Penn Elementary who receive FARMS will achieve full readiness in the domain of Mathematical Thinking.

Goal and objective at risk of not being achieved in fall 2013. 52.3% of students had achieved full readiness as measured by the composite score. 67.7% of FARMS students had achieved full readiness level in the domain of Mathematical Thinking. 40% of FARMS students scored in proficient range on DIBELS in spring 2013.

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 and Kindergarten, 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 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 MMSR results, DIBELS assessments, MSA scores Teacher survey, Parent survey, MSDE Accreditation and site evaluation comments MMSR results and partner survey 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) How have community partnership changed and strengthened since the 10+ years that the Judy Center was introduced? How did the outcomes in all domains at John Humbird Elementary change during the years that the Judy Center operated there?

3.0 Enrollment, training, and validation

Programs housed at the Judy Center during FY 2013 served an unduplicated headcount of 657. The duplicated headcount was 729 compared to a duplicated count of 631 during FY 2012. 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 over the last four years 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. One hundred and thirty two pupils were enrolled in Kindergarten programs. Table 3.3 indicates that approximately 67 percent of Beall Elementary and South Penn kindergarten students participated in the Free and Reduced Price Meals (FARM) program and 14 percent were enrolled in Special Education. Child enrollment racial demographics from available partners showed that minority enrollment was slightly lower than the service area9.4% of children were minority versus 11.8% percent of the total population and 10.1 % of children aged four and younger reported in the 2010 U.S. Census. The Census estimate includes a large minority adult population in state and federal correctional institutions.

Figure 3.1 Enrollment by Race

1% 0% 3% 5%

Other (N=20) Hispanic (N=3) Asian (N=8) Black (N=31) White (N=598)

Table 3.1 Duplicated 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 2012-13 162 111 235 149 657

Table 3.2 Judy Center enrollment by age and program, 2012-13 Birth to 3 Infant and Toddlers YMCA Playgroup Kids Korner Daycare Little Tykes WIC Autism Class Head Star Pre-K Multi-age Kindergarten Total 162 111 235 39 10 10 130 16 132 149 107 11 11 13 19 10 9 8 25 12 6 12 5 3 year old 35 4 year old 36 5 year old

Table 3.3 Kindergarten enrollment by need* # Free and Reduced Price Meals English Language Learners Special Education 89 0 19 % 67 0 14

* 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 88 in FY 2012 to 152 in FY2013 (see Figure 3.2) as the result of counting child attendance in the Little Tykes Childcare Center located in Fort Hill High School. These totals reflect both Judy Center children and other elementary school age children. The total number of health screenings (1,117) dropped due to the loss of the John Humbird Elementary site (see Figure 3.3). However, screenings for three categories increased. Office referrals at Beall Elementary met benchmark levels specified in the implementation plan but South Penn Elementary did not (i.e., the number of office referrals per month were less than 3% of the total school population). Beall Elementary averaged 440 students throughout the year and office referral totals during the school year were 38 (down from 53 in 2011-12) for a monthly average of 1.1%. South Penn averaged 495 students and office referral totals during the school year were 248 for a monthly average of 6.3%. Therefore, the rate exceeded 3 percent.

Fig. 3.2 Child Daycare Attendance, 2002-2013 Figure 3.2 Child Daycare Attendance, 2002-2013
160 140

Percentage

120 100 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 FY 2013

Figure 3.3 Health Screenings, 2004-2012

Figure 3.3 Health Screenings, 2004-2012

350 300
Dental Vision Hearing Growth and Nutrition Immunizations Amblyopia Blood Lead Testing Mental Health

# of children

250 200 150 100 50 0

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

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 1,511 was estimated to have attended. This is a 10 percent increase over the previous year record total of 1,406 attendance (see Figure 3.4). As in previous years, activities were announced in the TimesNews newspaper, on the radio, in Judy Center monthly newsletters with activity calendars and/or flyers distributed to children and parents.

2012

10

Figure 3.4 Family Training and Activity Participation, FY 2003-FY 2013

Figure 3.4 Family Training and Activity Participation, FY 2003-FY 2013
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 FY 2013

Judy Center staff and partners attended a number of professional development workshops, conferences and trainings during the year. Newly hired Judy Center staff, Special Education staff, childcare center staff and Head Start staff participated in MMSR training. Four kindergarten teachers (three from South Penn and one from Beall) attended the annual kindergarten conference in Baltimore. The Judy Center Coordinator attended several training sessions and workshops during the year, including an autism workshop, Maryland Leadership Academy for Early Childhood Advisory Councils, a Head Start Conference, and Transition training. Instructional assistants at the Judy Centers attended Center on the Social and Emotional Foundations for Early Learning (CSEFEL) training focused on promoting child social emotional development. The Beall Elementary and South Penn Judy Center pre-k and kindergarten programs obtained re-validation by the MSDE in spring 2013. The Kids Korner daycare center obtained MSDE re-accreditation for its Beall Elementary childcare program in spring 2013. Head Start was re-accredited in 2010 and will be seeking MSDE re-accreditation at the end of this year. The new childcare partner for South Penn, Little Tykes Childcare, will seek to obtain accreditation by spring 2014.

11

4.0 Partner Surveys

Partner surveys were administered to the Judy Center partners in spring 2013. 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/Friends (F) and Roles Agency/Organization/Department Principal Role(s)

Allegany Co. Public Schools Special Education Department Family Support Network Family Literacy/GED programs Pre-k classrooms Kindergarten classrooms Multiage classrooms Preschool Special Education Infants & Toddlers Program Nutritional services (provision of meals) Pupil Services Office Child Find Clinic Allegany Co. Health Dept. Nursing Services Dental Screenings Fetal and Infant Mortality Board Mental Health Dept. HRDC, Inc. Head Start

Education, Health, and Family Education Services; Case management; Adult Education

Health Screening and Services

Early Childhood Education

Continued on next page

12

Table 4.1 Allegany County Judy Center Partners/Friends (F) and Roles
continued from previous page

Agency/Organization/Department Frostburg State University Education Department Psychology Department Foreign Language Department Allegany College of Maryland (F) Department of Social Services Family Preservation Program YMCA Family Center WIC Apples for Children Md. Cooperative Extension Allegany Co. Public Libraries Family Junction Kids Korner Childcare

Principal Role(s) Student interns and tutoring

Student classroom volunteers Parenting Education

Child and Family Activities Child Nutrition Personnel Training Nutrition Training Support Child and Family Literacy Parenting Programs Childcare and Family

Continued on next page

13

Table 4.1 Allegany County Judy Center Partners/Friends (F) and Roles
continued from previous page

Agency/Organization/Department Little Tykes Childcare Child Care Providers Association Lions Club (F) Allegany County Sheriffs Department

Principal Role(s) Childcare Child Referrals Vision screenings Truancy Enforcement

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 nineteen 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 as active as previous years, although one member was not active. As in previous years, all of the partners rated collaboration success highly (see table 4.2). All 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. They indicated in open-ended comments that they were prepared to offer even more cooperation and additional services including training to instruct youth mental health first aid, nutrition and food budgeting sessions, training on the Search Institutes 40 Developmental Assets, and workshops to parents who have children with disabilities. Table 4.2 Activity levels of partners, percentage of partners (11 respondents in 2012-13). 2009-10 Very Active Somewhat active Not very Active Inactive 40 50 10 0 2010-11 14 86 0 0 2011-12 64 27 9 0 2012-13 55 27 9 9

14

Table 4.3 Collaboration success, percentage of partners agreeing (11 respondents in 2012-13). 09-10 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. 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 10-11 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 11-12 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 12-13 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Table 4.4 Goal success, percentage of partners (11 respondents in 2012-13). 09-10 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. Enough is being done to help families with their needs. Enough is being done to help children be successful in school. 100 100 100 100 NA NA 10-11 100 100 100 100 NA NA 11-12 100 100 100 100 NA NA 12-13 100 91 100 100 60 55

Table 4.4 shows partner assessment of various features of the Judy Center. The ratings all of the characteristics were high.

15

Table 4.5 Performance area ratings, percentage of partners (4=Excellent, 3=Good, 2=Minimal, 1=Inadequate, 0=NA/Dont Know) (11 respondents in 2012-13). (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) 55 55 63 82 73 73 82 82 82 82 73 73 (3) 27 36 18 0 9 9 9 9 9 18 18 9 (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 18 18 18 18 9 9 9 0 9 18

d. Free summer camp for children e. Screening for disabilities f. g. Provision of services for children with disabilities Health services (e.g., Dental assessment, vision/hearing screening) Activities for parents and families (e.g., field trips, family literacy nights, infant & toddler playgroups) Education programs for families (e.g., parenting workshops, GED classes) Information provided by Judy Center about upcoming activities Food and nutrition assistance (e.g., WIC)

h. Friendliness/helpfulness of staff i. j. k. l.

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. Two of eight partners, however, indicated in a separate survey question that involvement with the Judy Center had not been cost effective. Table 4.6 Partner satisfaction with Judy Center, percentage of partners 11 respondents in 2012-13). 2009-10 Very Satisfied Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied Somewhat Dissatisfied Not Satisfied at All 70 30 0 0 0 2010-11 86 14 0 0 0 2011-12 82 18 0 0 0 2012-13 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. Eleven of the 12 surveyed teachers at South Penn and Beall Elementary responded. As table 5.1 shows this years teacher pool contains two relatively new teachers. The others have substantial prior teaching experience. Table 5.1 Years teaching, percentage of teachers (11 respondents). 1-2 3-5 5-10 11-15 16 or more 18 0 18 18 45

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 professional development opportunities with only fifty-five percent being very satisfied. Table 5.3 shows that many categories received Dont know ratings, including child care, child and family support services, and array of child services. With the extension of the Judy Center to the South Penn Elementary site, some of these services may not yet be fully available. Table 5.4 indicates that teachers perceived resources at the Judy Center to excellent on average. Table 5.5 shows that all teachers believe that the families are either very satisfied or satisfied with the Judy Center. Table 5.2 Pre-K Teacher satisfaction, percentage of teachers (5=Very Satisfied, 3=Somewhat Satisfied, 1=Not Satisfied) (11 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 73 82 55 64 70 91 (4) 27 9 27 27 30 9 (3) 0 9 9 9 0 0 (2) 0 0 9 0 0 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) (11 respondents). (4) a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j. k. l. n. o. Support from Judy Center staff Behavioral support Child care before or after day Family case management (lunch, breakfast) 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 Education programs for families Judy Center newsletter Information about upcoming activities 100 91 60 82 73 73 82 100 100 100 90 100 90 100 100 (3) 0 9 10 9 0 9 18 0 0 0 10 0 10 0 0 (2) 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (1) 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 27 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (0)

m. Progress reports and conferences

18

Table 5.4 Adequacy of materials at Judy Center (4=Excellent, 3=Good, 2=Minimal, 1=Inadequate, 0=NA/Dont Know) (11 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 and play Activities for parents and families 100 88 100 100 88 100 71 100 100 (3) 0 12 0 0 12 0 29 0 0 (2) 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

Table 5.5 Feeling of families served by Judy Center, percentage of teachers (N=11). 2008-9 Very Satisfied Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied Somewhat Dissatisfied Not Satisfied at All Dont Know 57 43 0 0 0 0 2009-10 67 33 0 0 0 0 2010-11 38 50 12 0 0 0 2011-12 77 23 0 0 0 0 2012-13 73 27 0 0 0 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. 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 Beall Elementary Judy Center parent respondents to the fall survey based on the 92 respondents (out of 157 total parents for a response rate of 59 percent). The demographics of respondents are similar in some respects to previous years, but were older, more educated and more likely to have a full time job than last year. Fifty-five percent of the responding parents is thirty years or older and ninety percent is female. Approximately eighty percent work (either full or part-time), a much higher percentage than last year. Sixty-nine percent is married. Approximately three-quarters has at least some college and half are homeowners. The typical Judy Center survey respondent has a socioeconomic level higher than the average Allegany County resident. Most parents (79%) have only one child enrolled in the Center. A similar percentage of survey respondents reported having children with special needs as in previous years (27%). Twenty-four percent of parents reported having another child enrolled at the Judy Center in the past. Table 6.1 Respondent characteristics, percentage of parents, Fall 2012 (92 respondents). Age 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40+ Total Gender Male Female # 1 14 26 17 19 15 92 # 9 82 % 1 15 28 18 21 16 100.0 % 10 90
Continued on next page

20

Table 6.1 Respondent characteristics, percentage of parents, Fall 2012 (92 respondents).
continued from previous page

Employment Status Employed full-time Employed Part-time Not Employed and seeking job Not Employed and not seeking job Homemaker Student/business owner 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

% 56 22 5 1 8 8 % 69 24 5 1

3 19 2 26 21 29

70 23 7

Continued on next page

21

Table 6.1 Respondent characteristics, percentage of parents, Fall 2012 (92 respondents).
continued from previous page

Number of children One Two Special needs Yes No 27 73 79 21

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. 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). Eight in ten 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. A slightly higher percentage of parents reported attending an event hosted by a community or religious group or visiting a public library or museum with their child than last year. Table 6.2 Learning/reading materials at home, percentage of parents, Fall 2006-2012 (92 respondents in 2012) 2008 Childrens books Magazines for children Adult books Newspapers Television Home computer Computer with Internet Access 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 2012 98 58 76 50 92 86 80

22

Table 6.3 Activities with children, percentage of parents, Fall 2012 (92 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 81 97 17 58 93 35 96 Sometimes 16 19 3 42 41 6 38 4 Rarely 0 1 0 33 1 1 23 0 Never 0 0 0 8 0 0 3 0 NA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

The spring survey received 41 responses from the Beall Elementary site and 23 responses from the South Penn site for a total of 64 responses (out of 295 total parents for a response rate of 22 percent). The answers are tabulated in tables 6.4-6.10. Table 6.5 and Figure 6.1 show that parent satisfaction with the Judy Center remains high at 97 percent. However, percentage reporting that they were very satisfied with the South Penn site was lower than for the Beall Elementary site (see Table 6.6). This pattern of slightly lower ratings has been observed at new sites introduced in the past (e.g., Westernport Elementary, John Humbird Elementary). Table 6.4 Satisfaction with Judy Center services, percentage of parents, Spring 2006-Spring 2013 (64 respondents). 2008 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 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 8 2013 76 21 0 0 0 2 2

23

Figure 6.1 Parent Satisfaction, 2002-2013

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Figure 6.1 Parent Satisfaction, 2002-2013

Percentage

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

2002

2003

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Table 6.5 Satisfaction with Judy Center services by site, percentage of parents, Spring 2013 (64 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 85 13 0 0 0 0 2 South Penn 61 35 0 0 0 4 0 Total 76 21 0 0 0 2 2

Table 6.6 shows parent satisfaction with features of the Beall Elementary Judy Center. Table 6.7 shows parent satisfaction with features for the South Penn Elementary site. Satisfaction at all sites was generally high and proportionately more South Penn parents were able to evaluate features of the newer South Penn Judy Center site than last year. In open-ended comments, several parents also identified a desire for additional services such as computer learning and assistance, field trips, support groups, play groups, weekly reports, and afternoon pre-K (see Appendix A.1 and A.2).

2004

2013

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 2013, Beall Elementary (41 respondents). (E) Child care before or after day Judy Center summer camp Family case management Improving childs behavior/attendance Array of child and family support services on site Array of child services for 0-5 year old 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 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 54 39 31 50 46 78 61 39 81 85 87 90 85 82 79 79 79 77 72 79 85 72 64 79 77 59 (G) 0 3 6 24 10 19 25 14 16 15 13 10 13 15 18 18 18 20 15 18 15 26 18 18 18 8 (M) 0 3 3 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 (I) 3 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) 43 56 60 21 41 3 14 47 3 0 0 0 3 3 3 3 3 3 8 3 0 0 18 3 3 33

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 2013, South Penn Elementary (23 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 35 45 35 65 75 50 45 75 60 75 (G) 30 35 30 30 25 30 45 25 35 25 (M) 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (I) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (NA) 30 20 35 5 0 20 10 0 5 0

Table 6.8 shows that eighty-four percent of the Beall Elementary parents and seventy percent of South Penn Elementary parents frequently read flyers and newsletters, which are sent home with the children. Fiftythree percent of Beall parents reported that they frequently attended parent-teacher conference while seventy percent of South Penn parents reported doing so. Seventy-four percent of Beall Elementary parents indicated that they attended a Judy Center after-school event.

26

Table 6.8 Parent participation in Judy Center activities, percentage of parents, Spring 2013, (41 Beall Respondents and 23 South Penn Respondents). Frequently Beall Elementary Site Came to do parent/child activity Attended JC after-school event or field trip Attended parent-teacher conference Read a JC flyer/newsletter South Penn Site Volunteered in childs classroom Attended the School Readiness Fair Attended parent-teacher conference Read a JC flyer/newsletter 10 5 65 70 15 5 5 25 10 10 10 5 55 60 15 0 10 20 5 0 24 5 53 84 45 34 24 13 18 34 11 0 11 26 8 3 3 0 5 0 Sometimes Rarely Never NA

Table 6.9 indicates that parents recognize substantial improvements in child learning and habits because of the Judy Center. The biggest improvement varied by site. Counting numbers, recognizing letters of the alphabet, speaking, articulation, and vocabulary, and writing and drawing were the areas of biggest improvement at Beall Elementary, Vocabulary and recognizing letters of the alphabet were rated highest at South Penn. At least half of parents at Beall and South Penn reported improvement in every surveyed learning area.

27

Table 6.9 Improvement in child learning and habits because of the Judy Center, Spring 2013, (41 Beall Respondents and 23 South Penn Respondents). Much Beall Elementary Site Counting numbers Recognizing letters of the alphabet Writing/Drawing Speaking, articulation, vocabulary Eating nutritious and healthy meals Behavior Exercising Washing hands before meals and after using toilet Brushing teeth Wanting to read books and be read to 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 77 82 64 77 86 64 50 64 23 18 32 23 14 32 45 35 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 92 89 82 84 61 61 63 76 79 82 3 5 13 5 21 32 26 16 5 8 0 0 0 3 5 0 3 3 5 3 5 5 5 7 13 8 8 5 10 8 A little Not at All NA

28

7.0 Child Readiness Progress

Evidence on achievement towards milestones outlined in the Judy Center continuing grant application were reported in section 2. These milestones were based on separating Beall Elementary and South Penn Elementary 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 slightly lower readiness levels than the previous four years while South Penn entered its first year at a relatively low level of readiness in fall 2012. Therefore, the two locations combined achieved only a 72.5 percent readiness level in 2012 (See Figure 7.1). This was the lowest composite readiness level in the last 8 years for the Allegany County Judy Center. FARMS students also saw significant readiness drops over the previous year in composite readiness while special education students showed levels of readiness similar to previous years. With the exception of physical development, readiness in each domain also dropped (see figure 7.2). Decreases in these domains also occurred in every area for FARMS students. Special Education children results were mixed: readiness improved slightly in mathematical thinking, scientific thinking, and physical development but decreased in other domains.

Figure 7.1 Composite Kindergarten Readiness, Figure 7.1 Composite Kindergarten Readiness, All, FARMS, and Special Education, 2004-2012

All, FARMS, and Special Education, 2004-2012

100

90

80
Judy Center--All

70

Judy Center--FARM Judy Center--SPED

60

Maryland--All Maryland--FARM

50

Maryland--SPED Allegany--All

40

Allegany--FARM Allegany--SPED

30

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

29

Figure 7.2 Kindergarten Readiness Figure 7.2 Kindergarten Readiness by Domain for All Students, 2004-2012 by Domain for All Students, 2004-2012
100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50
Social Studies Social and Personal

Language and Literacy

Mathematical Thinking

Scientific Thinking

The Arts

Physical Development

Composite

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Figure 7.3 Kindergarten by Domain by Judy CenterReadiness School, 2012 Domain by Judy Center School, 2012
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Social and Personal Language and Literacy Mathematical Thinking Scientific Thinking Social Studies The Arts Physical Development Composite South Penn Beall All

Figure 7.3 Kindergarten Readiness by

30

South Penn Elementary was added as a new Judy Center site in 2012. Therefore, the students did not have exposure to the same array of early childhood services as Beall Elementary during earlier developmental years. Indeed, many pupils at Beall Elementary have had 3 years of exposure to Judy Center services. Therefore, it is not surprising that they lagged Beall Elementary students in readiness levels. These readiness lags (see Figure 7.3) extended to every domain. These results support the selection of South Penn as a new site and may argue in favor of activities that address each of the domains instead of a targeted few. Figure 7.4 indicates that Beall Elementary and South Penn pupils combined lagged their peers in the State and County in terms of overall readiness. Allegany County Judy Center readiness levels started out at a much higher level when it covered only one school (Beall Elementary) but decreased substantially when it extended coverage to the South Penn Elementary site. Also, 93.3 percent of students with prior Judy Center experience enrolled at Beall Elementary were at full readiness in 2013, which is up from the previous year level of 90 percent. As in previous years FARMS and Special education readiness lagged behind other students (See figures 7.1 and 7.5).

Figure 7.4 Composite Full Readiness, Figure 7.4 Composite Full Readiness, Judy Center, County, and State 2004-2012

Judy Center, County, and State 2004-2012

100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50

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

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

31

Figure 7.5 7.5 Kindergarten by Domain, Figure Kindergarten Readiness Readiness by Domain, All, FARM, and Special Education, 2012 All, FARM, and Special Education, 2012
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 7.6 Kindergarten Scores by Domain for Fall 2012 (131 Students) and Spring 2013 (125 Students) (131 Students) and Spring 2013 (125 Students)
Social and Personal

Figure 7.6 Kindergarten Scores by Domain for Fall 2012

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

32

Figure 7.6 show that child-learning progress occurred during the 2012-2013 school year. Although only 72.5 percent of students entered at full-readiness in the fall, ninety-four percent exited at full readiness in the spring as measured by the composite score. This exit readiness level was actually higher than the ninety-two percent full readiness achieved with last years Judy Center cohort focused on Beall Elementary and John Humbird Elementary. Progress was charted in every single domain with the most notable progress in Language and Literacy, which increased from 57.25 percent readiness to 90.4 percent readiness. Ninety-five percent of Beall Elementary students were fully ready by spring 2013 as measured by the composite score compared to ninetytwo percent of South Penn Elementary students. Some additional evidence of the effectiveness of the Judy Center is provided by MSA reading and math proficiency (see Figure 7.7). There were 98 students third graders at Allegany County Schools who were enrolled in Judy Center pre-kindergarten during the 2009-10 school year. Approximately 88 percent achieved proficiency in reading and 69 percent achieved proficiency in 2013. Forty-three of these students were enrolled at Beall Elementary for third grade and achieved proficiency levels of 86 percent for reading and 77 percent for math. These compare to proficiency rates of 94 percent and 89 percent in reading and math respectively for 19 third grade Beall students with no prior Judy Center experience. The Judy Center student proficiency rates were lower than what Beall Elementary students in third grade with Judy Center realized in 2012: 92 percent for reading and 81 percent for math. They were also lower than all Allegany County third graders (85 percent for reading and 82 percent for math) and the State of Maryland (83 percent for reading and 82 percent for math) in 2013.

Figure 7.7 MSA Third Grade MSA Proficiency, Maryland, Figure 7.7 Third Grade Proficiency, Maryland, Allegany County, and Judy Center Allegany County, and Judy Center
100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0

Percent Proficient

60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0

Maryland Allegany All Third Grade--Beall Prior Judy Center Experience @ Beall Prior Judy Center Experience -- All Schools No Prior Judy Center Experience @ Beall

Reading

Math

33

8.0 Special Research Questions

As part of the 2012-13 Judy Center continuation grant application, the Allegany County Board of Education posed two questions about child progress during the year: v How have community partnership changed and strengthened since the 10+ years that the Judy Center was introduced? Judy Center partnerships have been an integral part of the Allegany County Judy Center since its beginning. They have participated in Steering Committee meetings, been involved in case management coordination, provided non-duplicative services for children and parents, shared information in the monthly Judy Center newsletter, delivered training to parents and teachers, and provided activities for parents and children. The number of partners has incrementally expanded from 10 in 2002-2003 to 18 in the most recent year. Moreover, activities and trainings have expanded in number, size, and scope. For instance, the Judy Center initiated a School Readiness Fair with its partners and community agencies in 2010. This hugely successful event held at the Country Club Mall in LaVale has attracted approximately 500 parents and children each year and been well received by the community and partnering agencies and organizations. It has also help strengthened cooperation among the participating agencies and organization in other endeavors.

Figure 8.1 Partner Satisfication, 2003-2013

5

Figure 8.1 Partner Satisfication, 2003-2013

4.8

Average Satisfaction

4.6

4.4

4.2

3.8 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Fiscal Year 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

34

Figure 8.2 Partner Activity Level, 2004-2013

4 3.8 3.6 3.4 3.2 3 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.2 2 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Fiscal Year

Figure 8.2 Partner Activity Level, 2004-2013

Figures 8.1 and 8.2 shows partner average satisfaction and self-reported activities levels throughout the period of the Allegany County Judy Centers existence as reported in Partner Surveys since 2002-2003 (2003-2004 is interpolated because the survey questions were not asked that year). The graph shows satisfaction on a five point scale (5=Very satisfied; 4=Satisfied; 3=Somewhat satisfied; 2=Somewhat dissatisfied; 1=Not satisfied). These results show that average partner satisfaction with the Judy Centers rose markedly after the first year and has remained at a high level close to very satisfied. Figure 8.2 shows that partner activity levels also have been high on a four point scale (4=Very active; 3=Somewhat active; 2=Not very active; 1=Inactive). The average rating over time has been midway between very active and somewhat active. v How did the outcomes in all domains at John Humbird Elementary change during the years that the Judy Center operated there? John Humbird Elementary pupils showed progress on composite readiness during most years that the Judy Center was present. Readiness in Fall 2007 (prior to the time Judy Center resources could have affected in readiness scores) was 69.1 percent. This increased to 84.8 percent in 2008 before falling back to 66 percent in 2009. After that, improvement was made from 75 percent readiness in 2010 to 85 percent readiness in 2011 and 82 percent in 2012. During the entire period, the average readiness level was 78.6 percent compared to the pre-test year of 69.1 in 2007, suggesting improved readiness.

35

Average Activity Level

9.0 Changes Introduced

The Judy Center will maintain most of the programming and activities that were used during the fiscal year 13 funding cycle. For both sites, goals and objectives will be for the same domains of Language and Literacy, Social and Emotional Development. Goals and objectives are not included for Mathematical Thinking for South Penn as was done in FY 2013. Among the new or expanded activities to be conducted during the FY 2014 year are the following: v Both Judy Center schools will be piloting the new WSS in the next school year. v APPLES for Children will train people in Allegany County to facilitate a Parent Caf program and will create a resource library at the Kids Korner, Mt. Ridge site v The JC will purchase 5 ASQ (Ages & Stages Questionnaire) kits that will be used by family childcare providers after they are trained by APPLES for Children v Field trips will be taken to multiple locations, including Rocky Gap, Brookdale Farms, Hixson Farms, Cumberland Theatre, Cumberland Zoo, Wagners Sugar Camp, New Germany State Park, Glendenning Park v The South Penn Judy Center will send 4 childcare providers to attend the NAEYC Conference v A speech therapist will come into the South Penn JC classrooms 2 days/week and work with students who have speech issues but who do not qualify for services

36

10.0 Summary and conclusions

The latest funding cycle (FY 2013) 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 mathematical thinking) to two for South Penn Elementary (social and personal development and language and literacy). The domains remained the same for Beall Elementary (social and personal development and language and literacy). Kindergarten child readiness levels decreased from last year, largely because of the addition of a new site at South Penn Elementary where students did not have prior exposure to the full array of Judy Center services. Students at the Beall Elementary site showed a slight drop in readiness levels from the previous year. However, students with prior Judy Center experience showed high readiness levels according to the fall MMSR. These gains were not evident in the third grade--third grade students who had previous Judy Center experience did not show higher performance on either the reading or the math portion of the MSA than other students. The lag was particularly large for the math portion. These results suggest that the area of mathematical thinking should be the focus of additional focus. Other measured indicators show similar progress. Parent participation levels in Judy Center and partner sponsored activities continued to increase during the 2013-14 school year by over 10 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 mixed. 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, social and personal and mathematical thinking domains for South Penn lagged substantially the milestones established. However, the site is new. Moreover, students made rapid progress during the school year and had exceeded milestones by the conclusion of the year.

37

REFERENCES
Allegany County Board of Education. 2013. Continuation Grant Application for Judith P. Hoyer Early Child Care and Education Center Grants (Judy Centers). (June 2013) Allegany County Board of Education. 2012. Continuation Grant Application for Judith P. Hoyer Early Child Care and Education Center Grants (Judy Centers). (June 2012) Rephann, Terance. 2011. Allegany County Judy Center Evaluation: July 2010-June 2011. Rephann, Terance. 2012. Allegany County Judy Center Evaluation: July 2011-June 2012. Maryland State Department of Education. 2012. Children Entering School Ready to Learn: School Readiness Information. Baltimore: MSDE. Maryland State Department of Education. 2012. Maryland Report Card. http://www.mdreportcard.org

38

A.1 Fall Parent Survey Comments on Additional Needs

40

Afternoon Pre-K as well as morning. Information about childcare after school when needed. My son with a small used computer of his own. Social skills play group. To help me find a dentist that can fix [My sons] cavities in Oakland because he will have to be put to sleep. He does have dental insurance. Weekly reports on the kids.

42

A.2 Spring Parent Survey

44

In what ways has the Judy Center helped your child, you, and/or other members of the family? BEALL ELEMENTARY Speech She learns languages Provided a great learning environment Given with options we could use if needed Has helped him to interact with other children He has gained so much in all areas. I am mostly happy with his thirst for learning Great peer interaction My daughter loves multiage. It has helped her open up so much. Camp and Kids Korner were amazing in shaping [my child]. The encouragement and support have been outstanding. He has become more sociable. He loves going to school and being ther. The multi-age class has been wonderful getting my child ready for school. Socialization--interaction with other kids/new people Judy Center has helped my daughter to be able to speak and do things that she didnt at the beginning of the year. [My child] has really opened up. Shes more confidant with herself. Im very pleased. Speech School has helped her with remembering certain things as well as teaching her the seasons, months, alphabet, etc. Becoming more social. Learned a lot. Made neat projects. My sons behavior has changed 90% since hes started school. Having the time to work and clean up the house is such a gift Provide a safe environment while parents are working The Judy Center helped me personally by helping me afford childcare while getting my degree. Great with daycare Newsletter in getting info.

46

Our communication skills between us have improved very much. Different ways to teach her such as songs or rhymes. Helped provide safe care before and after school. On how to help with his behavior. Know more information thats going on in school Just knowing they are there to help me with anything is a nice feeling! And they accepted her into this program! Thank you! Giving with the experiences All 3 of my children have gone through a Judy Center program and done school. Able to provide a daycare (Kids Korner) for working parents before and after school hours. Child care Understanding school requirements and policy keeping me informed of school activities and changes. Activities outside of school ties. With my sons ADHD SOUTH PENN Helped to want to go to school and learn, and be happy with school. Reading books together. Helped me maintaining routine but child still has some problems at home but have taken to Dr. regarding situation. The Center also helped with my child eating better at home. With school field trips and with X-mas thank you so much for the help with holiday. The summer camp is a very good opportunity for my child. It is a full day. He learns and has supervised play and the field trips are fantastic! Reading, writing, social skills. It seems that he has furthered his understanding somewhat and has learned a little more since the beginning of this school year. I think that a little bit came from the activities. I didnt know they offered all that. It has helped him learn his alphabet, learning it and writing it. The activities they sponsor. Provided for fun learning activities. Behavior issues.

47

My sons disabilities at school IEP. Made us feel involved with the children and want to come to programs at school Helpful in many ways. Reading the flyers sent home gives me good teaching hints. The Judy Center has helped me and other family members come up with better activities to do with my child. I should take advantage of more the Judy Center has to offer. His behavior. The activities have helped by giving us fun things to do as a family. Things that the children enjoy doing is always a plus also. Dealing productively with behavior issues with child and stress from it. For my son at school. What activities would you like to see added at the Judy Center for your child and/or family? I would like to see a lot of computer work. Its good for the future. Camp for older kids! More family nights. More field trips. Fundraisers. More field trips The field trips were great! Always good to visit places around town when possible. Support groups on site.

48