Allegany County Judy Center Evaluation, 2003-2004

Judy Center Evaluation
July 2003-June 2004
eQuotient, Inc.
803 Trost Avenue
Cumberland, MD 21502
http://www.equotient.net
e-mail: equinfo@equotient.net
July 31, 2004
Judy Center Evaluation,
July 2003-June 2004
eQuotient, Inc.
803 Trost Avenue
Cumberland, MD 21502
http://www.equotient.net
e-mail: equinfo@equotient.net
July 31, 2004
Table of Contents
List of tables, figures, and appendices ................................................................... ii
1.0 Review of Last Year’s Results ................................................................................. 1
2.0 Characteristics and Delivery of This Year’s Training .......................................... 3
3.0 Enrollment, Training, and Validation .................................................................. 12
4.0 Partner Surveys ..................................................................................................... 14
5.0 Teacher Surveys ..................................................................................................... 17
6.0 Parent Surveys ....................................................................................................... 21
7.0 Child Readiness ..................................................................................................... 36
8.0 Special Research Questions .................................................................................. 43
9.0 Changes Introduced .............................................................................................. 45
10.0 Summary and Conclusions ................................................................................... 46
Appendices ............................................................................................................. 48
i
List of Tables
Table 2.1 Implementation plan ................................................................................................... 6-9

Table 2.2 Evaluation questions .................................................................................................... 10
Table 2.3 Special research questions ........................................................................................... 11
Table 3.1 Enrollment of children by age ..................................................................................... 12

Table 4.1 Partnership ratings .................................................................................................. 15-16
Table 5.1 Years teaching .............................................................................................................. 17
Table 5.2 Teacher satisfaction ..................................................................................................... 18

Table 5.3 Performance area ratings ........................................................................................ 18-19
Table 5.4 Feeling of families served by Judy Center .................................................................. 20
Table 6.1 Respondent characteristics ..................................................................................... 22-24

Table 6.2 Programs used ......................................................................................................... 25-26
Table 6.3 Learning/reading materials at home ............................................................................ 27
Table 6.4 Activities with children ............................................................................................... 27
Table 6.5 Program interest ........................................................................................................... 28

Table 6.6 Satisfaction with Judy Center services ........................................................................ 29
Table 6.7 Satisfaction with Judy Center in performance areas .............................................. 31-32
Table 6.8 Parent participation in Judy Center activities .............................................................. 33

Table 6.9 Parent rating of Judy Center parent activities .............................................................. 33
Table 6.10 Reason for not attending parent activities ................................................................... 34
Table 6.11 Improvement in child learning and habits because of the Judy Center ....................... 34
Table 6.12 Learning/reading materials at home before and after
Judy Center, percentage of parents .................................................................... 35
Table 6.13 Activities with children, percentage of parents who did

“frequently” before and after Judy Center ......................................................... 35
ii
List of Figures
Figure 2.1 Website page visits ........................................................................................................ 5
Figure 3.1 Enrollment by race ....................................................................................................... 13
Figure 4.1 Lowest partner ratings ................................................................................................. 14
Figure 6.1 Parent satisfaction with Judy Center services,
fall 2001, spring 2002, spring 2003, and spring 2004 ....................................... 28
Figure 6.2 Top 10 performance areas ............................................................................................ 29
Figure 6.3 Bottom 10 performance areas ...................................................................................... 30
Figure 7.1 Kindergarten readiness by domain .............................................................................. 37
Figure 7.2 FARMS readiness by domain ...................................................................................... 37
Figure 7.3 Special Education readiness by domain ...................................................................... 38
Figure 7.4 Kindergarten readiness by domain, 2002-2004 ........................................................... 39
Figure 7.5 Kindergarten readiness, Judy Center, County, and State ............................................. 39
Figure 7.6 Kindergarten readiness by domain, Judy Center, County, and State ........................... 40
Figure 7.7 Pre-Kindergarten readiness .......................................................................................... 41
Figure 7.8 Head Start observation study results ........................................................................... 42
Figure 7.9 MSA proficiency levels ............................................................................................... 42
Appendices
A.1 Judy Center Brochure .................................................................................................. 48
A.2 Judy Center Webpage .................................................................................................. 49
A.3 Steering Committee Survey ......................................................................................... 50
A.4 Pre-K/Kindergarten Staff Survey ................................................................................ 51
A.5 First-Grade Staff Survey .............................................................................................. 52
A.6 Fall Parent Survey ....................................................................................................... 53
A.7 Spring Parent Survey ................................................................................................... 54
A.8 Fall Parent Survey Comments ..................................................................................... 55
A.9 Spring Parent Survey Comments ................................................................................. 58
A.10 HRDC Head Start Early Childhood Observation Record ........................................... 63
iii
1.0 Review of Second Year of Program
T
he Beall Elementary Judy Center’s second year built upon the successful “One Stop Shop” model
developed during the first year beginning in January 2001. During the first year and a half of
operation, the Center developed the foundation for the program in the areas of staffing, programs
and curriculum, operating procedures, partnerships, and an evaluation plan that aligned with Judy Center
component standards (Allegany County Board of Education 2000; eQuotient 2002). The second year
saw curriculum improvements, additional partners, new training activities, validation/accreditation
completion, and further refinement of evaluation efforts. New initiatives included an additional
kindergarten class, expanded before and after day care slots, a center nurse, new staff training efforts,
several new partners, and new curriculum modules and materials. These characteristics are described
further in the second year evaluation report (eQuotient, Inc. 2003). The following findings from the
second year report are notable:
• The Judy Center increased the number of children who participated in extended day and extended
year services by providing a summer program and increasing enrollment in the before- and after-
school child care programs.
• The Judy Center added four new program partners including the Allegany County Circuit Court
(co-parenting seminars and “kidshare” program), Allegany County Library, Frostburg Branch (reading
activities for children and parents), APPLES for Children (staff training), and the Cooperative
Extension Service (Nutrition training and workshops for staff and parents). In addition, Frostburg
State University participated in new ways by producing video/broadcast outreach materials, child
screening and tutoring and the YMCA began to offer its Parent Power program on site.
• The Judy Center was able to improve the involvement in parents in child literacy development by
promoting free book distribution, literacy events and workshops.
• Increased monitoring and nurse follow-up helped to boost the average daily attendance rate of
kindergarten students over the previous year.
• Special education referrals decreased during the school year. However, referrals to the principal’s
office for discipline did not decrease.
1
• Parties involved with the Judy Center expressed satisfaction with the Judy Center during its second
year of operation. Eighty-eight percent of partner agencies and ninety-seven percent of parents
indicated that they were “very satisfied” or “satisfied” with the Judy Center. The top performance
areas cited by parents were friendliness/helpfulness of staff and activities for learning language.
The lowest performance areas were sufficiency of space and quality of school meals.
• School readiness as measured by the MMSR (Maryland Model for School Readiness) indicators
that are embedded in kindergarten and pre-kindergarten student progress reports indicate that the
Judy Center had largely met its goals in achieving benchmarks and milestones identified in the grant
application. In addition, curriculum changes, staff training and resource additions in the area of
science helped to boost kindergarten performance in the WSS domain of scientific thinking.
Furthermore, child performance for both groups exceeded county (and for Kindergarten, the State)
progress levels.
• Second graders who were tested for the California Test of Basic Skills (CTBS) in 2002-03 (and who
included many participants from the Judy Center program as Kindergartners in 2000-01) improved
their relative scores in most of the tested areas.
2
2.0 Characteristics and Delivery of the Third Year
I
n year three, the Judy Center established new program targets, partnerships, and program delivery
methods that would further improve the effectiveness of the Center. This new agenda was developed
using information obtained from external evaluation, self-evaluation, and stakeholder surveys. The
major focus of the year’s improvements (detailed in Allegany County Board of Education 2003) were
pupils who received Free and Reduced Meals (FARMS) and children with special needs. These
adjustments were made to realize the goals of No Child Left Behind. The changes are arranged into the
categories Curriculum and Programs, Professional Development, Family Activities, and Partnerships
which are described further below:
Curriculum and Programs

Fresh Start Program. The Judy Center increased the number of Fresh Start weekly sessions
from the previous year level of one to two for eligible children during the summer of 2003 and
provided free transportation.
Second Step Violence Prevention Curriculum. The Judy Center staff introduced this curriculum
into the summer program which teaches social and emotional skills to prevent violence.
Multi-age Linkages. Children from the multi-age class were connected to other educational
programs available at the Judy Center to provide a full-day of education.
Curriculum Software. The Boardmaker software program for language and literacy learning
was purchased and installed on computers at the Center.
Instructional Alignment for Pre-K and Kindergarten. Staff development in the voluntary
state curriculum for Pre-K and Kindergarten in the core content areas occurred and the curriculum
was implemented.
3
Professional Development
Staff training. Judy Center staff and partners received professional development in working
with children from low-income families by participating in a Ruby Payne workshop on
“Understanding Poverty.”
Teaching Models. Special Education teachers were assisted by introducing an inclusion model
in collaboration with pre-k teachers and the TAT model (Teacher Assistance Team).
Math Module. Continued MMSR training. Staff participated in mathematics module for
classroom instruction.
Family Activities
Reading Night. The Judy Center expanded the Family Reading Night program, conducted in
conjunction with the Allegany County Library System into the summer. Previously, these
activities were held only during the regular school year.
Free Reading Resources. The Judy Center expanded the reading resources available to families
and children at their homes by: (1) holding Family Fun Nights with free book distribution, (2)
providing approximately 500 books to families, and (3) distributing free bookshelves to families
who participate in Judy Center reading activities.
Parent training. The Judy Center hosted a series of parent training and education workshops
about parenting under the direction of licensed psychologist Dr. James Miller of the Allegany
County Health Department .
Partnerships
YMCA/Parent Power. The YMCA offered a program for parents and children called Parent
Power for the full year on site. This was funded through an Adolescent Family Life Demonstration
Project (AFL) grant provided by the Department of Health and Human Services.
Daytime Child Care. Because of the low number of children enrolled in the HRDC daytime
Child Care program during the year, the Judy Center contracted with a private child care provider
called Kids Korner Childcare Center to offer child care services on site during 2003-04. The
Judy Center used grant funds to provide individual “scholarships” to eligible children.
Most features of the program remained basically the same as the second year. For instance, reporting
and internal evaluation were carried out in much the same manner as the second year with a designated
Steering Board that met on a quarterly basis and monthly state meetings of Judy Center staff. Program
marketing was similar to the second year, including the use of broadcast, newspaper announcements,
website, and print materials. However, there were some notable differences. A new Judy Center brochure
4
was developed which described the comprehensive services offered (see Appendix A.1). Staff made
much greater use of print announcements to publicize school and after-school special activities. This
increase reflected a much more numerous and diverse selection of family activities outside of regular
school hours. In addition, a new Judy Center webpage was established and updated on a regular basis
(see Appendix A.2). Whereas the previous webpage fell into disuse, the current revamped version
contained numerous current links, including a calendar that was kept current. During the year, website
page visits increased over 200% (see figure 2.1).
The parameters for evaluation were spelled out in the proposal and are listed in table 2.1. The ultimate
goals of the program are to broadly improve child learning. Intermediate objectives involve particular
key curriculum components where focused inputs were anticipated to have the greatest potential impact.
Strategies describe programmatic improvements and activities include specific program inputs that were
to be expanded in order to realize a particular strategy. The final column briefly describes the achievement
of each goal, objective, strategy, and activity. To summarize this table, every goal, objective, and strategy
proposed in the grant was realized. A few of the activities described were not fully implemented because
grant funding was not secured (e.g., core reading program implementation from Early Reading First (ERF)
grant, speech/language and occupational therapy program from Foundation for Rural Maryland grant).
Figure 2.1 Website page visits

1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
A
Se
Ja
Fe
Ju
ug
ov
ec
pr
ct
ar
ay
n-
b-
n-
p
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
20
20
20
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
04
04
04
3
4
4
3
3
3
3
5
Table 2.1 Implementation Plan
Goal Objective Strategy Activities Achievement

By June 30, By June 30, Increase the (1) Implement a Goal and objective
2004, exiting 2004, exiting readiness level core reading realized.
kindergarten kindergarten of FARMS program in pre- Readiness of
students at the students at the children in the kindergarten and FARMS children
Judy Center will Judy Center domain of kindergarten that increased to 95%.
maintain the who receive Language and is based on Strategy worked
composite score Free and Literacy. Scientific Based with readiness in
of 86% at the full Reduced Meals Reading Research Language and
readiness level (FARMS) will as defined by Literacy
for all WSS increase their Early Reading improving.
domains. composite score First and Reading Activities
from 77% to First. (2) Train implemented as
80% at the full staff in working follows: (1) Did
readiness level. with children not occur due to
from low-income lack of grant
families by assistance for
involving them in project, (2) Ruby
professional Payne workshop
development with occurred at
Ruby Payne's beginning of
workshop on school year, both
"Understanding staff and partners
Poverty." (3) were included, (3)
Continue and Family Reading
expand the Family Night was
Reading Night at continued and
the Frostburg expanded to
Branch of the additional nights,
Allegany County (4) 250
Library System bookshelves and
during the 500 books were
summer, (4) Seek distributed during
ways to increase the summer library
the number of program and
books available to through WIC, (5)
children in their Five Breakfast
homes by Club and Supper
conducting Family Club workshops
Fun Nights with with Dr. Jim
book giveaways, Miller, licensed
applying for a Psychologist from
First Books grant the Allegany
to provide free Health Department ,
books to 20 low- were held during
income families the year.
for one year, and
giving children's
Table 2.1 Implementation Plan continued on next page
6
Table 2.1 Implementation Plan continued from previous page
Goal Objective Strategy g

Activities
g
Achievement
individual
bookshelves to
families who
participate in Judy
Center activities.
(5) Sponsor a
parent training
and education
program, in
partnership with
the Allegany
County Health
Department, that
will focus on 40
developmental
assets that are key
to children's
growth and
development
-- -- Increase the 1) Train staff in Goal and objective
readiness of working with realized.
FARMS children children from Readiness of
in the domain of low-income FARMS children
Social and families by increased to 95%.
Personal Skills. involving them in Strategy worked
professional with readiness in
development with Social and Personal
Ruby Payne's skills improving.
workshop on Activities
"Understanding implemented as
Poverty." (2) follows: (1) Ruby
Continue and Payne workshop
expand Family occurred at
Reading Night at beginning of
the Frostburg school year, both
Branch of the staff and partners
Allegany County were included, (2)
Library System Reading Night was
during the continued and
summer. (3) expanded to
Sponsor a parent additional nights,
training and (3) Five Breakfast
education Club and Supper
program, in Club workshops
partnership with with Dr. Jim
the Allegany Miller, licensed
County Health Psychologist from
Department, that the Allegany
will focus on Health Department
developmental were held during
assets that are key the year, (4) Fresh
to children's Start sessions were
7

personal and increased to two
social with transport
development. (4) provided (5)
Double the Second Step
number of Fresh Violence
Start weekly Prevention
sessions (increase Curriculum was
from 1 to 2) for used.
identified children
during the
summer of 2003,
with
transportation
provided. (5)
Incorporate the
Second Step
Violence
Prevention
Curriculum into
the five-week
summer program.
-- By June 30, Increase the (1) Continue to Goal and objective
2004, exiting readiness level offer a half-day realized.
kindergarten of Special multi-age class. Readiness of
students at the Education The target Special Education
Judy Center children in the enrollment will be children increased
who receive domain of 20 children who to 75%. No
special Language and exhibit language evidence of
education Literacy. delays, speech or strategy success.
services will articulation Activities
increase their problems, and/or implemented as
composite score limited literacy follows: (1) A half-
from 40% to experiences. (2) day multi-age class
50% at the full Link children was continued. In
readiness level. from the multi- addition, another
age class to other half-day multi-age
appropriate class (funded by
educational Special Education)
programs to was created to
provide a full-day accommodate 10
of educational children, (2)
programming. (3) Children from
Fully implement special education
the inclusion multi-age also
model into the spent a half day in
pre-kindergarten regular Pre-k class,
program. The (3) Team teaching
pre-kindergarten was used in 4 year
teacher and the old Pre-K, (4) The
special education TAT model was
teacher will be co- used and linked
8

teachers. (4) with early
Utilize the identification of
Teacher children with
Assistance Team developmental
model (TAT) to problems.
provide support (5) The grant from
for teachers of the Foundation for
special education Rural Maryland
students. (5) was submitted but
Apply for a grant not awarded.
from the
Foundation for
Rural Maryland
with the goal of
involving at-risk
kindergarten
students in a
combined
speech/language
and occupational
therapy program
to reduce the
likelihood that
special education
services for
speech and
language or
written language
will be needed in
the future.
In this report, a broader spectrum of measures (see table 2.2) is used to measure program effective-
ness. This includes the following elements: (1) program enrollment and attendance (were enrollment
and attendance expectations for children and parents achieved?), (2) staff training, curriculum re-
sources, and validation (were necessary staff training, program validation, and curriculum materials
available as planned?), (3) partner satisfaction (how did partners rate collaboration success?), (4)
teacher satisfaction (how did teachers in Pre-K, Kindergarten, and 1st grade view the Judy Center?),
(5) parent satisfaction (how did parents view the Judy Center?), (6) child learning (how much did
children learn according to information from pupil progress reports and other evaluations?), (7) Judy
Center component standard ratings (how did parents and staff view accomplishment of Judy Center
goals), and (8) answers to special research questions about the availability of community resources
posed in the continuation grant proposal (see table 2.3).
9
Table 2.2 Evaluation questions.
Issues Measurement
# children enrolled in Judy Center programs by
Children enrolled
area
Child attendance Attendance rates
Parent involvement # and type of parent workshops
Staff professional development # and type training workshops attended
Program accreditation # programs validated
Partner satisfaction Partner Survey
Teacher satisfaction Teacher Survey
Parent satisfaction Parent Survey
Child readiness Pupil Progress Reports, Test results
Alignment with Judy Center Goals teacher survey, parent survey
Special research questions regarding effects on
# student referrals, partner comments, other
child behavior, cost effectiveness
The remainder of the report is divided into seven sections. The next section (3.0) addresses pupil
enrollment, family service, training, and validation strategies of the program. Section 4.0 describes the
results of a steering board partner survey. Section 5.0 describes the results of an end-of year teacher
survey and section 6.0 describes the findings of fall and spring surveys of parents. The fall survey asks
mainly questions about parenting practices and family resources for use in designing Judy Center activities
during the remainder of the year while the spring survey was designed to provide summative information
about the perceived effectiveness of the Judy Center, different strategies, and overall parent satisfaction.
Section 7.0 provides information on child learning achievement as revealed by performance on various
pupil progress reports and tests using benchmark comparisons. Section 8.0 answers special research
questions (see table 2.3) introduced in last year’s continuation grant application. Section 9.0 describes
changes that are anticipated for next year’s Judy Center. The report ends with a summary.
10
Table 2.3 Special research questions
Question
(1) Has the readiness level of kindergarten FARMS children improved?
(2) Has the readiness level of kindergarten special education children improved?
Has the inclusion model in pre-kindergarten had a positive impact on the Language and
(3)
Literacy level of special education children?
Has the inclusion model in pre-kindergarten had a positive impact on the Social and
(4)
Personal Development level of special education children?
Are children with the greatest educational need being adequately recruited, identified, and
(5) enrolled in appropriate early childhood programs to increase their readiness for
kindergarten?
Do children who have participated in pre-kindergarten or multi-age programs perform at a
(6) higher level of kindergarten readiness than those children who did not participate in those
preschool programs?
Does the Judy Center experience impact positively on special education referrals and
(7)
placement?
In what ways have the participating partners benefited from the Ruby Payne training on
(8)
"Understanding Poverty"?
11
3.0 Enrollment, training, and validation
A
duplicated headcount of four hundred and forty-nine (449) students was served by programs
housed at the Judy Center. This figure is not comparable to the figure provided for last year’s
report because that number was unduplicated. The figure is also not comparable to first year
operating figures because those included county-wide totals for WIC and Infant and Toddlers whereas
2002-03 figures included Judy Center children only. FY 2004 Judy Center funding leveraged
programming that allowed 94 additional children to enroll. The distribution of children by age is shown
in table 3.1 and distribution by race for Pre-K, Kindergarten, and after-school/before school programs in
figure 3.1. Child enrollment racial demographics from available partners were slightly lower than the
service area—6.4% of children were minority versus 8.4% reported in the 2000 U.S. Census for Frostburg.
Table 3.1 Enrollment of children by age.
#
Birth to 3 43
3 years old 44
4 years old 97
5 years old 50
Total 250
One strategy identified in the FY 2004 grant was to narrow the achievement gap for children who
receive free and reduced price meals (FARMS) and for students receiving special education services.
Enrollment of targeted groups for pre-kindergarten was improved from approximately 61 percent in
need categories (automatic enrollment and priority enrollment) for FY 2003 to approximately 78% in
FY 2004 . Additional resources were directed to screening (with First Step Developmental screenings
increasing from 55 to 92 and language/learning screenings increases) and classroom capacity was
increased by adding a special education half-day multi-age class with ten slots.
12
Figure 3.1 Enrollment by race
1% 2%
4%
American Indian
Asian
Black
White
93%
In an effort to reduce costs and improve quality, the Center involved a private day care provider (Kids
Korner). This change had the effect of increasing the number of children enrolled in before/after school
child care. Total enrollment was 28 in FY 2002, 42 in FY 2003, and jumped to 55 in FY 2004.
Another general goal of this year was to increase the level of family involvement, particularly in after-
school activities and parent workshops/trainings. Family activities included: YMCA directed weekly
“Parent Power” workshops which involved abstinence and parenting workshops for parents and
recreational activities for children (27 families served in 27 sessions) , family reading nights (41 families
served in 5 sessions), a Breakfast/Supper Club in which parenting information was provided by Health
Department psychologist Dr. James Miller, and sessions for parents on resume writing, public speaking,
computer skills, and voter registration. In total, 45 different parent/family sessions were offered by the
Judy Center (including 27 sessions by the YMCA Parent Power program). A duplicated count of one
hundred and eight families attended the events. This compares to a total of 13 separate workshops/
activities being held and a duplicated number of 118 families participating in FY 2003. These activities
were announced in the Times-News newspaper, Judy Center flyers and/or calendars distributed to children
and parents, and postings to the revamped Judy Center website.
Staff development goals outlined in the grant application were achieved. Staff attended Ruby Payne’s
workshop on “Framework for Understanding Poverty” at the beginning of the school year, and staff
participated in supplemental weekly focus group discussions of the Ruby Payne program during the
school year. In addition, twelve staff and partners attended MMSR training. Additional training was
provided on the topics of “Giftedness in Poverty”, potty training, humor and stress management, creative
arts, and team building.
Validation/accreditation for the Judy Center pre-k, kindergarten and childcare programs was obtained in
2002 for a three-year period from MSDE. The Head Start program had a site visit by the National
Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) in April 2004 and certification was pending
as of the writing of this report. Head Start, through a grant written by APPLES for Children, received a
site visit in May 2004 and accreditation during summer 2004. In addition, the Kids Korner daycare
center began to work towards obtaining MSDE accreditation for its child care program.
13
4.0 Partner Surveys
D
uring the year, a survey was created by the Judy Hoyer Advisory Council to assist Judy Centers
in fostering better partnerships. A copy of this survey is provided in Appendix A.3. The survey
included four categories of attitudes that are important to developing effective collaboration,
including (1) Outcomes and Strategy (OS), (2) Communication (C), (3) Participation (P), and (4)
Organization and Coordination (OC). Nine of seventeen partners participated in the survey, which was
conducted by mail to ensure confidentiality of the responses. Results were tabulated by the University
of Maryland School of Public Affairs.
Table 4.1 shows the results of the survey. They show that the Judy Center ranked relatively high on the
indicators with an average rating of 3.51 (between “strongly agree” and “generally agree”). Five of the
top ten indicators were Outcomes and Strategy measures. On the other hand, three of the bottom five
measures were about “Participation” (see Figure 4.1). Partners expressed only mild disagreement with
one statement: “involves community residents and parents in decision-making processes.”
Figure 4.1 Lowest Partnership Ratings

Involves community residents and
parents in decision-making processes (P)
Involves front-line workers and their representatives
in decision-making processes (P)
Come to an agreement on client outcomes (OS)
Successes and failures of this
effort is shared by all the Partners (P)
Builds on and integrates its work
with other efforts and collaborations (OC)
Has informed public officials
of policy priorities we support 
Reviews its outcomes and strategy (OS)
The community hears about
activities, progress, and results 
Have a role to play in improving school readiness (P)
Data is shared effectively among Partners (OC)
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
14
Table 4.1 Partnership ratings.
Outcomes and Strategy

Come to an agreement on client outcomes 3.33
Come to an agreement on the assessment of progress 3.88
Can understand/explain what success will look like 3.56
Clear strategy for improving client outcomes 3.67
Our strategy will measurably improve client outcomes 3.63
Uses client outcome data to evaluate and improve its strategy 3.63
Uses results-based budgeting 3.57
Reviews its outcomes and strategy 3.44
Communication
Regular, systematic, and ongoing communication methods are used 3.67
Members are connected and have effective communication 3.75
Has informed public officials of policy priorities we support 3.4
The community hears about activities, progress, and results 3.44
Participation
Have a role to play in improving school readiness 3.44
Involves community residents and parents in decision-making processes 2.78
Involves front-line workers and their representatives in decision-making process 3.11
Clear understanding of commitments each partner has made to the partnership 3.56
Have the support from my organization to make the Partnership work 3.5
Successes and failures of this effort is shared by all the Partners 3.33
My organization can fulfill its missions more effectively working in the Partnership 3.67
Table 4.1 Partnership ratings continued on next page
15
Table 4.1 Partnership ratings continued from previous page
Organization and Coordination

Partnership has decided how decisions are to be made 3.56
Partnership has organized, productive meetings on problem solving 3.56
Organizations coordinate service delivery effectively 3.5
Data is shared effectively among Partners 3.44
Has upgraded its interagency data collection and analysis 3.5
Has integrated its work into the work of the school to which it is linked 3.89
School staff and services are well integrated with the work of the partnership 3.75
Builds on and integrates its work with other efforts and collaborations 3.33
16
5.0 Teacher Surveys
A
teacher survey was introduced this year to obtain feedback from staff in kindergarten/pre-k and
first-grade teachers. The two surveys (included in Appendix A.4 and A.5) are broadly similar
and ask about teacher background, satisfaction with school resources and staff and parent
involvement, Center performance on Judy Center component standards, and overall satisfaction with
the Center. Eight teachers in total were surveyed, including five pre-k/kindergarten teachers and three
first grade teachers. As table 5.1 indicates half of the teachers are relatively new to teaching.
Table 5.1 Years teaching, percentage of teachers.
1-2 25%
3-5 25%
5-10 0%
11-15 12.5%
16 or more 37.5%
Table 5.2 shows that teachers are generally satisfied with the amount of resources and cooperation at
Beall Elementary. Table 5.3 show that only one performance area (i.e., sufficiency of space) received a
minimal rating from a teacher.
17
Table 5.2 Teacher satisfaction, percentage of teachers
(5=Very Satisfied, 3=Somewhat Satisfied, 1=Not Satisfied)
(5) (4) (3) (2) (1)

Quality of classroom equipment 87.5 12.5 0 0 0
Quality of facilities 62.5 25.0 12.5 0 0
Size of classes 87.5 0 12.5 0 0
Administrative support 87.5 12.5 0 0 0
Professional development opportunities 87.5 12.5 0 0 0
Collaboration with teachers 87.5 12.5 0 0 0
Collaboration with early childhood agencies 62.5 37.5 0 0 0
Level of parental involvement in children's education 37.5 37.5 25.0 0 0
Table 5.3 Performance area ratings, percentage of teachers

(4=Excellent, 3=Good, 2=Minimal, 1=Inadequate, 0=NA/Don’t Know).
(4) (3) (2) (1) (0)

a. Hours and days of JC operation 100 0 0 0 0
b. Child care before or after day 100 0 0 0 0
c. Quality of school meals (lunch, breakfast) 87.5 12.5 0 0 0
d. Family case management 71.4 14.3 0 0 14.3
e. Array of child and family support services on site 100 0 0 0 0
Array of child services for all ages (e.g., infants and
f. 100 0 0 0 0
toddlers, pre-k, kindergarten)
g. Screening for disabilities 71.4 14.3 0 0 14.3

(4=Excellent, 3=Good, 2=Minimal, 1=Inadequate, 0=NA/Don’t Know) continued on next page
18
(4=Excellent, 3=Good, 2=Minimal, 1=Inadequate, 0=NA/Don’t Know) continued from previous page
(4) (3) (2) (1) (0)

h. Provision of services for children with disabilities 50 33.3 0 0 16.7
Health services (e.g., immunizations, dental assessment,
i. 75.0 25.0 0 0 0
vision/hearing screening)
j. Friendliness/helpfulness of staff and teachers 100 0 0 0 0
k. Supervision of children/discipline 75 12.5 0 0 12.5
l. Materials for learning and play 100 0 0 0 0
m. Play activities 87.5 0 0 0 12.5
n. Activities for learning Art 75 12.5 0 0 12.5
o. Activities for learning Music 75.0 12.5 0 0 12.5
p. Activities for learning Physical education 75 12.5 0 0 12.5
q. Activities for learning Language/reading/writing 75.0 12.5 0 0 12.5
r. Activities for learning Nature/science 62.5 25.0 0 0 12.5
s. Activities for learning Math 75.0 12.5 0 0 12.5
t. Activities for learning Computers 62.5 25.0 0 0 12.5
u. Progress reports and follow-up conferences 75.0 12.5 0 0 12.5
Activities for parents and families (e.g., field trips,
v. 62.5 25.0 0 0 12.5
picnics)
Education programs for families (e.g., parenting
w. 75.0 12.5 0 0 12.5
workshops, GED classes)
Information provided by Judy Center about upcoming
x. 100 0 0 0 0
activities
y. Judy Center webpage 85.7 0 0 0 14.3
z. Food and nutrition assistance (e.g., WIC) 87.5 0 0 0 12.5
aa. Cleanliness and safety of Judy Center 75.0 25.0 0 0 0
bb. Sufficiency of space 37.5 37.5 12.5 0 12.5
19
Seven staff felt that families served by the Judy Center were either “very satisfied” or “satisfied” with
the Judy Center (see table 5.4) but one was uncertain. All three 1st grade teachers indicated that they
were satisfied with the Center, but one teacher expressed confusion over the difference between the
Judy Center activities and those of the regular pre-k. Two teachers indicated that they were “very satisfied”
with the readiness of Judy Center students and one was “satisfied.”
Table 5.4 Feeling of families served by Judy Center, percentage of teachers
2002-03 2003-04
Very Satisfied 50 62.5
Satisfied 50 25.0
Somewhat Satisfied 0 0
Somewhat Dissatisfied 0 0
Not Satisfied at All 0 0
Don't Know 0 12.5
20
6.0 Parent Surveys
T
wo parent surveys were administered during the school year. The survey instruments were similar
to the ones used in last year’s report. The first survey (see Appendix A.6) collected information
on family resources and attitudes for use in designing curriculum improvements and outside
activities for the school year. The second survey (see Appendix A.7) collected information on parent
satisfaction with various features of the Judy Center, parental assessments of child development during
the school year, and information on family resources and attitudes.
Since a major effort was made to improve family services during the year, the pre-tests and post-tests were
constructed to make comparisons for pre-test and post-test responses to see if the program had a positive
effect on family attitudes and resources. Survey participants were given the option of providing the last
four digits of their social security numbers so that pairwise matchings of post-test and pre-test responses
could be made. As in previous years, however, there was a large drop off in survey participation between
the fall and spring (from 72 collected in the fall to 33 In the spring). However, fourteen (14) responses
were received in the spring from participants in the fall survey so that comparisons could be made. Table
6.1 shows the characteristics of Judy Center parent respondents to the first survey. Seventy-two responses
were received. Half of the responding parents are thirty years or older and ninety-three percent are female.
Approximately two out of three work (either full or part-time) and are married. Over two-thirds have at
least some college and slightly over half are homeowners. Similar to the previous year, the typical Judy
Center survey respondent has a higher socioeconomic level than the average Frostburg city or Allegany
County resident (see eQuotient 2003) . However, this year’s respondent’s level is lower than for 2002-03
Most parents (82%) have only one child enrolled in the Center. Most children are enrolled in pre-k and
multi-age programs. Twenty-eight percent of children have special needs as compared to eighteen
percent of children according to the 2002-03 report (eQuotient 2003). Among the special needs cited by
parents, ten (10) children had speech difficulties, three (3) were autistic, one had cystic fibrosis, one had
asthma, and two (2) had emotional or other behavioral problems.
21
Table 6.1 Respondent Demographics, percentage of parents.
Age # %
15-19 0 0
20-24 11 15.3
25-29 25 34.7
30-34 19 26.4
35-39 9 12.5
40+ 8 11.1
Total 72 100.0
Gender %
Male 93.1
Female 6.9
Employment Status %
Employed full-time 44.4
Employed part-time 19.4
Not employed and seeking job 9.7
Not employed and not seeking job 2.8
Homemaker 20.8
Other 2.8
Table 6.1 Respondent Demographics, percentage of parents continued on next page.
22
Table 6.1 Respondent Demographics, percentage of parents continued from previous page.
Marital Status %
Married 64.8
Single 18.3
Divorced 16.9
Widowed/Widower 0.0
Educational level %
Some high school 6.9
High school diploma 25.0
GED 1.4
Some college 40.3
Associates degree 11.1
Bachelor's degree or higher 15.3
Own or rent home %
Own 55.6
Rent 34.7
Live with relatives 16.7
Other 0
Number of children %
One 81.7
Two 16.9
Three 1.4
Table 6.1 Respondent Demographics, percentage of parents continued on next page.
23
Table 6.1 Respondent Demographics, percentage of parents continued from previous page.
Ages of children # %
1 0 0
2 3 3.6
3 20 23.8
4 33 39.3
5 24 28.6
Over 5 4 4.7
Total 84 100.0
Special Needs %
Yes 27.5
No 71.0
Don't know 1.4
Table 6.2 shows that most parent respondents have children enrolled in kindergarten (44%), pre-k (35%),
or multi-age programs (28%), and Head Start (22%). Food programs such as WIC (40%), lunch (42%),
and breakfast (38%) were also popular. Fifteen percent of parents utilizes after-school day care and
thirteen percent uses before school day care. The percentages of responding parents using early childhood
education, food programs, childcare and many other programs have increased since the Center started.
24
Table 6.2 Programs used, percentage of parents.
Fall 2001 Fall 2002 Fall 2003

Kindergarten 28 42 44
4-year old Pre-K 20 32 35
2-3 year old Pre-K 7 11 -
3-4-5 year old Pre-K 12 10 -
3 & 4 year old Pre-K - - 28
Head Start 20 3 22
Before school childcare 6 5 13
After school childcare 3 10 15
During school childcare 5 5 7
School closing childcare 7 4 10
Case Management 0 1 1
Preschool Special Education 1 1 4
Infant and Toddler 13 2 -
Dental Services 3 2 6
Partners for Success 1 1 6
Family Support Network - - 6
Table 6.2 Programs used, percentage of parents continued on next page.
25
Table 6.2 Programs used, percentage of parents continued from previous page.
Fall 2001 Fall 2002 Fall 2003

Fresh Start - 0 6
WIC 30 28 40
Healthy Start (Health Dept) 4 3 3
Nurturing Program 2 2 -
Dr. Miller's "Breakfast Club" - - 10
Family Junction 0 1 6
YMCA—Family Center 3 0 -
YMCA class @ Judy Center 0 0 -
YMCA Parent/Child activities - - 4
English as Second Language 0 1 0
Mental Health (Health Dept) 1 0 3
Breakfast 22 26 38
Lunch 26 29 42
Other ("Nurse") 1 1
Parents were surveyed about the availability of learning support materials in the household and parental
participation in learning activities (see table 6.3). Almost all of the parents (97%) reported that children’s
books were available while slightly fewer (93%) indicated that they had televisions (93%). Seventy-
four percent of households had computers and 64% had Internet access. These figures are similar to
averages reported in a 2001 technology survey (Rephann 2001) of all Allegany County public school
children (there 73% of children reported having home computers and 62% overall had Internet access).
For each of the learning/reading materials except “newspapers”, the proportion of households has increased
over last year’s levels.
Approximately nine in ten parents “frequently” praise their children for doing well, eat a meal together as
a family, and sit and talk with their children about their day. Four in five parents reported reading with their
children “frequently” and two in three “frequently” played with their children. Most “rarely” or “never”
went to a library or museum with their children. Other responses include: “sports” and “church.”
Parents identified programming of interest for the upcoming year (see table 6.5). Parent-child activities
were the most popular (identified by one in four) followed by “educational programs for 3-4-5 year
olds” and “parenting classes.”
26
Table 6.3 Learning/reading materials at home, percentage of parents.
2002-03 2003-04
Children's books 84 97
Magazines for children 41 54
Adult books 63 68
Newspapers 60 58
Television 83 93
Home computer 61 74
Computer with Internet Access 54 64
Other
Table 6.4 Activities with children, percentage of parents.
Frequently Sometimes Rarely Never NA

Read a story 81.9 16.7 1.4 0 0
Played with toys or
66.7 31.9 1.4 0 0
played games
Praised your child for
94.4 5.6 0 0 0
doing well
Visited public library
6.9 38.9 33.3 19.4 0
or museum
Visited a playground,
park, or went on a 41.7 51.4 5.6 1.4 0
picnic
Eat a meal together
88.9 11.1 0 0 0
as a family
Attended an event
hosted by a
31.9 34.7 25.0 0 0
community or
religious group
Sit and talk to your
child about his/her 87.5 9.7 0 0 2.8
day
27
Table 6.5 Program interest, percentage of parents.
Parent/child activities 22.2

Education programs for 3, 4, or 5 year olds 16.7
Parenting classes 13.9
Childcare 9.7
GED 8.3
Family Preservation 4.2
Fresh Start 4.2
Programs for children with disabilities 2.8
MCHIP (children's health insurance) 1.4
Head Start 1.4
WIC 0.0
The spring survey received thirty-three 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 improved slightly over the previous
year. However, satisfaction levels were still lower than the levels achieved at the end of the Center’s
first year in 2001-2002. Still, the ninety-four percent satisfaction rating (combining “very satisfied” and
“satisfied”) is higher than the eighty-nine percent state-wide average satisfaction reported for all Maryland
Judy Centers (eQuotient 2003).
Figure 6.1 Parent Satisfaction
Very Satisfied
Satisfied
May-2004
Somewhat Satisfied
May-2003
Somewhat Dissatisfied
May-2002
Not Satisfied at All
Don't Know
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
28
Table 6.6 Satisfaction with Judy Center services, percentage of parents.
2001-02 2002-03 2003-04

Very Satisfied 79 60.7 72.7
Satisfied 19 36.1 21.2
Somewhat Satisfied 2 3.3 6.1
Somewhat Dissatisfied 0 0 0
Not Satisfied at All 0 0 0
Don't know/Confused or uniformed about the 0
0 0
services provided
Don't know/No feeling about the center 0 0 0
Table 6.7 shows parent satisfaction with features of the Judy Center that align with the Judy Center
Component Standards. Figure 6.2 displays the top 10 rated areas and figure 6.3 shows the bottom 10
rated areas as determined by weighting the responses by the following scale: (4=excellent; 3=good,
2=minimal, 1=inadequate). It is important to note that all of the features were rated above 3 (good).
Figure 6.2 Top 10 Performance Areas
Supervision of children/discipline
Food and nutrition assistance
Information provided by Judy Center about upcoming activities
Hours and days of Judy Center operation
Array of child services for all ages
Play activities
Materials for learning and play
Activities for learning physical education
Cleanliness and safety of Judy Center
Chid care before or after day
3.35 3.4 3.45 3.5 3.55 3.6 3.65
29
The top rated features were “supervision of children/discipline” and “food and nutrition assistance”.
Also rated highly were “information provided by Judy Center about upcoming activities” and “hours
and days of Judy Center operation.” All four of these features were rated higher this year than last year.
Although this year’s grant focused more on children with special needs, this category did not figure
among the top ten and decreased somewhat between this year and last.
Figure 6.3 Bottom 10 Performance Areas
Activities for learning music
Friendliness/helpfulness of staff and teachers
Activities for learning nature/science
Quality of school meals (lunch, breakfast)
Activities for learning math
Activities for learning computers
Array of child and family support services on site
Family case management
Activities for parents and families
Sufficiency of space
3.1 3.15 3.2 3.25 3.3 3.35 3.4
As with last year the “sufficiency of space” was rated lowest among the features. Surprisingly, given the
greater emphasis of family/parent programming, “activities for parents and families” was rated next
lowest followed by “family case management” and “array of child and family support services on site.”
Other areas rated lower included several learning areas such as activities for learning computers, math,
science/nature, and music. In open-ended comments, several parents also identified a desire for additional
family-child activities and field trips (see Appendix A.9).
30
Table 6.7 Satisfaction with Judy Center in performance areas, percentage of parents
(E=Excellent, G=Good, M=Minimal, I=Inadequate, NA=Not applicable/Not available)
(E) (G) (M) (I) (NA)

Hours and days of JC operation 50.0 40.6 0 0 9.4
Kids Korner Childcare Center 20.7 24.1 0 0 55.2
Quality of School meals (lunch, breakfast) 35.5 61.3 0 0 3.2
Family case management 25.0 43.8 3.1 0 28.1
Array of child and family support services on site 31.3 56.3 3.1 0 9.4
Array of child services for all ages (e.g., infants
56.3 37.5 3.1 0 3.1
and toddlers, pre-k, kindergarten)
Screening for disabilities 25.8 35.5 0 0 38.7
Provision of services for children with disabilities 22.6 29.0 0 0 48.4
Health services (e.g., immunizations, dental
41.9 45.2 0 3.2 9.7
assessment, vision/hearing screening)
Friendliness/helpfulness of staff and teachers 75.0 21.9 3.1 0 0
Supervision of children/discipline 58.1 40.6 0 3.1 0
Materials for learning and play 53.1 46.9 0 0 0
Play activities 53.1 46.9 0 0 0
Activities for learning Art 46.9 50.0 0 3.1 0
Activities for learning Music 43.8 53.1 0 3.1 0
Activities for learning Physical education 46.9 46.9 0 0 6.3
Activities for learning Language/ reading/writing 43.8 53.1 0 0 3.1
Activities for learning Nature/science 34.4 59.4 0 0 6.3
Activities for learning Math 31.3 56.2 0 0 12.5
Activities for learning Computers 35.5 51.6 3.2 0 9.7
(E=Excellent, G=Good, M=Minimal, I=Inadequate, A=Not applicable/Not available)
continued on next page.
31
(E=Excellent, G=Good, M=Minimal, I=Inadequate, A=Not applicable/Not available)
continued from previous page.
(E) (G) (M) (I) (NA)

Progress reports and follow-up conferences 53.1 34.4 9.4 0 3.1
Activities for parents and families (e.g., field trips,
37.5 46.9 6.3 3.1 6.3
picnics)
Education programs for families (e.g., parenting
34.4 46.9 0 0 18.8
workshops, GED classes)
Information provided by Judy Center about
65.6 31.3 0 3.1 0
upcoming activities
Judy Center webpage 33.3 33.3 3.3 0 30.0
Food and nutrition assistance (e.g., WIC) 43.3 26.7 0 0 30.0
Cleanliness and safety of Judy Center 50.0 43.8 3.1 0 3.1
Sufficiency of space 34.4 50.0 9.4 3.1 3.1
Table 6.8 shows that all of the parents read flyers and newsletters which are sent home with the children.
More than half reported that they “frequently” attend parent-teacher conference, an increase over the
previous year. Much lower levels are indicated for participation in other parent after-school activities,
both involving children and parent education. One in five parents participated in parent education or
workshops during the year.
Table 6.9 indicates the specific parent activities that families participated in during the year. Approximately
30% of respondents attended the Fall Family Fun Fest followed by about half that many who attended
Family Movie Night and December Parents Night Out. Activities with an educational dimension such
as the Breakfast Club/Supper Club and YMCA Parent Power achieved lower participation. Only one
activity received a low rating by any of its participants—one parent rated the “potty training class” as
inadequate. Although ideally, parent participation would be much higher than the levels shown here, table
6.10 indicates that it was not because of a lack of parental interest. Work obligations and the time of the
scheduled activity were barriers. Judy Center Staff remarked that family participation increased after family
vouchers were offered for participation. This system was introduced as a result of Ruby Payne training.
32
Table 6.8 Parent participation in Judy Center activities, percentage of parents.
Frequently Sometimes Rarely Never NA

Volunteered at the Judy
30 12 55 0 0
Center
Observed child's
classroom during the 6 59 13 22 0
day
Attended Judy Center
after-school special 13 22 13 47 6
events or field trips
Attended parent
education meetings or
0 18 9 67 3
workshops about job
skills or parenting
Attended a parent-
52 18 3 21 3
teacher conference
Read a Judy Center
97 3 0 0 0
flyer/newsletter
Table 6.9 Parent rating of Judy Center parent activities
Excellent Good Minimal Inadequate NA

Breakfast Club 6 6 0 0 88
YMCA Parent Power 0 9 0 0 90
Fall Family Fund Fest 16 13 0 0 71
Family Summer
Reading Night 0 3 0 0 97
Program
December Parents
10 3 0 0 87
Night Out
Family Movie Night 16 0 0 0 84
Potty Training Class 0 3 0 3 94
Dr. Jean Feldman
7 3 0 0 90
Concert
Supper Club 0 3 0 0 97
33
Table 6.10 Reason for not attending parent activities
%
Work schedule 61
Time of activity was not
58
convenient
Not interested in topics 18
Lack of transportation 6
Other 27
Table 6.11 indicates that parents recognize improvements in most child learning and habits because of
the Judy Center. Four in five parents report “much” improvement in counting numbers and two in three
saw “much” improvement in vocabulary. A majority of parents saw improvements in writing, recognizing
letters of the alphabet, drawing, speaking and articulation, and writing. About half of the parents saw
much improvement in child hygiene, including washing hands and brushing teeth.
Table 6.11 Improvement in child learning and habits because of the Judy Center
Much A little Not at All NA

Counting numbers 84 13 0 3
Recognizing letters of the alphabet 56 31 9 3
Writing 58 13 25 3
Drawing 53 31 13 3
Speaking and articulation 53 38 0 9
Vocabulary 66 31 0 3
Eating nutritious and healthy meals 22 47 25 6
Exercising 41 47 0 13
Washing hands before meals after using
53 38 6 3
toilet
Brushing teeth 50 41 6 3
34
A before and after study of a cohort of 14 respondents who had replied to both fall and spring surveys
was conducted in order to analyze the effect of the Judy Center on family resources and interaction in
the home. During the year, the Judy Center made a concerted effort to improve learning resources and
the quality of parenting. Table 6.12 shows that learning/reading materials improved in the areas of
children’s books, magazines for children, home computer, and computer with Internet access during the
school year. Table 6.13 indicates that a higher percentage of parents ‘frequently’ read a story to their
child, visited a public library or museum, and sat and talked to their child about his/her day after exposure
to the Judy Center.
Table 6.12 Learning/reading materials at home before and after

Judy Center, percentage of parents
Before After
Children's books 93 100
Magazines for children 57 71
Adult books 71 71
Newspapers 64 50
Television 100 100
Home computer 57 86
Computer with Internet Access 57 71
Table 6.13 Activities with children, percentage of parents who did ‘frequently’
before and after Judy Center
Before After
Read a story 71 86
Played with toys or played games 64 64
Praised your child for doing well 93 93
Visited public library or museum 7 14
Visited a playground, park, or went on a picnic 43 43
Eat a meal together as a family 79 79
Attended an event hosted by a community or
36 36
religious group
Sit and talk to child about his/her day 93 100
35
7.0 Child Readiness
T
he ACBOE 2003-04 Judy Center Continuation Grant proposal outlined several child development
objectives and milestones for FY 2004. These are as follows:
Goal
By June 30, 2004, exiting kindergarten students at the Judy Center will maintain the composite score of
86% at the full readiness level for all WSS domains.
Objectives
By June 30, 2004, exiting kindergarten students at the Judy Center who receive Free and Reduced
Meals (FARMS) will increase their composite score from 77% to 80% at the full readiness level.
By June 30, 2004, exiting kindergarten students at the Judy Center who receive special education services
will increase their composite score from 40% to 50% at the full readiness level.
The data source for these indicators is the Allegany County Board of Education Kindergarten Pupil
Progress Report which uses the Work Sampling System (WSS) and is aligned with 30 MMSR indicators
that are divided into seven domains (Social and Personal, Language and Literacy, Mathematical Thinking,
Scientific Thinking, Social Studies, The Arts, and Physical Development) and that measure pupil readiness
with three levels of progress: (3) “Proficient,” (3) “In process,” or (1) “Needs Development.” Individual
domain scores are obtained from aggregating domain indicators and a composite score is an aggregation
of all 30 MMSR indicators. Three readiness categories are assigned based on the aggregated score:
“full” readiness, “approaching” readiness, and “developing” readiness.
The Beall Elementary Judy Center exceeded the readiness goal and objectives by the end of the year
(see figure 7.1). Overall readiness as measured by the composite score was 79% at the end of the first
period and 95% at the end of the year. For students who received Free and Reduced Meals (FARMS),
overall readiness increased from 78% at the end of the first period to 95% at the end of the year. For
students who received special education services, readiness jumped from 50% at the end of the first
36
Figure 7.1 Kindergarten Readiness by Domain
Social and Personal
Language and Literacy
Mathematical Thinking
All
Scientific Thinking FARM
Social Studies Special Ed.
The Arts
Physical Development
Composite
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Figure 7.2 FARMS Readiness by Domain
Social and Personal Period 1
Period 4
Scientific Thinking
Social Studies
The Arts
Composite
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
37
Figure 7.3 Special Education Readiness by Domain
Social and Personal
Scientific Thinking Period 1
Social Studies Period 4
The Arts
Composite
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
period to 75% at the end of the year. Figure 7.2 shows that the specific strategies of increasing the
readiness level of FARMS children in the domains of Language and Literacy and Social and Personal
Skills were realized. Readiness levels advanced in both of these areas. However, this is not true of the
strategies of increasing the readiness level of children receiving Special Education services in the domains
of Language and Literacy (see figure 7.3). For this domain, no improvement was observed.
Figure 7.4 shows this year’s kindergarten performance compared to the previous two years’ classes after
the first period. A lower percentage of pupils was ready after the first period using the composite measure.
However, in four of the eight domains (scientific thinking, social studies, the arts, and physical development),
readiness was the highest of the three year period. A large drop in Social and Personal skills (from 88%
readiness to 77% readiness), however, negated these improvements on the composite score.
Figures 7.5 and 7.6 indicate that Judy Center pupils outperformed their peers in the County and State.
After the first progress report (see Figure 7.3) period, seventy-nine percent of children was fully prepared
compared to sixty-two percent for Allegany County and fifty-five percent for the State. Three percent of
students was categorized as “developing” whereas five percent of the County and six percent for the
State were so designated. Among individual domains, Beall Elementary Judy Center pupil readiness
levels exceeds the State and County in every area.
38
Figure 7.4 Kindergarten Readiness by Domain,
2002-2004
Social and Personal
2002
Scientific Thinking 2003
Social Studies 2004
The Arts
Composite
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Figure 7.5 Kindergarten Readiness, Judy Center,

County, and State
Beall Elem.
Developing
Approaching
Allegany
Full
Maryland
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
39
Figure 7.6 Kindergarten Readiness by Domain,
Judy Center, County, and State
Social and Personal
Md
Scientific Thinking
Allegany
Social Studies Beall Elem.
The Arts
Composite
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Figure 7.7 shows child performance according to the Pre-kindergarten Progress Report which, like the
kindergarten progress report, is based on the WSS. The 1st marking period is based on 24 WSS indicators,
the 2nd on 28 indicators, and the 3rd on all 30 indicators. The figure shows how the Pre-K program at the
Beall Elementary Judy Center (including both pre-kindergarten and multi-age classes) compares to a
County average that includes all six schools that have 4-year pre-kindergarten programs (i.e., Beall
Elementary (4-Year old Pre-K, Cash Valley, George’s Creek, John Humbird, South Penn, and West
Side). The percentage indicator represents the percentage of students who met at least 90% of the key
indicators for that marking period. The figure shows that Judy Center pupils readiness was much higher
than the County average for all three periods. However, these figures are lower than those realized last
year (eQuotient, 2003).
40
Figure 7.7 Prekindergarten Readiness
60
50
40
30 Judy Center
Other Allegany Co.

20
10
0
Period 1 Period 2
Figure 7.8 shows the performance of children enrolled in the Head Start Pre-Kindergarten program
during the 2002-03 school years according to the eight development dimensions (see Appendix A.10
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 Development, (7) Approaches to Learning, and
(8) Physical Health and Development. Three rating categories are used: C-consistently observed (more
than 80% of the time), O=Occasionally Observed (between 40% and 79% of the time), and NY=Not yet
observed (less than 39% of the time). The figure shows that child progress occurred in each category
with an average baseline of 30% in category C versus a final average of 72%. Performance improved
over FY 2003 (eQuotient 2003).
Additional indirect evidence of the effectiveness of the Judy Center is revealed in MSA reading and
math proficiency levels. The percentage of third graders (many of whom were enrolled in kindergarten
during the 2000-01 year) that achieved advanced and proficiency levels in reading increased from 52.3%
in 2003 to 77% in 2004. The percentage that achieved the same proficiency levels in mathematics
increased from 65.9% to 71.7%. These proficiency levels were better than Allegany County averages in
both areas (see Figure 7.9)
41
Figure 7.8 Head Start Observation Study Results
Physical/Health Development
Approach to Learning
Percentage "Consistently"
Social/Emotional
Base 04
Creative Art Final 04
Science Base 03
Final 03
Math
Literacy
Language
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Figure 7.9 MSA proficiency levels, Beall

Elementary, Allegany County, and the State
Maryland--Math
Allegany County--Math
Beall Elementary--Math Advanced
Proficient
Maryland--Reading
Basic
Allegany County--Reading
Beall Elementary--Reading
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
42
8.0 Special Research Questions
A
s part of the 2003-04 Judy Center continuation grant application, the Allegany County Board of
Education posed 8 questions about the procedures and effectiveness of the Center. The questions
and answers are arranged as follows:
Has the readiness level of kindergarten FARMS children improved?
The percentage of students assessed at “full” readiness on the composite indicator increased
from 78% at the end of the first period to 95% at the end of the fourth period.
Has the readiness level of kindergarten special education children improved?
Yes, based on fall School Readiness information, the percentage of students who were at full
readiness as measured by the composite score increased from 50% after the first period to 75%
after the fourth period.
Has the inclusion model in pre-kindergarten had a positive impact on the Language and
Literacy level of special education children?
Because of the small numbers involved, no generalizations are possible.
Has the inclusion model in pre-kindergarten had a positive impact on the Social and Personal
Development level of special education children?
Because of the small numbers involved, no generalizations are possible.
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 identified 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, 70% of children enrolled in Judy Center funded Pre-K were from the first
two categories. This compares to 60% the previous year.
43
Do children who have participated in pre-kindergarten or multi-age programs perform at a
higher level of kindergarten readiness than those children who did not participate in those
preschool programs?
School readiness data from the MSDE indicate that Kindergarten students who participated in
Pre-K performed at a higher level than those who received family care during the previous year.
Whereas eighty-five percent of Pre-K/Judy Center students were at full readiness for Kindergarten
at the end of the first period, fifty percent of family care children were at full readiness.
Does the Judy Center experience impact positively on special education referrals and
placement?
Special education referrals have continued to decrease. There were six special education referrals
during the 2001-2002 school year – 4 in Kindergarten and 2 in 1stgrade. During the 2002-2003
school year, the total dropped to two – 1 in Kindergarten and 1 in 1st grade. In the 2003-04
school year, there was one in Kindergarten.
In what ways have the participating partners benefits from the Ruby Payne training on
“Understanding Poverty”?
Two of three partners who completed surveys indicated that the Ruby Payne training had improved
their understanding of behavior related to generational poverty and enabled them to better work
with and motivate students and families from lower income backgrounds.
44
9.0 Changes Introduced
T
he Judy Center continues to refine the successful model developed during the past three years.
However, more emphasis is placed on continuity than new programming. Next year’s
improvements (Allegany County Board of Education 2004) will continue to focus on pupils who
received Free and Reduced Meals (FARMS) and children with special needs. Action steps for new
programming are arranged into the categories Curriculum and Programs, Professional Development,
and Family Activities as described further below.
Curriculum and Programs
New Programs for At-Risk Students. An MSDE Discretionary Grant for Special Projects will
be submitted. This grant will have the goal of creating a speech/language and occupational
therapy program(s) for at-risk prekindergarten and kindergarten students. It is hoped that
participation in this program will decrease the likelihood that students will later need special
education services.
Professional Development
MMSR Training. An effort will be made to provide training in MMSR for all Judy Center
partners. This training will include the new Exemplars for the Fall and Spring indicators.
Ruby Payne Training. Continue training to the next level by looking at parents as consumers
and examining language and language delays in children.
Family Activities
Parent Attendance. The Judy Center will attempt to increase participation in its parent
workshops/activities by offering food vouchers as incentives. This is identified as a strategy in
the Ruby Payne program.
Family Support Network. An effort will be made to distribute books to all families who
participate in evening activities with this program.
45
10.0 Summary and conclusions
T
he third funding cycle (FY 2004) for the Beall Elementary Judy Center preserved the model built
during the 2001-2002 period which included pre-k (multi-age and 4-year-old) kindergarten classes
and on-site services delivered by partners such as HRDC and the Department of Social Services.
Several new programs were introduced to improve child development for certain categories of students
(FARMS and Special Education) that showed proficiency gaps in previous years. New initiatives included
an additional multi-age day class, a new private provider of daycare services (Kids Korner), staff training
efforts that included the Ruby Payne framework for understanding poverty, new partners (e.g., YMCA
Parent Power program), and expanded parental and family after school activities. The goal and objectives
established in the grant continuation application were met. 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 surveys indicate a relatively high degree of participation and cooperation. Staff, and parent
surveys continue to show a strong satisfaction with the Beall Elementary Judy Center. Teachers continue
to agree that the amount of resources and cooperation available at Beall Elementary were good and that
teachers were satisfied with the Judy Center. Parent satisfaction levels remained high in the current
survey and are above state Judy Center statewide averages. Parents recognized improvements in child
learning and development during the year. A before/after study of parental responses shows that family
learning resources at home and family activities were strengthened during the year. Sufficiency of
space at the Center, however, continued to be an area of concern identified by both staff and parents.
Progress report results from the Allegany County Board of Education and HRDC assessment data indicate
that significant child learning and development occurred during the year. These results were observed
for all categories of students, including those targeted by this year’s grant (i.e., students receiving free
and reduced school meals, students receiving Special Education services). School readiness improved
for each of the targeted groups and exceeded milestones established for the domains of Social and
Personal skills and Language and Literacy. As in previous years, moreover, Kindergarten students
outperformed County and State peers. Pre-k students enrolled in Judy Center pre-k programs as well as
HRDC Head Start also showed significant improvement.
Other results indicate that the Center is meeting program goals. A greater share of children with educational
need were admitted to the Center this year than last year. Moreover, program data show that special
education referrals continue to decline.
46
References
Allegany County Board of Education. 2002. Continuation Grant Application for Judith P. Hoyer Early
Child Care and Education Center Grants (Judy Centers). (June 3, 2002)
Child Care and Education Center Grants (Judy Centers). (May 25, 2003)
Child Care and Education Center Grants (Judy Centers). (June 2, 2004)
eQuotient, Inc. 2002. Allegany County Judy Center Evaluation: January 2001-June 2002. Cumberland,
MD: eQuotient, Inc.
eQuotient, Inc. 2003. Allegany County Judy Center Evaluation: July 2002-June 2003. Cumberland,
MD: eQuotient, Inc.
Maryland State Department of Education. 2003. Children Entering School Ready to Learn: School
Readiness Information. Baltimore: MSDE.
MGT of America, Inc. 2004. Judith P. Hoyer Early Child Care and Education Enhancement Program
Evaluation: Final Results Brief.
Rephann, Terance. 2001. Technology Literacy Challenge Grant Evaluation. September 2000-August
2001. Cumberland, MD: Allegany College of Maryland.
University of Maryland School of Public Affairs and Maryland State Department of Education. 2003.
A Guide for Results and Performance Accountability and Evaluation in Judy Center Partnerships.
47
A.1
Judy Center Brochure
48
A.2
Judy Center Webpage
49
A.3
Partner Survey Instrument
50
A.4
Pre-K/Kindergarten Staff Survey
51
A.5
First-Grade Staff Survey
52
A.6
Fall Parent Survey
53
A.7
Spring Parent Survey
54
A.8
Fall Parent Survey Comments
55
I would like to see the Judy Center provide
Family activities, child and parent crafts but learning ones. Like the make and take workshops
that Head Start used to have years ago. I can explain if you need me to.
Exactly what they are now providing.
Help for split homes. Something working parents can attend after hours or at least resources for
those who want to try. This is my third request in these surveys and no response given. I really
need some help in this area.
Caring and educational services to their children. Compassion and patience towards their children.
A structured and disciplined atmosphere rooted from love.
I really know of no services that I need.
They have about everything that children need.
I am very pleased with everything. My son looks forward to going to school everyday and
really enjoys it.
Think you are doing great—really like the Breakfast Club.
We are very pleased with how things operate. Matthew loves it and we pray you never close!
Head Start that is not based on income but as 1st come basis.
I like everything the way it is.
Pre-K is great—my son loves it. The before and after school care is a life saver for working
parents. Thank you!
Do you have any comments or questions about the Judy Center?
I am very impressed with the outcome of the Judy Center. I have only positive things to say!
The Judy Center is great. They are there to help.
I feel the programs have helped my family a great deal and I hope it does continue for a long time.
I feel that the Judy Center is a great place for my children! I have nothing but positive things to
say about the center.
I think what the Judy Center offers is wonderful and wouldn’t change a thing.
56
I appreciate your services and guidance. [I] would like more of an opportunity to participate in
functions offered, but most are during my work hours.
I would like to have my 3 year old evaluated for his speech—I really feel that preschool would
benefit him. He is a homebody. When should I send him? Should I wait until kindergarten?
The Judy Center does a great job!
You guys do a great job! Thank you.
I would love to attend Dr. Millers Breakfast Club but it is held while I have to work.
I am glad the center is hear and is doing a wonderful job.
I have questions about the cost of childcare during the summer.
I’ve had WIC since I got pregnant. I don’t know what I do without it. Thank you.
I think the Judy Center is a great place. They are wonderful with the children and willing to help
parents when needed.
I think this is an excellent Center.
57
A.9
Spring Parent Survey Comments
58
In what ways has the Judy Center helped your child?
It has helped her with learning to be around other children and sharing things. It has also helped
her make friends which was not available before to her since she is an only child and there are
no other children her age where we live. She has learned so much in this class and the things she
already knew she now can pronounce better.
The Judy Center has given my child a jump start on education.
Reading. Socialization. Counting.
Helped greatly when he was in day care—getting him used to leaving mom and a school routine.
The camp is wonderful and a learning experience.
Helped my child learn numbers, reading (some) and writing.
By attending school she communicates more with us and says twice the words she did before school.
1. Able to talk and play with children his own age. 2. He has come out of his shell.
My child has learned how to write and recognize many words.
He has learned a lot so far this year. He is doing better in all areas academically. Also his social
skills have become better and he enjoys school daily.
It has helped his social skills
My child’s communication skills and speech have improved tremendously and with this the
confidence and happiness have grown.
I feel if there is any kind of problem you can always count on the staff at the Judy Center. Great job.
He has been a lot better at sitting with the family when it is time to eat and now he loves to learn.
Socially [my child] has been able to interact with kids other than family or close friends.
My child has become more assertive and better adjusted socially. She has enjoyed her teachers
and some playmates.
Gave them school readiness skills for school. Helped with doctors when they were well enough
to attend.
His speech is coming along nicely. He can count to 27 and know a lot of his colors.
Teachers at the center are wonderful and Matt talks about them quite often.
59
He has made many friends.
Kirsten has gotten better with sharing, washing hands, and brushing teeth.
My daughter is learning her numbers and letters very well thanks to the staff at Kids
Korner. My son has excelled greatly since he’s been at Beall Elementary. Thanks to the Judy
Center staff and Kids Korner.
She is responding more to the family.
We’ve had our struggles, but finally feel we’re getting somewhere with Fresh Start. Just wish
resources were introduced at the beginning of problems instead of letting them get out of managed
control.
The program has definitely helped in letter and number recognition. The concept that learning
is fun shine’s through!
In what ways has the Judy Center helped you and/or other members of your family?
It provides a safe, healthy, learning environment for my child so that I can work without having
to worry about who is taking care of her that day and I feel confident in the Judy Center so I
don’t worry about her the whole time I’m at work (ex. If she’s safe or not)
Because of the jump start on education, it has made homework/learning easy to achieve for us.
Good suggestions on ways my child could improve in some areas.
We are able to adapt more to the autistic child we love.
Helped me get my son ready for Kindergarten next year, because he will only do certain things
for me and Mrs. Kurtz and Mrs. Robinson has got Keith to do a lot more things than I can do.
Availability for child care.
I’m well informed on how my child is doing. I have learned of a lot of people I as a parent can
turn to if I need help.
It has helped me because my son has learned a lot and really likes to go to school. It is a treat to
have such a nice school and teachers and other faculty members.
Helped us prepare him for kindergarten
The Judy Center provides options and so many other schools don’t. I can volunteer, attend
meetings, talk to the coordinators and teacher any time. It’s a very open helpful place.
Whenever I needed help with things for my children and when I wanted to know about current
60
events going on around the school.
It has enabled me to go to work without putting such a demand on our mothers and I know my
kids are being taken care of well!
Child returns quite happy from school and looks forward to going to school every day.
IEP discussion but still questioning dyslexia in Timothy. Straitening stuff out with Steven.
Giving us ideas on working with [my child].
Nurse Jackie Bryant is exceptional! She has been very kind and informative about Cameron’s
progress and any time he has been sick or had an accident. She keeps in contact with me
regarding Cameron very well.
Not had opportunity to benefit due to work and now that there’s a supper club son might attend church.
It helps point us in the right direction on how to teach our child learn new things, and when to
start teaching different things.
What activities would you like to see added at the Judy Center for your child and/
or family?
Well, next year she will be going to pre-k but I would like to be informed in her progress of
learning (report cards, etc.). Also, I would like to be able to come in (all parents) and watch one
day to see what she is learning and what types of things they do in class and the teachers approach
on teaching methods. Since we did not get to attend any activities, I would like to see her in
little plays, skits, programs, etc. that we may have missed out on in the past (which I’m sure are
already available now but we just didn’t get her registered until late).
More field trips or family events.
Everything is fine the way it is. This is a wonderful program and we would hate to see it leave
our area. Keep up the good work.
More field trips and activities during weekend hours maybe.
More field trips to the zoo or museums. Something that would be of a lot of interest to the
children.
Field trips.
More workshops on teaching our kids at home where to get supplies, age appropriate worksheets
and activities.
Early head start.
61
None that I can think of it is already a great program! We are very pleased.
Case study/role play in social interaction (the good and the bad). How to deal with other
aggressive children, bullies, etc. and not become a bully oneself. How to defend oneself. Cultural/
national/racial sensitivity and interest in children different from our own. Organize/arrange for
lessons in swimming, music, etc. for 3-4 year olds.
Parent child activities. Parenting resources. IEP classes getting to know your rights and resources.
IEP classes getting to know your rights and resources. Transportation. Home visits 1x a month
with Shelia or a school visit. Judy Center get to know night (only Judy Center Families) then
the school setting activities. Teacher reports for like monthly for what they are doing, learning,
behavior of child problem with child. More take homes for children with reasonable time to
complete something. Like the take-home packets of homework. I personally would like to
attend more trainings, conferences to learn more info. More geared to problem areas of families
services (like education, etc.). Awareness training of community resources, contacts for parents.
More ideas to come as I think of them. Any questions call me please. Thank you all for allowing
me to attend the conference today. Great information. Thank you very much. Really enjoyed
going.
I think you have them pretty much covered. Keep up the nice work. I like when parents can
come up to school and help make some of art work with Cory. Hopefully that will become a bi-
monthly activity.
I have no activities in mind to add at this time.
Single parent support groups.
Maybe a class on how and when to start your child reading. What techniques are good, when to start??
62
A.10
HRDC Head Start Early Childhood
Observation Record
63

Allegany County Judy Center Evaluation, 2003-2004

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Allegany County Judy Center Evaluation, 2003-2004

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Judy Center Evaluation

July 2003-June 2004

1.0 Review of Last Year’s Results ................................................................................. 1

2.0 Characteristics and Delivery of This Year’s Training .......................................... 3

3.0 Enrollment, Training, and Validation .................................................................. 12

4.0 Partner Surveys ..................................................................................................... 14

5.0 Teacher Surveys ..................................................................................................... 17

6.0 Parent Surveys ....................................................................................................... 21

7.0 Child Readiness ..................................................................................................... 36

8.0 Special Research Questions .................................................................................. 43

9.0 Changes Introduced .............................................................................................. 45

10.0 Summary and Conclusions ................................................................................... 46

Table 2.1 Implementation plan ................................................................................................... 6-9

Table 3.1 Enrollment of children by age ..................................................................................... 12

Table 5.2 Teacher satisfaction ..................................................................................................... 18

Table 6.1 Respondent characteristics ..................................................................................... 22-24

Table 6.5 Program interest ........................................................................................................... 28

Table 6.8 Parent participation in Judy Center activities .............................................................. 33

Table 6.13 Activities with children, percentage of parents who did

Curriculum and Programs

Figure 2.1 Website page visits

Goal Objective Strategy Activities Achievement

Table 2.1 Implementation Plan continued on next page

Goal Objective Strategy g

Table 2.1 Implementation Plan continued on next page

Goal Objective Strategy Activities Achievement

Table 2.1 Implementation Plan continued on next page

Goal Objective Strategy Activities Achievement

Table 3.1 Enrollment of children by age.

Figure 4.1 Lowest Partnership Ratings

Outcomes and Strategy

Table 4.1 Partnership ratings continued on next page

Organization and Coordination

Table 5.1 Years teaching, percentage of teachers.

(5) (4) (3) (2) (1)

Table 5.3 Performance area ratings, percentage of teachers

(4) (3) (2) (1) (0)

Table 5.3 Performance area ratings, percentage of teachers

(4) (3) (2) (1) (0)

Table 5.4 Feeling of families served by Judy Center, percentage of teachers

Employed full-time 44.4

Employed part-time 19.4

Not employed and seeking job 9.7

Not employed and not seeking job 2.8

Table 6.1 Respondent Demographics, percentage of parents continued on next page.

Some high school 6.9

High school diploma 25.0

Some college 40.3

Associates degree 11.1

Bachelor's degree or higher 15.3

Own or rent home %

Live with relatives 16.7

Table 6.1 Respondent Demographics, percentage of parents continued on next page.

Don't know 1.4

Fall 2001 Fall 2002 Fall 2003

Table 6.2 Programs used, percentage of parents continued on next page.

Fall 2001 Fall 2002 Fall 2003

Table 6.4 Activities with children, percentage of parents.

Frequently Sometimes Rarely Never NA

Parent/child activities 22.2

Figure 6.1 Parent Satisfaction

Not Satisfied at All

2001-02 2002-03 2003-04

Figure 6.2 Top 10 Performance Areas