fy 15 evaluation report garrett ceducation practices (teacher/classroom focus); (2) support and...

What The Partners And The Data Say

FY 15 Evaluation Report

Garrett County

Judy Center

Partnership

Submitted by Trish Yoder Associates Trish Yoder

1202 Harmon Road

Accident MD 21520

240-522-9153

[email protected]

Dr. H. Susie Coddington

5251 Patriot Lane

Columbia, MD 21045

443-812-2441

[email protected]

1

Table of Contents LISTING OF TABLES AND CHARTS .............................................................................................................................................. 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................................... 4

A. ENROLLMENT HISTORY .................................................................................................................................. 9

ENROLLMENT HISTORY PRIOR TO FY 15 ................................................................................................................. 9 EXPANSION GRANT ENROLLMENT CHANGES IN FY 15 ......................................................................................... 10

B: DEMOGRAPHICS ............................................................................................................................................ 11

ENROLLMENT BY AGE AND PARTNER PROGRAM FOR FY 15 ............................................................................... 11 CONTINUATION GRANT ............................................................................................................................................................. 11 EXPANSION GRANT .................................................................................................................................................................... 12 RACE AND ETHNICITY OF CHILDREN FOR FY 15 ................................................................................................... 13 STUDENTS RECEIVING SPECIAL SERVICES AND FARM STATUS FOR FY 15........................................................ 14

C: KINDERGARTEN DATA ................................................................................................................................ 16

FALL COMPOSITE SCORES ........................................................................................................................................ 16 CONTINUATION GRANT KRA COMPOSITE SCORES .............................................................................................................. 16 EXPANSION GRANT COMPOSITE SCORES ............................................................................................................................... 17 FALL 2014 AND FALL 2015 KRA RESULTS BY DOMAIN: COMBINED GRANTS ................................................ 18 KRA READINESS: FARM ELIGIBLE CHILDREN ...................................................................................................... 20 SPECIAL EDUCATION ................................................................................................................................................ 20 ELL CHILDREN ............................................................................................................................................................................ 21

D: 3RD GRADE PARCC DATA ............................................................................................................................ 22

E: GOAL ................................................................................................................................................................... 24

FUTURE COURSE OF ACTION ................................................................................................................................... 24 TRAINING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE ............................................................................................................................... 24 ADJUSTING GOAL EXPECTATIONS TO DEMOGRAPHICS ........................................................................................................ 24

F: HEADLINE PERFORMANCE MEASURES, ACTION PLAN, AND COMPONENTS ADDRESSED ... 25

ACTION PLAN, PARTNER INVOLVEMENT, AND COMPONENT STANDARDS ....................................................................... 25 HPM/OBJECTIVE ONE SUMMARY STATEMENT: HIGH QUALITY EARLY CARE AND EDUCATION PRACTICES. . 25 HPM/OBJECTIVE TWO SUMMARY STATEMENT: PROVIDE SUPPORT AND OUTREACH TO FAMILIES WITH

CHILDREN BIRTH TO FIVE (5). ................................................................................................................................ 27 HPM/OBJECTIVE THREE SUMMARY STATEMENT: SUPPORT STEM PRACTICES .............................................. 30 HPM/OBJECTIVE FOUR SUMMARY STATEMENT: SUPPORT LANGUAGE AND LITERACY DEVELOPMENT ........ 31 SNAPSHOT: PARTNERS PLAYING A ROLE IN ADDRESSING HPMS/OBJECTIVES ............................................................. 34 REQUIRED COMPONENT STANDARDS PER HPM/OBJECTIVE ............................................................................................ 35

G: SURVEY RESULTS ........................................................................................................................................... 36

PRINCIPALS AND SITE MANAGERS SURVEY............................................................................................................ 36 PARTNER BENEFITS ................................................................................................................................................................... 36 EXPECTATIONS AND SCHOOL READINESS CHANGES ............................................................................................................ 36

2

HEADLINE PERFORMANCE MEASURES/OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................................... 37 JUDY CENTER SERVICES/RESOURCES ..................................................................................................................................... 37 DOES JUDY CENTER MAKE A DIFFERENCE WITH FAMILIES AND CHILDREN? ............................................................... 38 SUPPORTING ALIGNMENT ......................................................................................................................................................... 39 VALUE OF PLAYGROUPS ............................................................................................................................................................ 39 FUTURE TRAINING SUGGESTIONS ........................................................................................................................................... 40 SUMMARY: PRINCIPAL/SITE MANAGER SURVEY................................................................................................................. 40 STEERING COMMITTEE SURVEY .............................................................................................................................. 41 PARTICIPATING PARTNER ORGANIZATIONS .......................................................................................................................... 41 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) QUESTIONS ................................................................................................ 42 UNDERSTANDING OF HEADLINE PERFORMANCE MEASURES ............................................................................................. 44 EXPANSION GRANT IMPACT ..................................................................................................................................................... 45 STAYING INFORMED OUTSIDE OF THE STEERING COMMITTEE MEETINGS ....................................................................... 48 JUDY CENTER DATA SHARING .................................................................................................................................................. 49 MEETING ATTENDANCE ............................................................................................................................................................ 50 MEETING LOGISTICS .................................................................................................................................................................. 51 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS .......................................................................................................................................................... 53 SUMMARY: STEERING COMMITTEE SURVEY ........................................................................................................................ 53 TEACHER SURVEY .................................................................................................................................................... 54 RESPONSES BY ROLE/ORGANIZATION AND GRANT TYPE ..................................................................................................... 54 USING JUDY CENTER SUPPLIED RESOURCES: LAND OF THE LETTER PEOPLE ................................................................. 54 USING JUDY CENTER SUPPLIED RESOURCES: IPADS ............................................................................................................. 55 USING JUDY CENTER SUPPLIED RESOURCES: EDUCATIONAL/INSTRUCTIONAL COORDINATORS ................................ 57 TRANSITION ACTIVITIES AND SCHOOL READINESS .............................................................................................................. 61 CHILDREN WITH JUDY CENTER EXPERIENCE HAVE HIGHER READINESS TO LEARN .................................................... 62 PROGRAM ALIGNMENT .............................................................................................................................................................. 63 JUDY CENTER FAMILY SUPPORT EFFORTS ............................................................................................................................. 63 APPRECIATION FOR JUDY CENTER WORK DONE FOR TEACHERS, CHILDREN, AND FAMILIES ..................................... 64 SUMMARY: TEACHER SURVEY ................................................................................................................................................ 65

H. RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................................................................................... 66

THE NUMBER OF HEADLINE PERFORMANCE MEASURES .................................................................................................... 66 RECONSIDER THE GOAL STRETCH AND PROVIDE TARGETED T/TA................................................................................. 66 RECOMMENDATIONS/SUGGESTIONS: SURVEY-BASED ........................................................................................................ 67

APPENDIX A. ORGANIZATION CHART: CONTINUATION & EXPANSION GRANTS STRUCTURE68

APPENDIX B. FY 15 PROGRAM CHANGES ................................................................................................... 69

APPENDIX C. PRINCIPALS/SITE MANAGERS SURVEY ............................................................................ 70

APPENDIX D. STEERING COMMITTEE SURVEY ......................................................................................... 74

APPENDIX E. TEACHER SURVEY .................................................................................................................... 82

3

LISTING OF TABLES AND CHARTS

Chart A-1. Total Number of Children Enrolled per Fiscal Year of Operation: Continuation Grant Only ..................... 10 Chart A-2. Total Number of Children Enrolled per Fiscal Year of Operation—Combined Grant Totals ..................... 10 Table B-1. Enrollment By Age In Judy Center Partnership Programs—Continuation Grant ........................................... 12 Table B-2. Enrollment By Age In Judy Center Partnership Programs—Expansion Grant ................................................ 13 Table B-3. Ethnicity/Race Demographics—Combined Judy Center Population (N=751) ................................................ 13 Table B-4. Ethnicity/Race Demographics—Continuation Grant (N=317)............................................................................. 14 Table B-5. Ethnicity/Race Demographics—Expansion Grant (N=434) .................................................................................. 14 Table B-8. Children by Age, Receiving Special Services, and FARM Status—Expansion Grant (N=734)..................... 15 Chart C-1. Continuation Grant Composite KRA Scores for Fall 2014 and Fall 2015 .......................................................... 17 Chart C-2. Expansion Grant Composite Scores for Fall 2014 and Fall 2015 .......................................................................... 18 Chart C-3. Fall 2014 KRA Domain Comparison: Combined Grants .......................................................................................... 19 Chart C-4. Fall 2015 KRA Domain Comparison Combined Grants ............................................................................................. 19 Chart C-5. Fall 2014 and 2015 FARMS Demonstrating Readiness ............................................................................................. 20 Chart C-6. Fall 2014 and 2015 Special Education Demonstrating Readiness ....................................................................... 21 Chart D-1. Language Arts/Literacy Scores Spring 2015 ................................................................................................................ 22 Chart D-2. Mathematics Scores Spring 2015 ....................................................................................................................................... 23 Table F-1. HPM/Objective One .................................................................................................................................................................. 26 Table F-2. HPM/Objective Two ................................................................................................................................................................. 27 Table F-3. HPM/Objective Three .............................................................................................................................................................. 30 Table F-4. HPM/Objective Four ................................................................................................................................................................ 32 Table F-5. Partners Playing A Role in Addressing HPMs/Objectives ......................................................................................... 34 Table F-6. Component Standards Embedded in the HPMs/Objectives ...................................................................................... 35 Chart G-1. Most Valuable Judy Center Services/Resources ............................................................................................................ 38 Chart G-2. Student Preparedness (N=5) ............................................................................................................................................... 39 Chart G-3. Partner Organizations Participating In The Survey ................................................................................................... 41 Chart G-4. MOU support of Judy Center’s school readiness mission (N=24) .......................................................................... 42 Chart G-5. Clarity of partner contribution to School Readiness mission (N=24) ................................................................. 43 Chart G-6. Partner Understanding Of HPMs/Objectives (N=24) ................................................................................................. 44 Chart G-7. Differences Made By The FY 15 Expansion Grant (N=24) ........................................................................................ 45 Table G-8. Differences Noticed As A Result Of FY 15 Expansion ................................................................................................. 46 Table G-9. Key Words In Comments Describing Expansion Grant Differences ...................................................................... 47 Chart G-10. Most Frequency Used Methods For Staying Informed (N=24) ............................................................................. 48 Chart G-11. Frequency Of Reading Meeting Minutes (N=24)........................................................................................................ 49 Chart G-12. Judy Center Staff Sharing Outcome Data (N=24 and N=21) ................................................................................. 50 Chart G-13. Number Of Meetings Attended (N=14) ......................................................................................................................... 50 Chart G-14. Frequency Of Responses To Suggested Meeting Changes (N=21, up to 3 responses per person) .......... 51 Chart G-15. Meeting Processes Effective For Sharing Data And Information (N=21) ....................................................... 52 Chart G-16. Most Helpful Portions Of The Steering Committee Meetings (N=21, up to 2 responses per person) .... 52 Chart G-20. How Often Do You Use Land Of The Letter People? (N=20) ................................................................................. 55 Table G-23. Teacher Recommended Apps (N=20) ............................................................................................................................. 57 Chart G-24. Value Of Educational/Instructional Coordinators (N=20) .................................................................................... 58 Chart G-30. Differences Due To Family Support Services (N=30) ............................................................................................... 63 Chart G-30. I Appreciate The Judy Center ............................................................................................................................................. 65

4

Executive Summary

In FY 15 the Garrett County Judy Center experienced tremendous changes in

both capacity and complexity as a result of receiving an Expansion Grant. In

enrollment alone the numbers of children enrolled more than doubled going

from 319 to751. Adding both geographically dispersed partners and additional

staff enriched the program. At the same time those additions brought change

management issues that the Judy Center appears to have handled successfully.

The complexity of the new organizational structure is shown in Appendix A.

Changes in program demographics are summarized in Appendix B. This report is

for the entire Judy Center program. In some instances data is also given

separately for the Continuation Grant and the Expansion Grant.

The Garrett County Board of Education took on a larger partner role, including

adding staff to the Judy Center. Adding Academic/Intervention Coordinators

to strengthen academic support allowed other Judy Center staff to strengthen

the family support activities. In total, the expansion enabled the Judy Center to

take more of a total child approach in supporting their mission of increased

school readiness. Survey data from three populations confirm the Judy Center

work with families made a noticeable difference.

Demographically, 54% of the children were FARM eligible, 9% were Special

Education children, and 95% were White. PARCC data shows JC1 children fairly

similar to children in the county and state.

Surveys were administered to Teachers, Steering Committee Members, and

Principals/Site Managers. All the surveys yield positive data confirming the Judy

Center performed well; their services are well delivered; and that children and

families were better off. In the teacher survey a majority of the responses

indicated Kindergarten, PreK, and Head Start teachers were using Judy Center

supplied iPads and Land of the Letter People. A majority of all of the teacher

groups agreed that their classroom and teaching is enhanced due to Judy

Center activities, services, and resources.

5

SUMMARY OF GOAL AND HEADLINE PERFORMANCE MEASURES

The FY 15 Goal, given below was not met. The plan for goal achievement had

12 different Headline Performance Measures/Objectives. The objectives were

clustered into four different focus areas: (1) High Quality Early Care and

Education Practices (teacher/classroom focus); (2) Support and outreach to

families with children birth to five, (3) Support STEM Practices, and (4) Support

Language and Literacy Development.

Numerous activities for each objective were planned, executed, and measured.

In FY 15 each of the objectives was also measured by grant type. In some

instances the objective was met for one grant but not the other.

Data by grant shows 83% of the objectives (10/12) were met. When the

objectives were measures by grant type, 83% (10/12) were met by the

Continuation Grant and slightly less, 75% (9/12) for the Expansion Grants.

Goal Data Goal Achieved or Not Achieved

By Fall 2015, the

percentage of

Garrett County

Judy Center

(GCJC)

kindergartners fully

ready for school

will be 5 points

above the Fall

2014 baseline

composite as

measured by the

Kindergarten

Readiness

Assessment (KRA).

By Fall 2015, the

percentage of

Garrett County

Judy Center


ready for school

was 4 points

above the Fall

2014 baseline

composite as

measured by the

Kindergarten

Readiness

Assessment (KRA).

Continuation

Grant

Not Met

The percentage

of Continuation

Grant GCJC


ready for school

was 42%, 1 point

below the Fall

2014 baseline

composite of 43%

as measured by

the Kindergarten

Readiness

Assessment (KRA).

Expansion Grant

Met

The percentage

of Expansion

Grant GCJC

kindergartners

fully ready for

school was 60%, 5

points above the

Fall 2014 baseline

composite of 55%

as measured by

the Kindergarten

Readiness

Assessment (KRA).

6

Headline Performance

Measures Data


Measures Met or Not Met

1A. By June 2015, 51%

of GCJC

kindergarten/pre-k and

full-time Child Care

teachers will attend

three or more staff

development trainings

/collaborative events.

1A. MET: By June 2015,

80% (40/50) of GCJC

kindergarten/ pre-k and

full-time Child Care

teachers attended three

(3) or more staff

development

trainings/collaborative

events.

Continuation

Grant

MET

Expansion

Grant

MET

1B. By June 2015, 100%

of GCJC Child Care

partners will participate

in Maryland EXCELS.

1B. MET: By June 2015,

100% of GCJC Child

Care partners

participated in Maryland

EXCELS

Continuation

Grant

MET

Expansion

Grant

MET

1C. By June 2015, 100%

of GCJC classrooms will

maintain or receive

MSDE validation/

accreditation.

1C. NOT MET: By June

2015, 88% (14/16) of

GCJC classrooms

maintained or receive

MSDE

validation/accreditation.

One Child Care partner

is waiting on a visit from

MSDE and one Child

Care partner is waiting

for the results of their

validation visit.

Continuation

Grant

Not MET

(10/11)

Expansion

Grant

Not MET

(4/5)

7

2A. By June 2015, 75% of

identified GCJC partner

families participate in

three or more activities.

2A.MET: By June 2015,

76% (328 /432) of


families participated in

three (3) or more

activities.

Continuation

Grant

MET

Expansion

Grant

MET

2B. By June 2015, two

new monthly

playgroups connected

to Judy Center schools

will be established.

2B.MET: By June 2015,

three new monthly

playgroups connected

to Judy Center schools

were established.

Continuation

Grant

MET

Expansion

Grant

MET

2C. By June 2015, 75%

of GCJC parents of

children referred for

service coordination will

complete at least one

action step on their

service coordination

plan.

2C. MET: By June 2015,

86% (12/14) of GCJC

parent/guardian of

children referred for


completed at least one

action step on their


plan.

Continuation

Grant

MET

Expansion

Grant

MET

2D. By June 2015, GCJC

will assist 100% of

families requesting

assistance in achieving

education and career

goals.

2D.MET: By June 2015,

GCJC assisted 100%

(27/27) of families

requesting assistance in

achieving education

and career goals.

Continuation

Grant

MET

Expansion

Grant

MET

8

3A. By June 2015, the

percentage of GCJC

Center pre-k, Head Start

and Child Care center 4

year olds will be 5 points

above the Spring 2014

Scientific Thinking

domain score.

3A. MET: By June 2015, the

percentage of GCJC pre-

k, Head Start and Child

Care center 4 year olds

were 10 points above the

2014 Scientific Thinking

domain score. (92%)

Continuation

Grant

MET

Expansion

Grant

MET

3B. By June 2015, the

percentage of Garrett

County pre-k, Head Start




Mathematical Thinking

domain score.

3B. NOT MET: By June

2015, the percentage of

Garrett County pre-k,

Head Start and Child



2014 Mathematical

Thinking domain score.

(87%)

Continuation

Grant

Not MET

Expansion

Grant

Not Met



County Judy Center pre-



will be 5 points above

the Spring 2014

Language & Literacy

domain score.

4A. MET: By June 2015, the






2014 Language & Literacy

domain score (88%)

Continuation

Grant

MET

Expansion

Grant

MET






will be 5 points above

the Spring 2014 Personal

& Social domain score.

4B. MET: By June 2015, the






2014 Personal & Social

domain score. (96%)

Continuation

Grant

MET

Expansion

Grant

MET

4C. By August 2015, 50%

of GCJC Head Start and

Child Care four (4) year

olds will participate in

three (3) or more

transition activities at

their elementary school.

4C. MET: By August 2015,

51% (39/77) of GCJC

Head Start and Child

Care four (4) year olds

participated in three (3)

or more transition

activities at their

elementary school.

Continuation

Grant

MET (21/37)

Expansion

Grant

NOT MET

(18/40)

9

A. Enrollment History

During its 13 years of operation, the Garrett Co. Judy Center Partnership has

experienced noticeable enrollment shifts. The noticeable enrollment change in

FY 15 was a result of the Expansion Grant. It added new partner schools and

partner programs and 434 children. The charts below plot the enrollment

changes.

Enrollment History Prior to FY 15

Initially the Judy Center had partnered with two southern area Garrett County

elementary schools: Yough Glades and Dennett Road. The Dennett Road

School closed at the end of the 2012 school year.

With the school closings and relocation of students, approximately 40% of the

Judy Center children were in Yough Glades in FY 13; the remainder were

redistricted to other elementary schools in southern Garrett County. In addition

to Yough Glades, the Judy Center also provided services to other children

residing in the attendance area.

Enrollment increased in FY 14 when the Garrett Co. Judy Center expanded into

the northern portion of the county by adding the eligible classrooms in the

Friendsville area.

Prior to 2010 the enrollment numbers may have contained duplicated numbers.

Beginning in FY 2010 children in two additional Head Start classrooms, located

outside of the attendance area, but served children in the Yough Glades

attendance area were included in the total enrollment count.

The FY 08 enrollment decline is believed to be due to declines in the Early Care

Systems of Care (HFGC and NFP) programs. At that time over 200 families were

discharged from those programs due to budget restrictions. Between FY 10 to FY

12 the enrollment had begun an upward trend because of identification and

recruitment of children birth to three not being served in other programs.

The enrollment dipped again in 2013. Some possible factors for that decline

include the closing of Dennett Road Elementary School, the relocation of

students to other elementary schools outside the Judy Center attendance area,

and the declining numbers of children in the county. Adding the Friendsville

School, and other Friendsville based programs, yielded a small enrollment

increase for FY 14.

10

In FY 15 the enrollment for the Continuation Grant partners remained stable with

317 children enrolled; a decline of only two from FY 14. See Chart B-1.

Chart A-1. Total Number of Children Enrolled per Fiscal Year of Operation: Continuation Grant Only

Expansion Grant Enrollment Changes in FY 15

While enrollment for the Continuation Grant remained stable, the FY 15

Expansion Grant meant an addition enrollment of 434 children. The Expansion

Grant added Broad Ford Elementary, Crellin Elementary, Grantsville Elementary,

Grantsville Head Start/ Early Head Start, and Broad Ford, Crellin and Kitzmiller

Head Starts.

Chart A-2. Total Number of Children Enrolled per Fiscal Year of Operation—Combined Grant Totals

FY03

FY04

FY05

FY06

FY07

FY08

FY09

FY10

FY11

FY12

FY13

FY14

FY15

Duplicated #'s prior toFY10

577 496 499 491 507 414 396 370 385 425 305 319 317

0100200300400500600700

FY03

FY04

FY05

FY06

FY07

FY08

FY09

FY10

FY11

FY12

FY13

FY14

FY15

Duplicated #'s prior to FY10 577 496 499 491 507 414 396 370 385 425 305 319 751

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

11

B: Demographics

Enrollment by Age and Partner Program for FY 15

Where possible, demographics will be reported for the entire Garrett County

Judy Center and also broken out by totals for Continuation Grant and for

Expansion Schools/ Partners/Programs.

The total enrollment for the Garrett Co. Judy Center—combined continuation

grant and expansion grant—was 751. The total enrollment for Continuation

Grant was 317; total enrollment for Expansion Grant Programs was 434. The age

and partner program data is shown separately in Table B-1 and Table B-2.

The total number enrollment shown in each table does not include “double

counting” of children who are enrolled in more than one program. Tables B-1

and B-2 show the duplicated numbers. Nineteen percent of the enrolled

children participate in more than one Judy Center program.

CONTINUATION GRANT

Age

# Enrolled

in JC

Programs

# in > 1

Program Program Description

Birth

to

three

89 80

1. Early Head Start–35

2. Early Head Start Home Based–6

3. Infants and Toddlers–7

4. Early Care System of Care (Healthy Families/Early

Care/EHS Home Visiting)–23

5. Annie’s Little Angel–5

6. St. Mark’s Christian Early Learning Center–1

7. Sunny Days Child Care–2

8. Wrap Around Child Care–6

9. Others identified by Judy Center who participate in

services/activities but are not enrolled in other

programs–10

Three

year

olds

60 53

1. Dennett Road Head Start Center–18

2. Early Care System of Care (Health Families)–3


4. Sunny Days Child Care-6

5. Infants & Toddlers–3




programs–19

12

Four

year

olds

108 101

1. Yough Glades Pre-K–41

2. Friendsville Pre-k/Head Start–24


4. Annie’s Little Angel Child Care-4



7. Wrap Around Child Care-7

Five

year

olds

89 83

1. Yough Glades K–59

2. Friendsville K–22


4. Ann Collins’s Family Child Care–2

5. Sunny Days-1

TOTAL: 346 317

Table B-1. Enrollment By Age In Judy Center Partnership Programs—Continuation Grant

EXPANSION GRANT

Age

# Enrolled

in JC

Programs

# in > 1

Program Program Description

Birth

to

three

114 102

1. Early Head Start–30

2. Early Head Start Home Based–6

3. Infants and Toddlers–9

4. Early Care System of Care (Healthy Families/Early

Care/EHS Home Visiting) –43

5. Annie’s Little Angel Child Care-5





programs–14

Three

year

olds

109 104


2. Kitzmiller Head Start Classroom–10

3. Grantsville Head Start Center–16

4. Early Care System of Care (Health Families)–14


6. Infants & Toddlers–3


8. Others identified by Judy Center who participate

in services/activities but are not enrolled in other

programs–17

Four

year

olds

104 98

1. Broad Ford Pre-K–41

2. Grantsville Pre-k/Head Start–17


4. Kitzmiller Head Start-8

5. Annie’s Little Angel Child Care–4

13



Five

year

olds

133 130

1. Broad Ford K–82

2. Crellin K–20

3. Grantsville K–28


TOTAL: 460 434

Table B-2. Enrollment By Age In Judy Center Partnership Programs—Expansion Grant

Race and Ethnicity of Children for FY 15

The population of the Judy Center Partnership closely mirrors the county

demographics. According to 2014 Census Bureau data1, 97.5% of the Garrett

County was reported as white alone.

The first table below (Table B-3) shows the race and ethnicity of the entire Judy

Center Partnership. Tables B-4 and B-5 represent race and ethnicity broken out

by continuation grant and expansion grant numbers.

Birth to

3 years

3

years

4

years

5

years Totals

% of

Total

Hispanic/Latino 2 1 0 2 5 0.7%

American Indian/Alaska Native 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%

Asian 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%

African American 3 1 3 4 11 1.5%

Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific

Islander 0 0 0 0 0

0.0%

White 171 147 193 205 716 95.3%

Two or More Races 6 8 3 2 19 2.5%

TOTALS: 182 157 199 213 751 100%

Table B-3. Ethnicity/Race Demographics—Combined Judy Center Population (N=751)

1 Retrieved from: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/24/24023.html

14

Birth to

3 years 3 years 4 years 5 years Totals

% of

Total

Hispanic/Latino 2 0 0 1 3 1%

American Indian/Alaska Native 0 0 0 0 0 0

Asian 0 0 0 0 0 0



Islander 0 0 0 0 0 0

White 73 51 98 79 301 95%

Two or More Races 3 2 1 2 8 2.5

TOTALS: 80 53 101 83 317 100%

Table B-4. Ethnicity/Race Demographics—Continuation Grant (N=317)

Birth to

3 years

3

years

4

years

5

years Totals

% of

Total

Hispanic/Latino 0 1 0 1 2 0.5%

American Indian/Alaska Native 0 0 0 0 0 0

Asian 0 0 0 0 0 0



Islander 0 0 0 0 0 0

White 98 96 95 126 415 95.5

Two or More Races 3 6 2 0 11 2.5

TOTALS: 102 104 98 130 434 100%

Table B-5. Ethnicity/Race Demographics—Expansion Grant (N=434)

Students Receiving Special Services and FARM Status for FY 15

The combined total of 405 children eligible for Free and Reduced Price Meals

(FARM) reflect only the children in programs collecting income eligibility data or

participating in the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP). Some of the

partner programs do not participate in the CACFP so they do not collect this

income data (See Table B-6).

15

Tables B-7 and B-8 give a further breakdown by age for each category. The

percentage of Judy Center students who are FARM eligible exceeds the county

percentage (48%)2 and the state percentage (46%)3.

Continuation Grant

(N=317)

Expansion Grant

(N=434)

Total JC Population

(N=751)

# of

Children

% of

Children

# of

Children

% of

Children

# of

Children

% of

Children

Free/Reduced Price

Meals (FARM) 171 54% 234 54% 405 54%

Special Education

(IEP/IFSP) 29 9% 36 8% 65 9%

English Language

Learners (ELL) 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table B-6 Children Receiving Special Services, and FARM Status—Combined, Continuation Grant, and Expansion Grant

Students, By Age, Receiving Special

Services & Farm Status for FY 14

0 to 3 3 year

olds

4 year

olds

5 year

olds

Total

Free/Reduced Price Meals (FARM) 41 24 74 32 171

Special Education (IEP/IFSP) 9 5 11 4 29

English Language Learners (ELL) 0 0 0 0 0

Total Enrollment (N) per Age 80 53 101 83 317 Table B-7. Children by Age, Receiving Special Services, & FARM Status—Continuation Grant (N=317)

Students, By Age, Receiving Special

Services & Farm Status for FY 14

0 to 3 3 year

olds

4 year

olds

5 year

olds

Total

Free/Reduced Price Meals (FARM) 36 59 75 64 234

Special Education (IEP/IFSP) 6 9 10 11 36

English Language Learners (ELL) 0 0 0 0 0

Total Enrollment (N) per Age 102 104 98 130 434 Table B-8. Children by Age, Receiving Special Services, and FARM Status—Expansion Grant (N=734)

2 http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/7078-students-receiving-free-and-reduced-school-

meals?loc=22&loct=5#detailed/5/3300-3323/false/573,869,36,868,867/any/14091,14092 3 http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/7078-students-receiving-free-and-reduced-school-

meals?loc=22&loct=5#detailed/2/any/false/573,869,36,868,867/any/14091,14092

16

C: Kindergarten Data

Fall Composite Scores

For the past two years the Kindergarten Readiness Assessment (KRA) has been

used to assess kindergartner children. Both KRA composite scores and domain

scores are reported here.

CONTINUATION GRANT KRA COMPOSITE SCORES

Chart C-1 depicts the Fall 2014 Composite Scores showing the percentages of

children demonstrating readiness by 1) Judy Center School (all kindergartners—

shown as Total), 2) JC0, 3) JC1, 4) county and 5) state. Fall 2015 state was not

available at the time of this report.

According to the sample sizes, JC 0 and JC 1 showed a marked shift from 2014

to 2015. JC 0 decreased from 32 to 15, while JC 1 increased from 45 to 63. JC1

not only increased in sample size but it raised its readiness percentage from 40%

to 46% in 2015. JC 0 readiness dropped from 47% to 26%. The percent of

children with Judy Center experience performed higher than those without.

Compared to the Garrett County kindergartners, JC 1 was 13% below the

county readiness in 2015.

The six percent increase in readiness from 2014 to 2015 could be attributed to a

number of factors related to the amount of activities, including an increase in

family support, outreach activities and academic intervention over the last few

years.

17

Chart C-1. Continuation Grant Composite KRA Scores for Fall 2014 and Fall 2015

EXPANSION GRANT COMPOSITE SCORES

Chart C- 2 depicts the Fall 2014 and Fall 2015 KRA Composite scores showing the

percentages of children demonstrating readiness for the same groups as used in

Chart C-1, The Expansion Grant included Broadford, Crellin, and Grantsville

Schools.

Like the Continuation Grant the Expansion Grant reflects sample size changes

for the two years. JC0 dropped from 106 to 43 children, while JC1 increased

from 20 to 103. In that shift the JC0 readiness went from 53% to 58%, while the

JC1 readiness dropped slightly from 65% to 61%. The percentage of children

with Judy Center (JC1) experience still performed higher than the JC0 children.

The Judy Center’s focus of outreach activities, academic intervention, and

family support are likely causal factors in the achieving an positive changes in

the readiness scores.

0% 20% 40% 60%

Composite Fall 2014

Composite Fall 2015, State DataNot Available

Composite Fall 2014Composite Fall 2015, State

Data Not Available

State, N=66,281/2014, 2015Data Not Available

52% 0%

County, N=269/2014,288/2015 55% 59%

Total, N=77/2014, 78/2015 43% 42%

JC 1 , N=45/2014, 63/2015 40% 46%

JC 0, N=32/2014, 15/2015 47% 27%

18

Chart C-2. Expansion Grant Composite Scores for Fall 2014 and Fall 2015

Fall 2014 and Fall 2015 KRA Results By Domain: Combined Grants

Comparing 2014 and 2015 domain percentages (see charts C-3 and C-4), Social

Foundations showed the biggest increase of the four domains while Language

and Literacy showed the biggest decrease. JC0 and JC1 increased 11 points

and 12 Social Foundation points respectively, and decreased 3 points and 5

points in Language and Literacy.

Overall, Math readiness is the lowest by a small margin. It showed a increase of 9

points in the JC1 group, while the JC0 group dropped 6 points. The Math

domain, although showing some improvement, is still the lowest of the four

domains.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Composite Fall 2014

Composite Fall 2015, State DataNot Available

Composite Fall 2014Composite Fall 2015, State Data

Not Available

State, N=66,281/2014, 2015Data Not Available

52% 0%

County, N=269/2014,288/2015 55% 59%

Total, N=126/2014, 146/2015 55% 60%

JC 1, N=20/2014, 103/2015 65% 61%

JC 0, N=106/2014, 43/2015 53% 58%

19

Chart C- 3. Fall 2014 KRA Domain Comparison: Combined Grants

Chart C-4. Fall 2015 KRA Domain Comparison Combined Grants

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Social Foundations

Lang & Literacy

Math

Physical Development

Social Foundations Lang & Literacy Math Physical Development

Total N=203 57% 55% 50% 62%

JC 1 N=65 49% 60% 43% 62%

JC 0 N=138 60% 53% 54% 62%

Domain Comparison Combined Grants Fall 2014

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Social Foundations

Lang & Literacy

Math

Physical Development

Social Foundations Lang & Literacy Math Physical Development

Total N=224 63% 54% 51% 64%

JC 1 N=166 61% 55% 52% 61%

JC 0 N=58 71% 50% 48% 71%

Domain Comparision Combined Grants Fall 2015

20

KRA Readiness: FARM eligible children

Chart C-5 shows the percentages of FARM eligible children fully ready. The Judy

Center FARMS group is shows an increase for 2015, although it is the lowest of

the representations in the chart.

Chart C-5. Fall 2014 and 2015 FARMS Demonstrating Readiness

Special Education

Comparing Fall 2014 and 2015, both Judy Center Special Education children

and non-Special Education children show a gain. The gain for Special

Education is 8 points and non-Special Education is 6 points. The Special

Education sample size almost doubled in number from 12 to 22 students—an

83% increase. The non-Special Education increased by 6%, from 192 to 202.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Composite Fall 2014

Composite Fall 2015

Composite Fall 2014 Composite Fall 2015

County Not FARMS, N= 121/2014,147/2015

67% 72%

County FARMS, N=152/2014,141/2015

45% 45%

Non FARMS, N=70/2014, 108/2015 80% 67%

FARMS, N=133/2014, 116/2015 35% 42%

FARMS Demonstrating Readiness, Fall 2014 & Fall 2015

21

Chart C-6. Fall 2014 and 2015 Special Education Demonstrating Readiness

ELL CHILDREN

MSDE evaluation requirements call for reporting ELL data. The Garrett County

Judy Center program does not have any ELL students.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Composite Fall 2014

Composite Fall 2015

Composite Fall 2014 Composite Fall 2015

County Not Special Ed, N=258/2014,259/2015

56% 62%

County Special Ed, N=15/2014,29/2015

33% 31%

Not Special Ed, N=191/2014, 202/2015 51% 57%

Special Ed, N=12/2014, 22/2015 33% 41%

Special Ed Demonstrating Readiness, Fall 2014 & Fall 2015

22

D: 3rd Grade PARCC Data

The charts below graphically illustrate the PARCC 3rd grade English Language

Arts/Literacy scores and Mathematics scores from Spring 2015. JC1 (N=86) are

students with Garrett County Judy Center experience. JC0 (N=7) are students in

Yough Glades without Garrett County Judy Center experience.

The Garrett County numbers (N=227) include 41 students that either transferred

to other schools after kindergarten or were enrolled in the Dennett Road

Elementary School that is now closed. Data for all Maryland 3rd graders

(N=65,594) is also included.

The large disparity of sample size between all the groups makes comparison

difficult and perhaps misleading. For instance, the high JC0 peak for Level 2,

represents only four students. Otherwise the distributions for the other three

groups are fairly similar except that JC0 has no students achieving Level 5 in

either assessment category.

Chart D-1. Language Arts/Literacy Scores Spring 2015

0

20

40

60

Level 1Level 2

Level 3Level 4

Level 5

Pe

rce

nta

ge

s P

er

Le

ve

l

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5

JC 1 (N=86) 24.4 20.9 23.3 29.1 2.3

JC 0 (N=7) 0 57.1 28.6 14.3 0

GC (N=277) 21.7 23.5 23.8 28.5 2.5

MD (N=65,088) 20.1 19.7 22 33.7 4.4

23

Chart D-2. Mathematics Scores Spring 2015

FY 15 is the first year of PARCC use. When data for a multiple year period is used

the comparisons may be more revealing as to the Judy Center differences.

For both Language Arts/Literacy and Mathematics, the percentages of JC1

children at Level 5 are fairly comparable to their Garrett County peers and

higher than the JC0 peer group.

Level 1Level 2

Level 3Level 4

Level 5

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5

JC 1 (N=86) 11.6% 23.3% 27.9% 34.9% 2.3%

JC 0 (N=7) 0.0% 57.1% 25.6% 14.3% 0.0%

GC (N=277) 9.7% 25.6% 31.8% 30.7% 2.2%

MD (N=65,088) 14.9% 22.5% 26.3% 29.9% 6.5%

24

E: Goal

Combined goal (Continuation Grant and Expansion Grant):

By Fall 2015, the percentage of Garrett County Judy Center (GCJC)

kindergartners fully ready for school will be 5 points above the Fall 2014 baseline

composite as measured by the Kindergarten Readiness Assessment (KRA).

The goal fell slightly short of being met for the overall JC program. It was met for

the Expansion Grant; it was not met for the Continuation Grant. The two schools

in the Continuation Grant seemed to have a disproportionally larger number of

Kindergarten children in FY 15 who were born with drug addictions or suffering

from other behavioral issues.

Future Course of Action

TRAINING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

Going forward one possible course of action could be to provide more training

and technical assistance for teachers on how to better manage/instruct the

individual children with behavior/mental health needs. Additionally more T/TA

on how to better manage the classrooms that may be more difficult to manage

because of the increased numbers of special needs children. When surveyed,

80% (4/5) of the Principals and Site Managers suggested the Judy Center

training focus on this need (See Future Training Suggestions in Section G).

Additional assistance, offered via having the Academic Coordinators work with

small groups of the children with behavioral needs, might also be of help.

ADJUSTING GOAL EXPECTATIONS TO DEMOGRAPHICS

Anecdotal data from teachers and principals, along with data on increasing

number of Garrett County children being born to drug addicted mothers might

imply a need for a realistic assessment of implications for those children and

their classmates. Goals need to be set high to achieve, but not unrealistically

high. So, is the current goal number too high? If so, an option to allow for goal

success (rather than the frustration of failure) may be to consider a goal of 4

points instead of 5.

25

F: Headline Performance Measures, Action Plan, and Components Addressed

The Judy Center has 12 Headline Performance Measures/Objectives for FY 15.

The objectives apply to both grants. The achievement data is reported below

by grant type and for the total program. (Tables F1– F4). The highlighted portion

in the Data column shows number needed for meeting the objective. The Status

column shows if the objective was met or unmet, specific to each grant.

ACTION PLAN, PARTNER INVOLVEMENT, AND COMPONENT STANDARDS

The partners who participated in activities, respective to each cluster of

objectives, are given in paragraph form following each list of the activities

performed per objective cluster.

Combining the completed Action Plan items reported mid-year and end of year

resulted in a list of 64 different Action Plan items. All of those items involved

supporting or collaborating with at least one partner. Several were on going or

multipart activities.

Table F-5 near the end of this section is a matrix showing the partners by

Headline Performance Measures/Objectives. The matrix in Table F-6 illustrates

how each of the 12 components is embedded in the Headline Performance

Measures/Objectives.

HPM/Objective One Summary Statement: High Quality Early Care and Education

Practices.

Objectives 1A, 1B, and 1C Data Status

1A. By June 2015, 51% of

GCJC kindergarten/pre-k

and full-time Child Care

teachers will attend three

or more staff development

trainings /collaborative

events.

By June 2015, 80% (40/50) of

GCJC kindergarten/ pre-k and

full-time Child Care teachers

attended three (3) or more staff

development

trainings/collaborative events.

MET: Continuation

Grant

MET: Expansion

Grant

26

1B. By June 2015, 100% of

GCJC Child Care partners

will participate in Maryland

EXCELS.

By June 2015, 100% of GCJC Child

Care partners participated in

Maryland EXCELS.

MET: Continuation

Grant

MET: Expansion

Grant

1C. By June 2015, 100% of

GCJC classrooms will

maintain or receive MSDE

validation/ accreditation.

By June 2015, 88% (14/16) of

GCJC classrooms maintained or

receive MSDE

validation/accreditation. One

Child Care partner is waiting on a

visit from MSDE and one Child

Care partner is waiting for the

results of their validation visit.

NOT MET:

Continuation

Grant (10/11)

NOT MET:

Expansion (4/5)

Table F-1. HPM/Objective One

Were Objectives 1A –1C Met?

The first two objectives dealing with professional development sessions and

Maryland EXCELS participation were met. Objective 1C was not met for either

grant population. Numerous actions were successfully carried out to support

that objective, but the performance results were contingent on MSDE visiting

one partner and returning validation visit results to another partner. Currently

(spring 2016) one of the Child Care programs has been reaccredited and the

other one is continuing to work toward accreditation. The Judy Center

continues to work closely with all programs to offer support and resources.

Activities supporting Objectives for HPM #1

Teacher collaboration meetings—

coordination/attendance

Provided or received technical

assistance & support for MSDE re-

accreditation or re-validation

Provided or received classroom

accreditation/validation supplies

Coordinated or received staff

trainings to align ECE programs

Sponsored attendance at MD

Kindergarten Conference

Provided or received technical

assistance/support for Maryland

EXCELS programs

Coordinated and or participated

in Spring Joint Staff & EC

Connections Conference

Coordinated and participated in

Fall joint staff development

workshop for all GCJC teachers

Assisted with and participated in

R4K trainings for Kindergarten,

PreK, Head Start, and St. Mark’s

Christian Early Learning Center

Tracked staff data for JC

classrooms

Provided or received support to

maintain NAFCC accreditation

27

Supported Race to the Top

Initiative

Assisted with implementation &

operation of CSST (client data

tracking system)

Maintained MDSE Child Care

training approval

Partners who participated in one or more of the activities completed for HPM

One.

APPLES, Garrett County Board of Education, Garrett County Community Action

Committee, Head Start/Early Head Start, St. Mark’s Christian Early Learning

Center, Sunny Days Child Care, Annie’s Little Angel Child Care, and Garrett

College.

HPM/Objective Two Summary Statement: Provide support and outreach to families

with children birth to five (5).

Objectives 2A, 2B, 2C, and 2D Data Status

2A. By June 2015, 75% of


families participate in three

or more activities.

By June 2015, 76% (328 /432) of

identified GCJC partner families

participated in three (3) or more

activities.

MET: Continuation

Grant

MET: Expansion

Grant

2B. By June 2015, two new

monthly playgroups

connected to Judy Center

schools will be established.

By June 2015, three new monthly

playgroups connected to Judy

Center schools were established.

MET: Continuation

Grant

MET: Expansion

Grant

2C. By June 2015, 75% of

GCJC parents of children

referred for service

coordination will complete

at least one action step on

their service coordination

plan.

By June 2015, 86% (12/14) of

GCJC parent/guardian of

children referred for service

coordination completed at least

one action step on their service

coordination plan.

MET: Continuation

Grant

MET: Expansion

Grant

2D. By June 2015, GCJC will

assist 100% of families

requesting assistance in

achieving education and

career goals.

By June 2015, GCJC assisted 100%

(27/27) of families requesting

assistance in achieving education

and career goals.

MET: Continuation

Grant

MET: Expansion

Grant

Table F-2. HPM/Objective Two

28

Were Objectives 2A –1D Met?

The quantitative data indicates that all four objectives were met for both the

Continuation Grant partners and the Expansion Grant partners. Additionally,

qualitative data from surveys (see Section F) indicates work with families was

valued and results were observable.

Activities supporting Objectives for HPM #2

Family support/parent

engagement activities via service

coordinator for JC schools in

northern Garrett Co.

Family support/parent

engagement activities via service

coordinator for JC schools in

southern Garrett Co.

Participated with surveying GCJC

families to identify level of support

& invite families to participate in

Pathway Planning

Provided families with monthly

calendars and newsletters that

included parent tips/

developmentally appropriate

resources


Family Time Fun events for GCJC

families

Collaborated to provide Financial

Education activities

Collaborated to support career

development workshops for

parents

Partnered with Judy Center

Schools Title I programs to

provide/participate in parent

engagement activities


career development for parents

through GED/ABE, credit/non-

credit courses, and/or certifications

Promoted and implemented

Pathway Planning with families to

support economic self-sufficiency

Provided STAR training for

Friendsville and Yough Glades new

PreK and Kindergarten families

Utilized service coordination to

identify and refer “at risk” Head

Start families to BOE Family Support

team

Provided a structured referral

process and supported families

through service coordination/case

management process in

implementing intervention plans

Maintained a GCJC information

board at three (3) apartment

complexes.

Collaborated with apartment

managers in GCJC attendance

areas to identify families with

children birth to 4

Collaborated with ABE/GED and

job training programs to identify

families with children birth to 4

Invited identified families with

children not enrolled in a partner

program to GCJC activities

Planned and implemented

monthly playgroups for children

ages 0-4 in Judy Center

communities utilizing Healthy

Beginnings and the seven domains

of learning

Provided Wrap Around Child Care

29

infant, toddler, preschool &

kindergarten programs

Shared early childhood program

partner information with families

through newsletters, flyers, text

messaging, phone calls and in

person

Provided support for parent-

teacher conferences at

elementary schools

Provided support and resources for

children and families with special

needs such as: IEP & IFSP meetings,

Assistive Technology; Family Fun

Festival; “Toddling into Spring”; and

SHARE Group

Participated in local early

childhood committees such as:

Mental Health, Career

Advancement Comm., LICC, Kids

First Committee, Head Start/Early

Head Start, Family Development

meetings, HS/EHS Manager

meetings, School Readiness Team,

Healthy Families, and Local Early

Childhood Advisory Council, etc.

Partners who participated in one or more of the activities completed for

HPM/Objective Two.

Garrett Co. Community Action Committee, Garrett Co. Board of Education,

Head Start/Early Head Start, Sunny Days Child Care, St. Mark’s Christian Early

Learning Center, Annie’s Little Angel Child Care, Garrett College, Western

Maryland Consortium, Garrettland, Ruth Enlow Library, University of Maryland,

Gallagher Group, Oakland Lions Club, Dove Center, Garrett Co. Health Dept,

APPLES, and Peggy Gosnell (Friend of Judy Center).

30

HPM/Objective Three Summary Statement: Support STEM Practices

Objectives 3A and 3B Data Status



County Judy Center pre-k,

Head Start and Child Care

center 4 year olds will be 5

points above the Spring

2014 Scientific Thinking

domain score.

By June 2015, the percentage of

Garrett County Judy Center pre-k,

Head Start and Child Care center

4 year olds were 10 points above

the 2014 Scientific Thinking

domain score. (92%)

MET: Continuation

Grant

MET: Expansion

Grant



County pre-k, Head Start





domain score.


Garrett County pre-k, Head Start

and Child Care center 4 year olds

were 3 points above the 2014

Mathematical Thinking domain

score. (87%)

NOT MET:

Continuation

Grant

NOT MET:

Expansion Grant

Table F-3. HPM/Objective Three

Were Objectives 3A and 3B Met?

Objective 3A, focusing on Scientific Thinking, was met by children in both grants.

Objective 3B, focusing on Mathematical Thinking, was not met by the program

overall or either grant.

Activities supporting HPM/Objective #3

Provided Judy Center

schools/programs located in both

northern and southern Garrett

County with a service coordinator

focusing on

academic/behavioral

interventions

Provided academic and

behavior intervention to children

enrolled Kindergarten, PreK, HS,

EHS and Child Care programs

utilizing the Response to

Intervention (RTI) framework

Provided support to all Judy

Center classrooms/ programs to

align curriculum, instruction and

assessments with the Maryland

common core standards

Supported expansion of three (3)

PreK classrooms

Provided classroom technology

to support STEM activities and

children’s assessments

Supported monthly parent-child

calendar activities in

collaboration Title I programs

31

Collaborated with Judy Center

Schools Title I programs to provide

parent-child STEM activities

Collaborated with Partners to

provide two (2) Health & Nutrition

Activities

Generated assessment ratings in

graph and chart form to be used

for curriculum planning and

individualization for St. Mark’s

Christian Early Learning Center,

and Sunny Days Child Care

Supported book giveaways to

build home libraries

Maintained and promoted the

GCJC parent lending library


HPM/Objective Three.

Annie’s Little Angel Family Child Care, APPLES, Early Care/Infant & Toddler,

Garrett Co. BOE, Garrett Co. Community Action Committee, Head Start/Early

Head Start, St. Mark’s Christian Early Learning Center, Landon’s Library, Ruth

Enlow Library, Sunny Days Child Care Center, and University of MD Extension.

HPM/Objective Four Summary Statement: Support Language and Literacy

Development

Objectives 4A, 4B, & 4C Data Status







2014 Language & Literacy

domain score.





the 2014 Language & Literacy

domain score (88%)

MET: Continuation

Grant

MET: Expansion

Grant







2014 Personal & Social

domain score.





the 2014 Personal & Social domain

score. (96%)

MET: Continuation

Grant

MET: Expansion

Grant

32

4C. By August 2015, 50% of

GCJC Head Start and

Child Care four (4) year

olds will participate in three

(3) or more transition

activities at their

elementary school.

By August 2015, 51% (39/77) of

GCJC Head Start and Child Care

four (4) year olds participated in

three (3) or more transition

activities at their elementary

school.

MET: Continuation

Grant (21/37)

NOT MET:

Expansion (18/40)

Table F-4. HPM/Objective Four

Were Objectives 4A, 4B, and 4C Met?

Objectives 4A (Language and Literacy domain) and 4B (Personal and Social

domain) were met for children in both grants. Objective 4C, dealing with

transition activities, was not met for children enrolled with expansion grant.

Children’s success in school can be linked, in part, to effective transition

practices and activities. The Judy Center determined this was a better fit with

personal and social and language and literacy development, than with other

academic areas.

Activities supporting HPM/Objective #4

Provide Service Coordinators

located within Judy Center

schools/programs located in

northern and southern Garrett

County who worked together to

support children and families.

Provided academic and

behavior intervention to children

enrolled in Kindergarten, PreK HS,

EHS and Child Cares utilizing the

Response to Intervention (RTI)

framework

Provided support to all Judy

Center classrooms/ programs to

align curriculum, instruction and

assessments with the Maryland

common core standards

Provided eight (8) Literacy

activities for parents and children

at the schools

Promoted library story hour and

lap sit programs and Dolly Parton

Imagination Library

Participated in two (2)

parent/child activities at Ruth

Enlow Library: Read Across

America and Summer Reading

Club

Promoted Landon’s Library

monthly play dates for children

ages 2-5 years

Supported book giveaways to

build home libraries

Provided technology in the

classroom to support language

and literacy activities

Arranged assemblies at each

elementary school for PreK and

Kindergarten students and their

parents. Included the partner

four year olds who will be

33

attending kindergarten at each

school.

Arranged one (1) transition field

trip to each Elementary School for

children who will be entering

kindergarten in the fall. Included

the sending teachers and parents

Collaborated with Title I programs

to provide parent-child

Language & Literacy activities

Provided support for GCJC

partner transition events: Back to

School Nights; K/PreK

Registrations; Phase-Ins; and

Open House

Maintained and promoted the

GCJC parent lending library

Arranged transition team

meetings for GCJC transitioning

four-year-old children.

Generated assessment

composite rating graphs and

charts to be used for curriculum

planning & individualizing


HPM/Objective Four.

Annie’s Little Angel Child Care, APPLES, Early Care, Garrett Co. Board of

Education, Garrett Co. Community Action Committee, Garrett Co Health

Department: Healthy Families and Outreach, Head Start/Early Head Start,

Landon’s Library, Ruth Enlow Library, University of MD Extension, Oakland Lions

Club, St. Mark’s Christian Early Learning Center, Dove Center, and Sunny Days

Child Care.

34

SNAPSHOT: PARTNERS PLAYING A ROLE IN ADDRESSING HPMS/OBJECTIVES

Partner HPM 1 HPM 2 HPM 3 HPM 4

Garrett Co. Board of Education ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Garrett Co. Community Action Committee ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Garrett Co. Health Department ✓ ✓ ✓

Garrett College ✓ ✓

Ruth Enlow Library ✓ ✓ ✓

APPLES for Children ✓ ✓ ✓

Univ. of MD Extension/Garrett Co. ✓ ✓ ✓

St. Mark’s Christian Early Learning Center ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Annie’s Little Angel Child Care ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Landon’s Library ✓ ✓

Garrettland, Inc. ✓

Western MD Consortium ✓

Priority Partners ✓

Oakland Lions Club ✓ ✓

Dove Center- (new in FY 15) ✓ ✓

Sunny Days Child Care ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Table F-5. Partners Playing A Role in Addressing HPMs/Objectives

35

REQUIRED COMPONENT STANDARDS PER HPM/OBJECTIVE

The matrix lists the 12 Component Standards and “clusters” the

HPM’s/Objectives by the focus of the objectives. Given the numerous activities

per HPM/Objective the Judy Center successfully addressed more than one

component standard for each cluster of objectives.

As the matrix illustrates all of the Component Standards were fully intergraded

and fully addressed.


Measures

Objectives

Required Component Standards

1.F

ull D

ay F

ull Y

ear

2. B

reak

fast

Lun

ch

3. S

ervi

ce

Coo

rdin

atio

n

4. In

tegr

atio

n of

EE

Ser

vice

s

5. F

amily

Invo

lvem

ent

6. E

arly

ID &

Inte

rven

tion

7. P

resc

hool

Spe

c

Ed

8. H

ealth

Rel

ated

9. P

rofe

ssio

nal D

ev.

10. A

dult

Ed

11. A

ccre

dita

tion

Val

idat

ion

12. J

C P

artn

ersh

ip

Lead

ersh

ip

1A, 1B, & 1C Staff Dev., Maryland

EXCELS, & Validation/Accreditation

2A, 2B, 2C, & 2D Outreach/Support

families w/ birth to age 5

3A & 3B Scientific &


4A, 4B, & 4C Support Language & Literacy Development

Table F-6. Component Standards Embedded in the HPMs/Objectives

36

G: Survey Results

Three groups—Teachers, Steering Committee Partners, and Principals/Site

Managers were surveyed for FY 15. Each survey is discussed below in reverse

order of survey administration. All three surveys were online. The surveys were

anonymous, but the Teacher survey and Steering Committee survey asked for

organization or position. Some data from those surveys was filtered by

organization and/or program position. A blank copy of each survey is in the

Appendices (Appendix C – E).

Principals and Site Managers Survey

As Steering Committee partners, the Judy Center Principals and Site Managers

previously had an opportunity to complete the Steering Committee survey to

provide feedback regarding the Steering Committee. For FY 15 the Principals

and Site Managers were also asked to complete another, shorter online survey

that was designed specifically for them. Principals and Site Managers were not

surveyed separately in former evaluations. The Principal/Site Manager survey

contained rating and ranking questions, as well as some comment options. See

Appendices for a blank copy of the survey.

The Principal/Site Manager survey email invitation was sent to five principals and

two Head Start site managers. From that sample of seven, five (71%) responded.

Overall, the respondents were positive about the Judy Center and saw changes

as a result of their partnership with the Judy Center. The discussion below groups

the data by content; it does not follow the chronological order of the questions

in the survey. Because of the small sample size few charts were used to illustrate

the analyzed data.

PARTNER BENEFITS

In Question #1, all five (100%) of the respondents indicated their partnership with

Judy Center was Very Beneficial.

EXPECTATIONS AND SCHOOL READINESS CHANGES

Since this was the first year of partnership with the Judy Center for some of the

respondents, questions # 11 and 13 dealt with expectations and possible

changes. All of the respondents (100%) were in agreement that the Judy Center

met their expectations. Eighty percent (N=4) indicated they could not think of

anything else the Judy Center could possibly do to support school readiness.

One respondent suggested this possibility:

37

In the summer when school is out, it would be good to have

collaboration meetings to discuss needed support in our

communities to support school readiness and training for parents.

HEADLINE PERFORMANCE MEASURES/OBJECTIVES

The only question that duplicated a Steering Committee Survey question was

one regarding their understanding of the Headline Performance Measures. One

response in the Steering Committee survey also indicated one person did not

know what is meant by the Headline Performance Measure term. In the

Principal/Site Manager survey the word “objectives” was added after the HPM

term since both terms are sometimes used interchangeably. Four (80%) of the

principals/site managers indicated having a general understanding of the

Headline Performance Measures. Similar to the Steering Committee survey, one

respondent selected, “Don’t know what is meant by the term Headline

Performance Measures/Objectives.”

When the responses in both surveys to the HPM question were shared with the

Judy Center staff, they brainstormed some ways to present and clarify both the

term and the content of the HPMs. There was also discussion about whether it

was realistic for all the partners to have full understanding of the Judy Centers

HPMs/Objectives. If roles were reversed, it seems unrealistic that the Judy

Center staff would have understanding of all of their partner’s objectives, so

likewise it may be unrealistic for the Principals and Site Managers to be fully

cognizant of the HPMs. Knowing the Judy Center mission and goal, and how all

the partners support each other may be a more viable option.

JUDY CENTER SERVICES/RESOURCES

Question #4 had a list of Judy Center services and resources. The Principals/Site

Managers were asked to select what they perceived as the three (3) most

valuable. The results are shown in the Chart G-1, below.

38

Chart G-1. Most Valuable Judy Center Services/Resources

The Family Support choice seems especially affirming of the Judy Center’s goals

for family support—something that in the past the schools may have not had as

many resources to direct toward family support, so now the partners are

appreciative of the Judy Center’s involvement with families. This perspective

was also repeated in the comments to the open-ended question discussed later

in this section.

The positive response to Academic Intervention may possibly be a positive

reflection of the partnering effort that became doable with the Expansion Grant

opportunities as discussed next.

DOES JUDY CENTER MAKE A DIFFERENCE WITH FAMILIES AND CHILDREN?

Survey question #2 asked if the principals/site managers observed changes as a

result of the increased family support referrals and coordination. Again 100%

(N=5) selected the most positive response: “Yes, I definitely noticed some

changes that I think were a result of family support and coordination efforts”.

Questions # 5 and 10 were both focused on answering the questions about

differences made. The Academic Intervention response with the previous

question ties into the results from the following RTI-related question: “Utilizing

Response to Intervention (RTI), Judy Center Instructional Coordinators provided

academic intervention and support to identified students. As a result of this

intervention, how much were your students better prepared by the end of the

school year?”

Academic Intervention

Family Support

Validation support

Training supported materials/resources

Polar Express Activity

Transition Activities (reading nights,…

Title I Judy Center events

Classroom supplies ($200 discretionary funds)

PreK/Kindergarten Conference/Trainings

39

Chart G-2. Student Preparedness (N=5)

In an open-ended question, #10, principals and site managers were asked for

the differences they have noticed as a result of the Judy Center partnership.

Their unedited responses were:

1. I think Steven Knepp is a wonderful resource to all of the schools. He

keeps a connection between the Judy Center and the schools.

2. I see increased collaboration and significant support for our at risk

students and their families. The Judy Center provides resources that

the school would not otherwise have resources for (fiscal and

human). Our students have achieved at higher levels and are more

prepared for kindergarten.

3. Increased parent involvement. Increased instructional support in

the classroom.

4. Parent Involvement.

5. The collaboration to help families has been the most noticed

difference to me.

Those responses align with responses to other questions about Judy Center

performance and illustrate survey instrument validity.

SUPPORTING ALIGNMENT

In terms of supporting alignment and achieving school readiness via teacher

collaboration meetings and trainings (Question #7), again 100% indicated the

Judy Center efforts to be either “Very helpful” (N=2) or “Somewhat helpful”

(N=3).

VALUE OF PLAYGROUPS

One of the HPM goals dealt with adding playgroups. Similar to other survey

responses, 100% (N”=5) perceived the playgroups as being “Very beneficial” or

“Somewhat beneficial in promoting school readiness and supporting transition.”

60% 20%

20%

Much betterprepared

Somewhatbetterprepared

Other

Four (80%) indicated they perceive

the Judy Center makes a

difference—the students were “Much

to Somewhat Better Prepared”. The

“other” response was not a negative

response, but explanation: “We

haven’t got to meet regarding these

students and their progress.”

40

FUTURE TRAINING SUGGESTIONS

The previous questions primarily dealt with perceptions of FY 15 work or past

performance. In question #9, the Principals and Site Managers were also asked

for their input about future trainings they would like to see their teachers receive.

One of those responses dealt with technology and the other four were focused

on behavior related needs training. Those unedited responses from the raw

data are:

1. Technology training on various uses of different apps to increase

academic achievement.

2. Behavior support, working with ODD children, and unmedicated

children. I still think it would be great to get Dan St. Romain to

present to our teachers.

3. Behavior strategies and teaching tips on dealing increasingly

difficult children from drug / alcohol addiction from birth.

4. SEFEL

5. Training on behavior reared [sic] issues has become amore [sic]

issue so I would like to see training on children and behaviors. And

how to handle difficult behaviors in children.

SUMMARY: PRINCIPAL/SITE MANAGER SURVEY

Overall, the responses to this survey were very positive and affirm that the

Principals and Site Managers believe that the Judy Center does make a

difference for families, children, and teachers. The responses also indicate their

perception that the Judy Center services are well delivered.

41

Steering Committee Survey

An electronic survey was designed for the Steering Committee. The email

survey invitation was sent to 34 steering committee members (not partner

organizations). Twenty-four, or 70.6%, completed the survey. The survey was

anonymous, but did require respondents to provide their organization’s name.

The survey contained a possible 19 quantitative and qualitative questions. Skip

logic was used for two questions: one was to require additional information if a

negative response was selected, and the other skip logic question was to skip

meeting related questions for respondents who indicated they did not attend

meetings.

When possible the questions are grouped by focus for reporting. Thus, the

discussion below does not follow the sequential order of questions as they

appear in the survey.

PARTICIPATING PARTNER ORGANIZATIONS

Respondents were asked for the name of their organization. Due to one of the

skip logic questions, there were 23 rather than 24 responses. The chart below

shows the response rate per partner organization.

Chart G-3. Partner Organizations Participating In The Survey

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Annie's Little Angel Child Care

APPLES for Children

Dove Center

Garrettland, Inc.

Landon's Library

Oakland Lions Club

St. Mark's Christian Early Learning Center

Sunny Days Child Care

Garrett College

Priority Partners

Ruth Enlow Library

University of MD Extension Service Garrett Co.

Western MD Consortium

Garrett Co. Dept. of Social Services*

MD EXCELS*

Garrett Co. Board of Education

Garrett Co. Health Dept.

Garrett Co. Community Action Committee

42

The multiple responses from the first three partners could potentially alter the

validity of some of the other question responses.

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) QUESTIONS

Two questions dealt with MOUs. Both questions were linked to support of the

Judy Center’s school readiness mission. The first asked about the respondent’s

own MOU.

Chart G-4. MOU support of Judy Center’s school readiness mission (N=24)

One respondent selected the “Yes, … but it could be strengthened by” option.

However, the accompanying comment was not that clear: “It may support the

goals and I have seen the MOU when it was first written, but I don't remember if

it has the school readiness mission. I am not sure how having a school readiness

mission on the MOU is of benefit for the partnership. It seems a mission

statement would be more useful on newsletters, the website, etc.”

The other MOU question contained a list of 16 Partners with MOUs and asked

respondents to indicate how clear they were regarding contribution of partner

organizations to the Judy Center’s mission of school readiness. Note, neither the

Maryland EXCELS nor the Department of Social Services (DSS) is on this list, but

members of both completed the survey as shown above.

Your organization has an MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) with the Judy Center. Does the MOU support the Judy Center's mission of school readiness?

Yes, it supports the Judy Center's schoolreadiness mission

I can't answer; I have not seen the MOU

No, it does not support the Judy Center'smission

Yes, it supports the school readiness missionbut it could be strengthened by:

43

Chart G-5. Clarity of partner contribution to School Readiness mission (N=24)

A similar question was asked in the FY 14 Steering Committee survey. In FY 14 six

of the partners had no responses in the unclear category; this year the only

partner without an unclear response was the Health Department. As noted

above, five members of the Health Department completed the survey so that

may be skewing the response numbers.

The expansion grant may also be a contributing factor to the level of uncertainly

about partner contributions.

There were two unclear responses for the Garrett County Community Action

Committee—the parent organization of the Judy Center. Filtering the responses

by organization name, the two unclear responses were from staff at the GC

Board of Education and the GC Health Department.

The number of somewhat/unclear responses may be a two-fold issue. First,

partners may simply not be clear on what activities each collaborates with.

Secondly, not all partners may understand that all of the Judy Center activities—

including outreach, family support, and family engagement—are designed to

directly or indirectly, attribute to school readiness. A recommendation is that the

Judy Center staff explores ways to clarify the roles of the various partner

44

organizations and to encourage more dialogue about how the systemic focus

of the Judy Center addresses the whole child.

A follow up to this question asked for suggestions about other organizations to

potentially partner with. Adding Garrett Mentors was suggested; Garrett

Mentors was a partner but was not part of the partner listing in the survey.

Having an MOU, or updating an existing MOU, with the Department of Social

Services (DSS) was mentioned. “Home School/Private Schools Organizations

[and] Private-Non-Profit Providers working with families such as Service

Coordination Inc.” was also suggested. Not listing DSS, or Maryland EXCELS, as a

partner on the survey may simply have been an oversight.

UNDERSTANDING OF HEADLINE PERFORMANCE MEASURES

One question asked about level of understanding of the Headline Performance

Measures (HPM). A similar question was also asked in the Principal/Site Manager

survey. Responses to this question were more diverse than the other close-ended

questions.

Chart G-6. Partner Understanding Of HPMs/Objectives (N=24)

The majority (88%) indicated a clear or general understanding of the HPMs.

However one respondent indicated not really understanding the HPMs. Two

indicated not knowing what the HPM term itself means.

The lack of understanding may be attributed the partner(s) being new to the

Steering Committee. Another possibility is that partners know the HPMs as

objectives since there were all positive responses to questions about sharing

outcomes and goal progress. Finally, the question itself may need to be

examined—is it reasonable for all partners to have a clear understanding of the

HPMs? That seems to imply that Judy Center staff would also be expected to

38%

50%

4% 8%

As a Judy Center Partner I:

Clearly understand the HeadlinePerformance Measures

Have a general understanding of theHeadline Performance Measures

Don't really understand the HeadlinePerformance Measures

Don't know what is meant by the termHeadline Performance Measures

45

have a clear understanding of all the objectives for all their partner’s

organizations.

EXPANSION GRANT IMPACT

Two questions focused specially on the impact of the Expansion Grant. The first

of these two questions used a rating scale asking about the perceived

difference made by the expansion grant.

Chart G-7. Differences Made By The FY 15 Expansion Grant (N=24)

As shown in Chart G-7, a total of 16 responses (84%) were in the positive range;

one response (4%) was no difference, and another response (4%) was too new

to answer. Two respondents (8%) indicated a somewhat negative difference.

The survey next used an optional open-ended question for participants to share

their thoughts about their previous response to perceptions of differences. The

unedited responses are in Table G-8 on the next page.

A very positive

difference 67%

A somewhat positive

17%

No diference 4%

A somewhat negative

8%

I don't know; I'm w/ expansion

program, new to Steering Comm

4%

FY 15 Expansion has made:

46

1. Schools, students and families are getting more support

2. The expansion grant has opened a door to help smaller programs in the community

to gain access to the support they need to be successful such as smaller daycares

and in home family daycares obtaining the support they need to meet the

requirements of MSDE, reaching families and children in the community that may

not know about the supports that are available to them in the community, and

outreaching with several agencies to build a plethora of information and avenues

that can help families become stable and successful and children to be able to

build a strong learning foundation at a young age.

3. opened up more opportunities for children and families in the Friendsville area

4. More opportunity for education

5. School readiness has improved.

6. The expansion grant allowed them to gain more partners and provide more

resources to families and children.

7. Bringing more support for the students

8. It is great to see all the schools have a Judy Center Partnership. This way it benefits

all the children and families in Garrett Co.

9. I believe the Judy Center is an essential component to our counties mission of

preparing students for college and careers. The Judy Center does an excellent job!

10. The expansion grant has allowed JC core services to be available county wide.

11. The expansion grant has enabled The Judy Center/Head Start to increase services

and also has increased the number of people served.

12. additional classroom support through the academic and instructional support staff,

additional training, more parent/child engagement activities

13. ...now able to reach more children, families and schools.

14. The expansion shows more inclusion to the Judy Center system.

15. More collaboration and more children receiving services

16. Serving more children in the communities.

17. Provides opportunities for children and families that may not otherwise be

accessible

18. It has opened up the Judy Center to well over 3/4 of our county and can serve /

help more children and families.

19. From the pictures I saw the school play group activities appear to have children 3-4

years old sitting at a desk. This is not play to a 3-4 y/o - developmentally

inappropriate.

20. While it has helped more students across the county, it has taken funding away from

the most poverty stricken schools.

21. Reported number of expansion slots seems low for money provided through the

funding.

Table G-8. Differences Noticed As A Result Of FY 15 Expansion

47

A word count was done on the comments. The word results in order of

descending order are in the table below.

More: used 12 times to refer to different things—resources,

support, opportunities, children served, families served, schools

served, and programs served

Children: mentioned 11 times

Families: mentioned 9 times

Support: mentioned 8 times

Opportunities: mentioned 4

Additional: mentioned 2 times

Table G-9. Key Words In Comments Describing Expansion Grant Differences

The first 18 comments are positive and validate the Judy Center’s mission and

key functions. The last three comments are critical of the expansion efforts and

correspond to two of the responses illustrated in Chart G-7 above.

The Judy Center was already aware of the situation in the Play Group photos

that were mentioned in comment #19 in the above table. That situation was an

anomaly apparently created by the presence of the camera. The Judy Center

reports that is not typical for a play group. This comment could be referencing

photos on the Judy Center website showing children seated at a table. The

Judy Center pointed out that children do use the tables for art projects.

The Judy Center staff was asked about the validity of comment #20 regarding

taking funding away from other poverty stricken schools. While the Judy Center

staff welcome a difference in opinion, they also noted the opinion holder (in this

case survey filtering links this to a Board of Education partner) may be incorrect

or uninformed. Excerpts from their explanation are:

“All of our [Judy Center] schools are Title I schools. The FARMS rate by

school is Yough Glades-59%, Friendsville-64%, BroadFord-52%, Crelin-

60%, Grantsville-63%. According to the FARMS report Friendsville would

have the highest % of poverty; however Grantsville is not far

behind….[The commenter may feel] we do not provide as much

financial support to Friendsville or Yough Glades since expanding to the other three schools….YG and FV have not lost any Judy Center

funding, in fact … they have gained with the expansion since we now

can provide academic intervention, classroom lessons, more staff

48

development opportunities, and the teachers are now given $200

each year for classroom supplies compared to $100 they received

before.”

It is not known if this partner is aware of the Judy Center mandate to serve Title I

schools and that the Judy Center schools are all high poverty level schools.

STAYING INFORMED OUTSIDE OF THE STEERING COMMITTEE MEETINGS

Questions #2 and #3 focused on how partners stay informed and use of the

meeting minutes distributed by the Judy Center. The results are shown in the

charts G-10 and G-11 below.

Chart G-10. Most Frequency Used Methods For Staying Informed (N=24)

For Question #2, respondents were to select their three most used methods for

staying informed. The only method with no responses was the Republican

Newspaper. Three of the four most frequently used methods are those initiated

by the Judy Center: emails, calendar, and newsletter. In FY 14 Judy Center

emails were also the most frequently used method, as well as the most preferred

method for staying informed.

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

Below are various methods for staying informed about the Judy Center and Partner activities, in addition to the Steering Committee

meetings. Please select up to three (3) methods that you use the most

Republican Newspaper

Teachers

Text Messages

Parents

JC web page on CAC website

Phone Calls

JC Newsletter

Grapevine Informal methods

JC Calendar

JC Emails

49

Chart G-11. Frequency Of Reading Meeting Minutes (N=24)

All the respondents indicated they read the minutes, with 67 % (N=16) reporting

they usually read the minutes each month. The reported data seems to indicate

value to the time the Judy Center staff spend compiling and sharing the minutes.

However respondents could have also responded more positively to reflect

better on both themselves and/or the Judy Center.

JUDY CENTER DATA SHARING

Question #4 and question # 11 both dealt with data sharing by the Judy Center

staff—Chart G-12. While the overlap of content assures validity since results of

both were all positive range, there were also slight differences in the specifics or

focus of the questions and the number of responses differed. Both Ns are noted

with the chart. Question 11 had fewer responses because of skip logic and

because the question was not mandatory.

Question #4 was more global. It asked if the Judy Center staff shared data

regarding outcomes and progress toward goals with all partners. Question #11

was more specific. It asked about when and how data is shared: (a) at steering

committee meetings and (b) in a way that is both understandable and useful.

Neither question had a disagree response. The responses indicate that both in

meetings and outside of meetings the Judy Center is succeeding at sharing

outcome data with partners. Additionally at meetings the data is shared in a

way that is understandable and useful.

0%

17%

17%

67%

How frequently do you typically read the Steering Committee meeting minutes that are emailed to you?

Never

Only if I have missed themeeting

Approximately 2-3 times ayear

Usually each month

50

Chart G-12. Judy Center Staff Sharing Outcome Data (N=24 and N=21)

MEETING ATTENDANCE

The Steering Committee meetings are a critical means of engaging and

updating partners. Four of the survey questions dealt with some aspect of the

Steering Committee meetings. Question #6, the initial meeting question, asked

for frequency of attendance. In previous surveys respondents who didn’t attend

the meetings may have responded to questions that were specific to the

meeting happenings. For this survey skip logic was used so that respondents

who did not attend a steering committee meeting would not be asked survey

questions about the meetings. Three respondents indicated they did not attend

any meeting.

The Judy Center has 11 Steering Committee meetings each year. Eleven (59%)

partners attend half or more of those meetings. Three (13%) reported attending

10 -11 of the meetings. The high attendance rate may be an indication of the

value the meetings have for the various partners.

Chart G-13. Number Of Meetings Attended (N=14)

100%

Q-4. The Judy Center staff shares data regarding

outcomes and progress toward goals with all the partners.

48%

52%

Q-11. At the Steering Committee meetings, the Judy

Center staff share outcome data in a way that is both

understandable and useful.

Agree

StronglyAgree

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

Don't attend, a representative does

Didn't attend any

Attended 1-3

Attended 4-6

Attended 7-9

Attended 10-11

51

MEETING LOGISTICS

In FY 14 the Steering Committee survey asked a question about some possible

changes to the Steering Committee that the Judy Center was considering

implementing. The respondents were to indicate their interest in having the

suggestions implemented. Some of those were implemented, for example

having some meetings in the late afternoon vs. always meeting in the morning.

For FY 15 a similar question was asked. There were some slight modifications to

the question. Instead of asking for interest, this survey asked respondents to

select no more than three (3) changes they would like for the Judy Center to

consider implementing. The question, and slightly paraphrased response options

are shown below in Chart G-14.

Chart G-14. Frequency Of Responses To Suggested Meeting Changes (N=21, up to 3 responses per person)

The Judy Center is already acting upon this FY 15 data by holding a noon,

working lunch meeting, in March 2016 where this report will be presented. The

comment provided with the “Other” response was: “Send out a calendar invite

to meeting participants so it will serve as a reminder a hour prior to the meeting.”

If software for calendar invites is available to the Judy Center then that

suggestion seems to be fairly easy to implement and is recommended for

implementation.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

10. Other w/ explanation

9. Networking-Calendar could be smaller portion ofmtg

8. Mtgs could occasionally be held in evening or laterthan 3:00 PM

7. Some mtgs could start at noon & be working lunch

6. Different JC components featured

5. Different domains featured

4. Different HPMs featured & discussed

3. Mtgs feature different partners, what they do, howthey collaborate

2. Mtgs held in diferent partner locations

1. Mtgs sometimes held in different parts of county

52

Chart G-15. Meeting Processes Effective For Sharing Data And Information (N=21)

The single Disagree response (5%)to Question #8 (Chart G-15) was followed up

with this comment: “A monthly activities calendar showing activities and events

would be more effective. It is not a good use of time to do at the meeting.” The

Judy does email a monthly calendar. This comment may be implying that

rather than a verbal report out by the Judy Center staff of upcoming events, the

Judy Center calendar could be distributed at the meeting, or a power point

version of the calendar be shown with limited discussion.

However, the data in Chart G-16, below, shows that updates from the Judy

Center staff are the second most helpful part of the Steering Committee

meetings. Before the Judy Center makes changes to the calendar process,

discussing this option at one of the meetings might provide additional insights

about the calendar sharing process.

Chart G-16. Most Helpful Portions Of The Steering Committee Meetings (N=21, up to 2 responses per person)

62%

33%

5%

At meetings, the process the JC staff & others use is effective for sharing information about events & activities.

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree (see comment)

Networking, or the informal

conversations that happen either before

or after the actual meeting

13% Partner updates

39% Updates from Judy

Center staff 24%

Application of data results in relation to

school readiness results

13%

Discussions that spin off of the reports and

partner sharing 11%

Select the parts of the Steering Committee meetings that are the most helpful to you.

Select no more than two (2).

53

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

An optional closing question asked for additional thoughts or comments to pass

along to the Judy Center. The nine comments reflect well on both the Judy

Center itself (staff) and the Steering Committee—the partners and partnership

the Judy Center has created. The unedited comments are in Table G-17 below.

1. Love our partnership with them! They are so supportive and a

wonderful resource.

2. Great Job! I love being a partner.

3. everyone does good work with the steering committee and the

Judy Center

4. I think the Garrett Co. Judy Center does and excellent job! They are

always looking ahead and doing more for the children and families.

This all helps to raise the scores for school readiness.

5. They do a supper [sic] job offering staff training, working together

with other providers and providing EHS center-based services!

6. I am privileged to be a part of this group - I think they do an

outstanding job for the community.

7. I love working with the Judy Center Staff and the organization. The

core group of people I work with are outstanding. I would not want

to be without the Judy Center partnership.

8. It is a very good organization that has consistently demonstrated

proven results.

9. This worker completing this survey is aware of another DSS worker

who now attends the monthly JC Steering Committee meetings.

Table G-17. Additional Comments To Be Shared With the Judy Center.

SUMMARY: STEERING COMMITTEE SURVEY

Overall, the Steering Committee survey data reflects positively on the

performance of the Judy Center and their Partners. The data provides

evidence that changes have been made. It also provides the Judy Center with

data for continued performance improvement.

54

Teacher Survey

The online Teacher survey questions were designed to obtain both quantitative

and qualitative data. Skip logic was used for demographic specific questions.

The survey was sent to 45 teachers; 30 (67%) responded. Reminder emails were

used to encourage a higher response rate.

RESPONSES BY ROLE/ORGANIZATION AND GRANT TYPE

To identify grant type teachers were

asked if they had been a Judy

Center teacher in SY 14 (Fall 2013 –

Spring 2014). The majority of

teacher responses were from

teachers familiar with the Judy

Center, rather than teachers added

via the expansion grant.

Chart G-18. Grant Type (N=30)

Teachers were asked which category best described their role or organization.

Because of the need to respect the anonymity of the Private PreK and Child

Care Provider responses (those with smallest sample pool and smallest number

of responses), those two categories were not used to filter any of the following

question responses.

Chart G-19. Teacher responses by Role or Organization (N=30)

USING JUDY CENTER SUPPLIED RESOURCES: LAND OF THE LETTER PEOPLE

Questions # 3 – 6, dealt with iPad use and Land of the Letter People use. The

Judy Center had supplied those resources. With skip logic in the survey, Early

Head Start teachers were not asked these questions since they had not

received these specific resources. There were a disappointing number of

70%

30% ContinuationGrant (N=21)

ExpansionGrant (N=9)

0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0%

Early Head Start (N=10)

Head Start (N=8)

Kindergarten (N=5)

PreK (N=4)

Child Care Provider (N=2)

Private PreK (N=1)

55

responses indicating those resources were not being used or not providing value.

Filtering the responses by role/organization, the negative responses were

basically attributable to Board of Education Kindergarten teachers or PreK

teachers.

Chart G-20. How Often Do You Use Land Of The Letter People? (N=20)

As shown above in Chart G-20, a slight majority of teachers (55% or 11/30)

indicated they typically do use Land of the Letter People every day. However

20% (N=4) responded they do not use this Judy Center provided resource at all.

Likewise, the same number (20%, N=4) also indicated that none of the children

in their classrooms are using the iPads (chart G-21 below).

USING JUDY CENTER SUPPLIED RESOURCES: IPADS

Chart G-21. How Many Children Use The iPads? (N=20)

Don't use them (N=4) 20%

Use about 2-3 times/week

(N=2) 10%

About once a week (N=2)

10%

Typically every day

(N=11) 55%

Use as needed (N=1)

5%

None of the children

(N=4) 20%

A few of the

children (N=3) 15%

Most of the children

(N=3) 15%

All of the children (N=10)

50%

Chart G-21 shows responses

to the question about how

many children in the

classroom use the iPads. Sixty

five percent (13/20) positively

responded that all or most of

the children are using this

Judy Center supplied

technology resource. Three

Kindergarten teachers and

one PreK teacher indicated

“none of the children”.

56

As part of this cluster of questions teachers were asked to respond to a

statement “Having an iPad or iPads in the classroom has been beneficial to the

children’s learning.”

Chart G-22. Having An iPad(s) In The Classroom Has Been Beneficial To Learning. (N=20)

The negative responses to this question align with those in the previous questions.

The four disagree responses correspond with those teachers who indicated no

use in the previous question. Filtering the data shows those responses to be from

Kindergarten and PreK teachers. The Don’t Know/Not Applicable responses

were interesting. They link to “few of the children” responses and were made by

a PreK and Head Start teacher.

Unfortunately, the survey did not gather data as to why teachers are not using

of these resources or why the teachers feel these resources are not valuable.

Besides the focus on STEM in all schools, given the current literature on the digital

divide, and literature supporting iPad (or tablet) classroom use, this seems to be

a missed opportunity for both the teachers and the children—especially for low

income children who may not have technology resources at home but still need

to be technologically competent to function in today’s society.

Another weakness of the survey regarding iPad use is the failure to ask about

teacher use or comfort with iPads and/or technology—are the teachers

themselves technologically competent and or comfortable giving up their

pedagogical leader role to technology. Using technology for independent

learning could possibly mean a less teacher-centric classroom. Regardless of

reason, if teachers are not using technology it raised questions about how the “T”

component of STEM can be addressed.

The Judy Center was compiling a list of Teacher Recommended Apps they

planned to distribute in fall 2015. So teachers were asked, “What app do you

consider most beneficial to children’s learning and want to be on that list?” The

question did not differentiate between free and paid apps.

Disagree (N=4) 20%

Agree (N=3) 15%

Strongly Agree

(N=11) 55%

Don't Know/NA to my program

(N=2) 10%

57

Corresponding to the number of teachers indicating they do not use the iPads

there were three comments (instead of app recommendation) of the “don’t

know” type and one comment saying “look forward to getting some good app

ideas.”

The suggested apps are listed by frequency in the following table. It is unclear if

some of the recommendations are for a specific app, or a request/suggestion

for an app on that topic. For example, #15 on the list: Shapes, Colors, Letters,

Sounds. A search of the Apple App store for “Shapes” resulted in 219 shape

related apps.

Number of

Recommendations

1. ABC Mouse 3

2. Little Writer 2

3. A-Z Music Videos 1

4. ABC Ninja 1

5. Cubic Frog Apps—Any Of Those 1

6. Feed Animals Farmer 1

7. Fun Brain Jr 1

8. Lego Junior App 1

9. Preschool Kids Academy 1

10. Todo Math 1

11. Any Math, Phonics, Phonemic Awareness,

Letters/Numbers, And Reading.

?

12. Anything With Fine Motor, Letter/Number Recognition ?

13. Preschool And Kindergarten Learning Games ?

14. Reader, 22learn ?

15. Shapes, Colors, Letters, Sounds ?

?= General comment: Not clear if it is a specific app name

Table G-23. Teacher Recommended Apps (N=20)

USING JUDY CENTER SUPPLIED RESOURCES: EDUCATIONAL/INSTRUCTIONAL COORDINATORS

Questions #7 and #8 dealt with the three Educational/Instructional Coordinators.

These are new positions resulting from the Expansion Grant (See Appendices for

Organization Structure). Question 7 asked teachers to indicate the value of two

different types of services the Coordinators provided in FY 15. Question 7 also

allowed for an open-ended comment response.

58

Chart G-24. Value Of Educational/Instructional Coordinators (N=20)

The “No Value” and “Limited Value” responses were attributable to

Kindergarten and PreK teachers, similar to the less positive responses to some of

the previously discussed questions.

The “Can’t Say/No Experience” responses were from Head Start teachers. It is

unknown how many different classrooms the Coordinators had worked with in FY

15. The Coordinators did not work with Early Head Start teachers so those

teachers were not asked about the Coordinators.

Additionally, there were three comments given with this question. The unedited

comments are below and are similar to comments/suggestions given for

Question #8 discussed next.

1. not familiar with the term, however if this is the group under Steve

Knepp's direction - they are awesome

2. The tutoring need to be more consistent for our struggling students

and we need someone to help some of our parents with parenting

skills.

3. Many times, the teacher was pulled to do other things. It would be

more beneficial to have them work more consistently with a

classroom. They are pulled in a lot if directions.

The intent of Question #8 was to get teacher input into ways the Coordinators

could more effectively support student success going forward. The question

read: “PLEASE help the Judy Center program plan for next year by providing

your ideas for what else the Educational/Instructional coordinators could do to

support children in being successful in school. All suggestions are welcome and

all suggestions will be considered.” All the unedited responses are reported next

in Table G-25.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Side-by-side classroomlessons

Interventions withindividual children or

small groups of children

Can't say/No experience

Highly valuable to me

Valuable to me

Limited value to me

No value to me

59

1. More education for parents on the importance of early childhood

programs and being consistent.

2. Come more often

3. Maybe some activities on manners and tattling.

4. Make centers and set up centers to stay in classroom. Provide

materials for centers. Centers should be different types of stem

projects that take longer to gather up materials. Coordinators could

make activities for students to take home and do with parents.

Coordinators could invite parents in and show the parents how to do

reading, math and science activities at home.

5. websites utilized by the teachers

6. Find and put together classroom activities for easy to use centers.

Small group intervention, help with validation

7. Consistent tutoring for our struggling students

8. Consistent tutoring / pulling students for individual help

9. Giving us print-outs of activity directions that are discussed.

10. smartboard lessons

11. Providing resources that we are unable to purchase

12. early intervention in behavior support areas

13. maybe having a small group of children (3 or 4) go at a time to work

on readiness skills for prek at least twice a week

14. I think parents would enjoy coming to visit the classroom during the

school day to be involved in an activity or day trip with their child -

preferably during the second half of the school year.

15. come at least twice a week

16. General lesson plan ideas - STEM related that work in both pre-k &

head start settings

17. Don't know

18. I would like for the coordinators to be able spend more time in my

classroom, this year she was only able to do small groups for 20

minutes once a week.

19. Have them be based more in classrooms where the enrollment is

larger.

20. Train parents about school readiness when their child is 2 or 3 at the

latest.

Table G-25. Ideas For Educational/Instructional Coordinators (N=20)

60

Although parents were mentioned six times and STEM was mentioned twice, it

was otherwise difficult to group or theme the responses. Additionally some of

the suggestions were not clear. For example, “consistent tutoring” could mean

a consistent style/type of tutoring, or it could mean provide it on a consistent

basis.

Based on the comments to both of these questions there appeared to be

confusion about both position and the duties or role of the position. This question

was previously debriefed with the Judy Center and the Educational/Instructional

Coordinators. The Coordinators themselves acknowledged they were unclear

about their “official” titles and discussed that scheduling had at times been

problematic. At that time the suggestion was made to come up with an

“official” title that all the Coordinators would use in their email signature blocks,

handouts, and other documents.

There also seems to be confusion among the teachers as to the Coordinators

role or function. For example, comment #4 in Table G-25 sounds like work that a

full-time assistant teacher or teacher aide might perform. So disseminating both

the official title, and duties of the Coordinators, might address the confusion, as

well as help the teachers to offer more specific (helpful or implementable)

suggestions.

As part of this survey topic focus, Question #11 asked a more global question to

all of the teachers: “The activities, services, and resources of the Judy Center

program enhance my teaching and my classroom.” This was a rating question:

Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree with an option for Other (with required

comment if selected).

Chart G-26. Judy Center Activities, Services, & Resources Enhance My Teaching/My Classroom (N=30)

The two “Other” responses, which are attributable to a PreK teacher and an

Early Head Start teacher, were:

0% 20% 40% 60%

Other (please specify) (N=2)

Don't Know/NA to my program (N=1)

Disagree (N=1)

Agree (N=16)

Strongly Agree (N=10)

61

The kids enjoy the activities, but I can’t say that they enhance

learning in my classroom.

They are a nice “extra” but not necessarily an enhancement.

The teacher with the Disagree response also indicated that she/he does not use

the Land of the Letter People or the iPad(s). A PreK teacher made the response,

“Don’t Know/Not Applicable to my program”. Unless the teacher is new, it is

puzzling how the teacher would not have an opinion or how the Judy Centers

services and resources would not be applicable.

Conversely, a much more positive combined 87% (26/30) of the teachers either

Strongly Agreed or Agreed with the statement about their classroom and their

teaching being enhanced as a result of the Judy Center.

The non-agreement responses to this question, and the negative responses to

use of iPads and Land of the Letter People, are similar to some surveys from

previous years when there has been at least one teacher giving negative

responses and feedback. While it is most likely impossible to have all the

teachers perceive the Judy Center positively, the comments made and lack of

use of resources/technology, may be an indication that some (not all) of the

Kindergarten and PreK teachers could perhaps benefit from a refresher on

pedagogy and learning theory/practices.

TRANSITION ACTIVITIES AND SCHOOL READINESS

Question #9 stated: “The Judy Center provides quality transition activities for

children entering public school kindergarten.” Unlike responses to some

previous questions on this survey, there were no “Disagree” responses. The

Kindergarten and PreK teachers who previously responded in a more negative

manner did not do so with this question. Those teachers may perceive these

activities more positively because these are more external activities or activities

the Judy Center does outside of his/her classroom. There could possibly be

some “turf” issues at play. The “Don’t Know/Not Applicable” response was from

an Early Head Start teacher.

Chart G-27. Judy Center Provides Quality Transition Activities (N= 30)

0%10%20%30%40%50%

Agree (N=14) Strongly Agree(N=11)

Don't Know/NA to myprogram (N=1)

Other (4)

62

The four comments to the Other option appear to be thoughtful. Those

unedited comments are:

I don't know what they do because this is our first year.

Transition meetings are helpful.

not aware of the specific transition activities but the transition

meetings between H.S. teachers and K teachers are very

valuable/essential!

I think the Judy Center does the best it can. When Head Start

centers were removed from schools, it greatly effected [sic] the

transition activities for those kids entering Kindergarten.

CHILDREN WITH JUDY CENTER EXPERIENCE HAVE HIGHER READINESS TO LEARN

For question #10, teachers were asked to respond to this question statement:

“Children who have Judy Center experience tend to enter school with higher

readiness to learn than the children without Judy Center experiences.”

A combined total of 77% of the teachers agreed with the statement. One

teacher disagreed. The two comments associated “Other” response were:

I have not directly studied the data myself, but would assume the

more experiences a child had would [be] beneficial.

There are other factors involved for high readiness; not just J.C.

activities.

Chart G-28. Judy Center Children Tend To Have Higher School Readiness (N=30)

The second comment above is true about other factors being involved, but it

seems to ignore that the statement was asking for a comparison of children with

Judy Center experience to children without Judy Center experience. The Judy

Center collects data to compare the two groups, as well compares both groups

to children countywide and statewide to track and monitor differences over

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%

Disagree (N=1) Agree (N=16) Strongly Agree(N=7)

Don't Know/NAto my program

(N=4)

Other/specifiy(N=2)

63

time. Longitudinal data points to the positive Judy Center difference. This type

of data is shared with the teachers, but sharing it again might be helpful. Or this

type of response may support the premise that some “turf” issues exist which

manifests itself in the less than fully positive responses.

PROGRAM ALIGNMENT

A question was asked about the Judy Center creating and supporting

partnerships among early childhood agencies, programs, and professionals.

Some examples of the partner organizations were given with the question. The

results are in the chart below.

The comment given was:

“Polar Express activity was

good.” The relationship of

the comment to the

question is not clear, but the

comment was positive.

Chart G-29. Judy Center Instrumental In Creating And Supporting Partnerships (N=30)

JUDY CENTER FAMILY SUPPORT EFFORTS

Question #16 asked teachers if they noticed differences as a result of the Judy

Center’s increased family support efforts in FY 15. Several examples of the family

support efforts were included with the question.

Chart G-30. Differences Due To Family Support Services (N=30)

Agree (N=13)

43% Strongly

Agree (N=15)

51%

Don't Know/NA (N=1)

3%

Other/comment (N=1)

3%

27% 13%

33% 27%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

Other/Comment(N=8)

Yes, I noticed some changes that may have been a result of f amily support & coordinationefforts (N=10)

I noticed some positive changes, but wasn't sure of the cause (N=4)

64

There was a range of responses. Six of the 27% (8/30) indicating they did not

notice any changes were from Early Head Start/Head Start. Those programs

have their own family support efforts; it is unknown how much of the Judy

Center work was done with those programs. Conversely, in the Principals/Site

Manager survey all five respondents selected: “Yes, I definitely noticed some

changes that I think were a result of the family support and coordination efforts.”

The eight comment responses from the teachers are below.

1. Only because our students and their families typically don't have

a need for these requests.

2. I have seen Family Service Coordinators trying their hardest to

involve parents and to get them help, but the parents aren't very

willing to participate. The FSC have done a great job providing

opportunities for the families, but there is only so much you can

do without the help of the parents....

3. I had no families receiving these services

4. I don't see the effects this year, but now that I'm more aware of

what the Judy Center does, I'm sure I'll see more next year.

5. I am not sure.

6. We recently became part of the Judy Center this year.

2014/2015

7. My classroom did not become a Judy Center partner until this

school year 2014-2015

8. NA

APPRECIATION FOR JUDY CENTER WORK DONE FOR TEACHERS, CHILDREN, AND FAMILIES

The teachers were asked to respond to the statement: “I appreciate the work

the Judy Center staff does for teachers, children, and families.” Ninety percent

(28/30) either agreed or strongly agreed, clearly affirming the value of the work

the Judy Center does.

65

Chart G-30. I Appreciate The Judy Center

A suggestion is to ask the teachers, either in person or via some anonymous

method, for suggestions about how to accomplish meeting tasks without in-

person meetings. In the past the Judy Center tried to address this concern by

meeting at the various school locations, however teachers also expressed

displeasure with that option as well. An option may be to explore holding some

meetings virtually. Software such as Go To Meeting that includes interactive

options for polling, asking questions, calling on participants, etc. so the meeting

could remain somewhat interactive. That would at least eliminate travel time.

The downside is that teachers would miss opportunities to network in person and

seek peer input into solving issues or developing further competencies.

SUMMARY: TEACHER SURVEY

Overall, the responses from the teachers about the value of the Judy Center

and the teacher’s appreciation of the Judy Center were positive. But what

appears to be a consistent group of PreK and K teachers were slightly less

enthusiastic, or at times less positive as a group, than the Steering Committee

and Principals/Site Managers.

In terms of utilization of Judy Center resources several teachers are not using the

technology resource (iPads) or literacy/language resource (Land of the Letter

People) the Judy Center provided.

43%

51%

3% 3% Agree (N=13)

Strongly Agree (N=15)

Don't Know/NA (N=1)

Other/Comment (N=1)

As the chart shows there

was a single “Don’t

Know/Not Applicable to my

Program” response from an

Early Head Start teacher.

There was one “Other” with

this comment: “Mixed

feelings … Excessive

meetings resulting in lost

instructional time are

frustrating.”

66

H. Recommendations

In addition to recommending that the Judy Center continue to maintain their

record of excellence, a few recommendation and suggestions are given. The

first group of recommendations are linked to the HPMs, Goal, and suggestions

for turning the curve. Recommendations based on survey data follow that

group.

THE NUMBER OF HEADLINE PERFORMANCE MEASURES

The MSDE publication, Judy Center FY 15 Annual Evaluation Reports Required

Information Checklist, says for a Judy Center “there should be 4-5 Headline

Performance Measures.” In FY 15 the GCJC exceeded that number. It had 12

HPMs/Objectives. Along with the Objectives, the Action Plan was very

extensive. Although additional staff have been added to the Judy Center as a

result of the Expansion Grant, it appears the responsibility for coordinating,

monitoring, and managing the HPM’s is still largely the responsibility of the Judy

Center Manager/Coordinator.

We recommend the Judy Center reduce their number of HPMs/Objectives.

Paring back on the large number of services that the Judy Center has historically

done is also likely to be a daunting task. It would require revisiting their priorities.

If all the objective “cluster” areas are deemed equally important, then perhaps

the priorities could be rotated from year to year.

RECONSIDER THE GOAL STRETCH AND PROVIDE TARGETED T/TA

Anecdotal data, survey data, and other data such hospital/health department

records, indicate an increasing number of children entering school with

behavior problems. Some of these children were born to drug-addicted

mothers. Teachers report these children have both cognitive impairment and

behavior issues. The children may also at times disrupt the classroom or

negatively impact the learning for other children.

We recommend the Judy Center examine the goal numbers set for KRA scores:

is that number realistic based on reported growing numbers of children with

cognitive and behavioral issues?

The Principals/Site Managers requested the Judy Center provide training and

professional development focused on this topic. We recommend the Judy

Center, now that it is fully staffed the Academic Coordinator positions, continue

to use the Coordinators to support and assist the teachers.

67

RECOMMENDATIONS/SUGGESTIONS: SURVEY-BASED

Continue work to clarify the title and role functions for the Academic

Coordinators.

Further discuss Teacher survey findings with the Board of Education.

Collectively consider if select teachers may be candidates for refresher

training in pedagogy, learning theories in early childhood, and teaching

practices.

If feasible, explore the technological competencies of teachers and

provide technology training to those teachers who are currently not fully

maximizing technology. Along with this try to provide, or arrange for,

teacher training on various uses of different apps to increase academic

achievement as suggested in the Principal/Site Manager survey.

68

Appendix A. Organization Chart: Continuation & Expansion Grants Structure

69

Appendix B. FY 15 Program Changes

FY 14 FY 15

Geographic Areas served 2 locations 5 locations

Partner Public Schools 2 5

Partner Child Care Programs 2 3

Head Start Classrooms 4 9

Early Head Start (classrooms or programs) 5 6

Judy Center Teachers 14 25

Total Teachers/Child Care Providers 21 35

Total Schools/Programs 10 14

Total Enrollment 319 751

Play Groups 2 5

Judy Center Staff 5 5

Partners 20 20

70

Appendix C. Principals/Site Managers Survey

74

Appendix D. Steering Committee Survey

82

Appendix E. Teacher Survey

fy 15 evaluation report garrett ceducation practices (teacher/classroom focus); (2) support and...

Documents