21st cclc community learning centers summative ......21st cclc community learning centers summative...

21st CCLC Community Learning Centers Summative Evaluation Report:

Seminole County Public Schools – Elementary (South)

August 10, 2016

Kaitlin Trippany

This work is funded through a contract with the Florida Department of Education

[590-2446B-6CCC3]

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 3 1.0 OVERVIEW AND HISTORY 4 2.0 STUDENT CHARACTERISTICS 5 3.0 PROGRAM OPERATIONS 7 4.0 STAFF CHARACTERISTICS 8

5.0 OBJECTIVES AND OUTCOMES 10 6.0 SUSTAINABILITY PLAN 23 7.0 LESSONS LEARNED AND RECOMMENDATIONS 25

3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Special thanks should be given to the following individuals for helping implement this grant during the 2015-2016 school year. Project Administrators:

Ms. Shawneequa Brown, Program Facilitator (Site Coordinator) for the 21st Century Community Learning Centers – Led the implementation of the grants at three sites.

Ms. Taucier Smalls-West, Coordinator of Special Projects/Title I (Instructional Support) and Project Director for all 21st CCLC programs in Seminole County Public Schools – Provided administrative oversight.

Ms. Jamee Minnetto, Resource Development Coordinator, Seminole County Public Schools – Supported the implementation of the grant through grant writing, budget planning, and compliance.

Site Principals:

Principals for the 21st Century Community Learning Centers located at Altamonte Elementary, Casselberry Elementary, and English Estates Elementary – Supported the implementation of the grant by providing on-going school-grant collaboration at each site.

4

1.0 OVERVIEW AND HISTORY

In response to demonstrated community need, Seminole County Public Schools (SCPS) operates three sites under the Elementary (South) 21st Century Community Learning Centers (21st CCLC) Program. These sites are all school-based programs: Altamonte Elementary, Casselberry Elementary and English Estates Elementary. The purpose of these centers is to: (1) provide opportunities for academic enrichment, including supplemental instruction to support students in realizing increased skills in reading/language arts, mathematics, and science; (2) offer students a broad array of additional services, programs, and personal enrichment activities that are designed to reinforce and complement the regular academic program; and (3) provide adult family members of regularly participating students expanded opportunities for literacy and related educational development. The project provides school-based learning and enrichment opportunities for students and adult family members in communities that represent high populations of poverty. Over the 2015-2016 reporting period, the programs served more than 280 students from low income, high-need areas that struggle with crime, drugs, homelessness, and unemployment. The programs offered students the opportunity to receive academic enrichment through project-based learning, homework assistance, and tutoring. In addition, healthy snacks were provided as well as the chance to participate in health and fitness activities and other exciting personal enrichment activities, such as photography, character education, technology, art, and music. The evaluation is composed of six sections, which are briefly outlined below: Student Characteristics provides information about the students served, including demographics, enrollment, and daily attendance. Program Operations describes operations at the sites, including the typical and total time of operation for various reporting timeframes. Staff Characteristics provides information on the composition of staff at each site including staff demographics, ratio of staff to students, staff quality (training and certifications), and turnover. Objectives and Outcomes provides information on program objectives, how those objectives are measured, data analysis methods, progress toward objectives, and finding implications and recommendations. Sustainability Plan provides information on strategies employed to ensure the sustainability of 21st CCLC program and enhance the quality of the services offered. Lessons Learned and Recommendations includes an overall assessment the 21st CCLC programs and program-wide recommendations to enhance program quality.

5

2.0 STUDENT CHARACTERISTICS 2.1 Total Student Enrollment and Attendance Nearly all the students that enrolled in the Elementary (South) 21st CCLC sites became regular

participants. At Altamonte and Casselberry 99 percent of students were regular participants and at

English Estates about 97 percent of students were regular participants. This indicates the programs’

success retaining students in the program.

Table 1. Student Enrollment: Total and Regularly Participating Students for Summer 2015 and School Year 2015-2016.

Center Name

Total Enrolled Attending (at least one day)

Regularly Participating Enrollment (30 days or more)

Summer Only

School Year Only

Both Summer

AND School Year

Total Summer

Only

School Year Only

Both Summer

AND School Year

Total

Altamonte 0 46 22 68 0 45 22 67

Casselberry 0 65 70 135 0 63 70 133

English Estates 0 61 25 86 0 58 25 83

Note. Unduplicated counts shown. Students attending/enrolled in both operation periods are only reported under “Both Summer AND School Year.” Only Summer + Only School Year + Summer AND School Year = Total.

2.2 Student Demographics Elementary (South) serves students age five to eleven who reside in low income neighborhoods and have a variety of special needs. These factors put students at-risk for academic and social/emotional issues that could interfere with students’ ability to learn and lower students’ overall well-being. Table 2 displays the student gender and age range for each of the sites. In general, there are slightly more male participants than female at Altamonte and Casselberry.

Table 2. Student Demographics for Total Participating Students (All Students Served) and Regularly Participating Students.

Center Name

Total Participating Students Regularly Participating Students

Gender Age

Range

Gender Age

Range Male Female Data Not Provided

Male Female Data Not Provided

Altamonte 38 30 NA 5-11 37 30 NA 5-11

Casselberry 73 62 NA 5-11 72 61 NA 5-11

English Estates 39 47 NA 5-11 39 44 NA 5-11

6

Tables 3 and 4 display the number and percent of students with special needs, including students who are English Language Learners (ELLs) and students with disabilities. About 7-10 percent of Elementary (South) students are English Language Learners. All the Elementary (South) programs have a large percentage of students who have a disability, 19 percent of regular participants at Altamonte, 17 percent at Casselberry, and 17 percent at English Estates. This exceeds the district percentage of about 12 percent. In addition, the majority of students in all three programs qualify for free or reduced price lunch, a commonly used indicator of poverty.

Table 3. Population Specifics: Total Participating Students.

Center Name Limited English

Language Proficiency Identified with Special Needs

Free or Reduced-Price Lunch

Yes No DK* Yes No DK Yes No DK

Altamonte 5 63 NA 13 55 NA 52 16 NA

Casselberry 10 125 NA 23 112 NA 114 21 NA

English Estates 10 76 NA 14 72 NA 80 6 NA *DK = Don’t Know/Could Not Be Determined.

Table 4. Population Specifics: Regularly Participating Students.

Center Name Limited English

Language Proficiency Identified with Special Needs

Free or Reduced-Price Lunch

Yes No DK* Yes No DK Yes No DK

Altamonte 5 62 NA 13 54 NA 51 16 NA

Casselberry 10 123 NA 22 111 NA 112 21 NA

English Estates 8 75 NA 14 69 NA 77 6 NA *DK = Don’t Know/Could Not Be Determined.

As Table 5 indicates, Elementary (South) programs have a diverse population of students.

Table 5. Student Race and Ethnicity: Total and Regularly Participating Students.

Center Name

Total Participating Students Regularly Participating Students

Am

eri

can

Ind

ian

or

Ala

ska

Nat

ive

Asi

an

Bla

ck o

r

Afr

ican

Am

eri

can

His

pan

ic o

r La

tin

o

Haw

aiia

n o

r P

acif

ic

Isla

nd

er

Wh

ite

Two

or

Mo

re R

aces

Dat

a N

ot

Pro

vid

ed

Am

eri

can

Ind

ian

or

Ala

ska

Nat

ive

Asi

an

Bla

ck o

r

Afr

ican

Am

eri

can

His

pan

ic o

r La

tin

o

Haw

aiia

n o

r P

acif

ic

Isla

nd

er

Wh

ite

Two

or

Mo

re R

aces

Dat

a N

ot

Pro

vid

ed

Altamonte 0 0 12 24 0 27 5 N

A

0 0 12 24 0 27 4 N

A Casselberry 0 1 17 51 0 51 15 N

A

0 1 17 50 0 51 14 N

A English Estates 1 1 42 30 0 7 5 N

A

1 1 42 27 0 7 5 N

A

7

Elementary (South) serves students in grades K-5, with the smallest enrollment in Kindergarten and first grade.

Table 6. Student Grade for Total Participating Students.

Center Name Grade In School*

K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total

Altamonte 2 5 8 1

5

3

0

8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 68

Casselberry 5 1

7

2

2

2

5

2

8

3

8

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 135

English Estates 8 6 1

5

1

9

1

6

2

2

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 86 * Grade levels are exclusive, as students can only be in one grade level. Students should be reported under the grade level they were in during the 2015-2016 Academic Year.

Table 7. Student Grade for Regularly Participating Students.

Center Name Grade In School*

K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total

Altamonte 2 5 8 1

5

2

9

8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 67

Casselberry 5 1

7

2

2

2

5

2

8

3

6

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 133

English Estates 8 6 1

2

1

9

1

6

2

2

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 83 * Grade levels are exclusive, as students can only be in one grade level. Students should be reported under the grade level they were in during the 2015-2016 Academic Year.

3.0 PROGRAM OPERATIONS 3.1 Summer Operation During the summer of 2015, Elementary (South) was open nine and half hours a day for 23 days.

Table 8. Summer 2015 Operation.

Center Name

Total number of weeks THIS center was

open

Typical number of days per

week THIS center was

open

Typical number of hours per week THIS center was open on

WEEKDAYS WEEKDAY EVENINGS

WEEKENDS

Altamonte 6 23 9.5 0 0

Casselberry 6 23 9.5 0 0

English Estates 6 23 9.5 0 0

8

3.2 School Year Operation The Elementary (South) sites offered programming five days a week for 174 days during the academic year. Casselberry also had programming for one hour a day before school.

Table 9. School Year 2015-2016 Operation.

Center Name

Total # weeks THIS

center was

open

Total # days THIS

center was

open

Typical # days

per week THIS

center was

open

Typical # hours per week THIS center

was open

Total # days THIS center operated

Bef

ore

Sch

oo

l

Du

rin

g Sc

ho

ol

Aft

er S

cho

ol

Wee

ken

ds

/

Ho

liday

s

Bef

ore

Sch

oo

l

Du

rin

g Sc

ho

ol

Aft

er S

cho

ol

Wee

ken

ds/

H

olid

ays

Altamonte 33 174 5 0 0 2.5 0 0 0 174 0

Casselberry 33 177 5 5 0 2.5 0 177 0 174 0

English Estates 33 174 5 0 0 2.5 0 0 0 174 0

4.0 STAFF CHARACTERISTICS 4.1 Staff Demographics As shown on Table 10a, Altamonte employed 12 school day teachers, one center administrator, two non-school day staff members and two other staff members. Casselberry (Table 10b) employed six school day teachers, one center administrator and 12 non-school day staff members. English Estates (Table 10c) employed 17 school day teachers, one center administrator and nine non-school day staff members. English Estates also employed two community members.

Table 10a. Regular Staff by Paid and Volunteer Status.

Staff Type*

Altamonte

Summer of 2015 2015-2016

School Year

Paid Volunteer Paid Volunteer

School Day Teachers (former and substitute) 4 0 12 0

Center Administrators and Coordinators 1 0 1 0

Other Non-Teaching School Day Staff 0 0 2 0

Parents 0 0 0 0

College Students 0 0 0 0

High School Students 0 0 0 0

Community Members 0 1 0 0

Subcontracted Staff 0 0 0 0

Other** 0 0 0 0 * These categories represent the regular responsibilities of program staff during the regular school day. ** Use this category if data do not fit in specific categories provided

9

Table 10b. Regular Staff by Paid and Volunteer Status.

Staff Type*

Casselberry

Summer of 2015 2015-2016

School Year





Parents 0 0 0 0






Table 10c. Regular Staff by Paid and Volunteer Status.

Staff Type*

English Estates

Summer of 2015 2015-2016

School Year





Parents 0 0 0 0






4.2 Overall Staffing Elementary (South) employed 2 male and 60 female staff members. The majority of staff members held a Bachelor’s (45) or Master’s/PhD (9) degree. The remaining staff members had an Associate’s (4) or a High School (4) degree.

10

4.3 Student-to-Staff Ratio All sites operated with 12:1 student-to-staff ratio for academic enrichment and an 18:1 student-to-staff

ratio for personal enrichment (non-academic). This ratio was consistent throughout the 2015-2016

program year.

4.4 Staff Training All sites conducted monthly staff meetings that included professional development. The professional development covered topics such as classroom management, behavior modification, student character development, project-based learning, and curricular and instruction adjustments and refinement. The district project director provided (or brought in others to provide) regular training about curriculum, transition to common core standards, and the use of data to improve programming in order to support the professional growth of the Site Coordinator. The Site Coordinator and Lead Teacher then disseminated applicable information received from seminars, monthly district Site Coordinator leadership meetings, and community resources to site staff.

4.5 Staff Turnover There was minimal staff turnover at the Elementary (South) sites. Only one teacher at Altamonte and Casselberry and eight teachers at English Estates.

4.6 Certified Teachers A total of 37 certified teachers were employed to deliver math, reading, and science activities.

Instruction was provided within stated student to teacher ratios, and aligned with the district’s

instructional plans and 21st CCLC project plans, as well as program goals and objectives.

5.0 OBJECTIVES and OUTCOMES 5.1 Objectives and Activities A variety of activities were offered to meet the needs of the students and families participating in the

21st CCLC program. These activities were aligned to the goals and objectives of the grant. All programs

will continue to offer the activities provided in the most recent school year, as well as additional

activities (described below) based on information gathered from student, family and teacher surveys.

Table 11. Objectives and Description of Activities

Objective Description of Activities

Objective 1.1: 70% of participating

students will improve their

English/language arts (ELA) as

measured by report card grades. PBLs, Skills Specific Tutoring iReady, Homework Help

11


Objective 1.2 70% of participating


English/language arts (ELA) as

measured by state assessment (e.g.

FSA). PBLs, Skills Specific Tutoring iReady, Homework Help

Objective 1.3 70% of the regularly

participating students will improve

writing skills as measured by

Common Core Standard Rubric

during the current year. PBLs, Skills Specific Tutoring iReady, Homework Help



mathematics as measured by report

card grades. PBLs, Skills Specific Tutoring iReady, Homework Help



mathematics as measured by state

assessment (e.g. FSA). PBLs, Skills Specific Tutoring iReady, Homework Help


students will improve their science as

measured by report card grades. PBLs, Skills Specific Tutoring iReady, Homework Help


students will improve their science as

measured by state assessment (e.g.

FSA).

PBLs, Skills Specific Tutoring, Engineering Adventures, STEM

Challenges, Homework Help

Objective 4 80% of the regularly


computer technology skills as

measured by Pre-Post

Assessment/Survey during the

current year.

Pixie, computer research, power point lessons, and Photoshop projects



fitness as measured by Pre-Post

Health and fitness classes to support healthy life style including nutrition, cooking and fitness activities

12


Assessment/Survey during the

current year.



social interactions as measured by

Pre-Post Assessment/Survey during

the current year.

Character education classes, mentoring, leadership activities, service learning projects, project-based learning


participating students will

demonstrate application of positive

character traits as measured by Pre-

Post Assessment/Survey during the

current year.

Character education classes, mentoring, leadership activities, service learning projects, project-based learning


participating students will decrease

or reduce disciplinary problems as

measured by School/District Records

during the current year.

Character education classes, mentoring, leadership activities, service learning projects


participating students will maintain

or improve attendance as measured

by School/District Records during the

current year.

Providing activities that students noted of high interest on the student interest survey such as photography, cooking,

gardening and sports and recreation, communication with parents

Objective 10 70% of regularly

participating students will

demonstrate their grade promotion

as measured by school/district

records.

PBLs, Skills Specific Tutoring iReady, Homework Help

Objective 11 75% of the parents of

regularly participating students will

demonstrate their knowledge (in a

specified area) as measured by pre-

post assessment

Classes and mini workshops on topics that were indicated on the parent survey

13




improve their involvement in student

education as measured by surveys

Workshops on with topics such as: Helping my Child with Homework, Reading with my child, Successful Parent Teacher

Conference, Family Math and Reading Game Nights



improve their literacy skills as

measured by pre-post assessments.

Classes and mini-workshops on topics that were indicated on the parent survey



demonstrate their involvement in

student education as measured by

logs

Workshops dealing with topics such as Helping my Child with Homework, Reading with my child, Successful Parent Teacher

Conference, Family Math and Reading Game Nights

5.2 Data Collection Methods The data were collected by site staff using a variety of methods, including teacher, student, and parent

surveys, data from Skyward (the district’s student data system), and statewide assessment data.

5.2.1 Measures and Data Collected: Academic Objectives: The progress towards meeting the academic objectives are measured by course

grades, promotion data and Florida Standards Assessment (FSA) and End-of-Course assessment data.

Personal Objectives: The progress towards meeting the personal objectives are measured by school day

attendance data, discipline referral data, student surveys, and informal assessments.

Family Member Objectives: All of the family member objectives data is collected through surveys and

local assessments.

5.2.2 Data Collection Timeline: Beginning this grant year, data was collected at three points in time. This data was collected a few weeks prior to the November, January, and June reporting periods. The sites were responsible for administering, collecting, and reporting the assessments and surveys specific to 21st CCLC, such as the family member surveys, character surveys, and fitness assessments. All remaining data, such as progress monitoring test scores, attendance data, discipline data, and report card grades were collected by the evaluator using the district’s data system. As a result some system-wide issues during the 2014-2015 program year, specific internal dates have been developed prior to the official reporting periods to ensure the surveys and assessments are administered and data is collected early enough for on time submission. This process has been successful in producing high quality on-time data.

14

5.2.3 Continuous Assessment: The programs used a variety data collection methods throughout nine-week unit plans, such as

summaries and reflections, journals/student folders, visual representations, and collaborative/group

activities. Photos and work samples were regularly collected to show student progress on the project-

based learning unit plans. Teachers checked for understanding throughout unit plan and used data to

guide teacher decision making about future instruction. Feedback was provided to students to help

ensure understanding and improve performance. For each program, teachers met with the Lead

Teacher and Site Coordinator monthly to assess data, and adjust curriculum, resources, and strategies

accordingly. The Lead Teacher had regular correspondence with school principals, assistant principals,

behavior specialists, math and reading coaches, day time teachers, and parents/guardians regarding

data trends and concerns. The Project Director regularly walked through the program with the site

coordinator and lead teacher to talk about program improvements and how the lessons could be

designed to be motivational to the students while also reinforcing high impact standards (an expectation

of the targeted schools’ principals).

5.2.4 Data Quality: The overall quality of the data used for the evaluation is very high. Standardized measures were utilized for academic objectives, including state assessment results (when available). Other data, such as course grades, attendance data, and discipline data are collected at the district level and therefore accurately represent student performance and behavior. In addition, as mentioned the internal reporting dates have been successful in providing the evaluator with high quality data that is collected at the site level. This process ensures that the data is submitted on time and is well organized for analysis and reporting.

5.2.5 Student Inclusion: Exclusion from analysis was necessary only when students were not expected to participate in the

activity, survey, or assessment (i.e. only students in grades 3-10 take the FSA reading assessment) or if

the student was not present or elected not to participate in a specific survey or assessment. Although

participation is encouraged, surveys and assessments conducted at the 21st CCLC sites are voluntary for

students.

15

5.3 Data Analysis and Results: Progress Toward and Achievement of Objectives 5.3.1. Objective 1.1: 70% of participating students will improve their English/language arts (ELA) as

measured by report card grades.

Site Total Participants

Measured

Total Number of Participants

Meeting Standard of Success

Percent of Participants


Altamonte 62 45 73%

Casselberry 129 99 77%

English Estates 79 50 63%

Elementary (South) 270 194 72%

Findings: Overall, Elementary (South) achieved this objective with both Altamonte and Casselberry having more than 70 percent of student improve their report card grades. English Estates was just under the objective target with 63 percent of students improving report card grades.

Progress: Elementary (South) achieved this objective. However, it is important to monitor individual

sites to ensure all programs are meeting the goals.

5.3.2 Objective 1.2 70% of participating students will improve their English/language arts (ELA) as

measured by state assessment (e.g. FSA).


Measured





Altamonte 44 17 39%




Findings: In 2015, the State of Florida introduced a new statewide standardized assessment (FSA) that assessed the new more rigorous Florida Standards, resulting in a decrease in assessment scores statewide. At Altamonte, about 39 percent of students either maintained a proficient score or improved their score on the ELA assessment. About 34 percent of students at English Estates improved or increased their score. Casselberry had the greatest percentage of students meeting the standard of success with 48 percent of student improving their assessment score.

Progress: Elementary (South) made little progress on this objective.

16

5.3.3 Objective 1.3 70% of the regularly participating students will improve writing skills as measured by

Common Core Standard Rubric during the current year.


Measured



Percent of Participants Meeting Standard of Success

Altamonte 62 35 56%




Findings: Overall, majority of students (78 percent) improved their writing skills over the course of the school year. Casselberry’s students were very successful in improving their writing with 92 percent meeting the objective. About 56 percent of Altamonte’s students improved their writing skills.

Progress: Elementary (South) achieved this objective.

5.3.4 Objective 2.1 70% of participating students will improve their mathematics as measured by report

card grades.


Measured

Total Number of Participants Meeting Standard of Success


Altamonte 62 43 69%




Findings: All Elementary (South) sites were close to achieving this objective. Altamonte and Casselberry were just under the target of 70 percent with 69 and 67 percent of students improving their math grade respectively. English Estates had about 62 percent of students who improved their math grade.

Progress: Elementary (South) made significant progress towards achieving this objective.

5.3.5 Objective 2.2 70% of participating students will improve their mathematics as measured by state

assessment (e.g. FSA).


Measured




Altamonte 43 17 40%




17

Findings: As stated above, in 2015, the State of Florida introduced a new statewide standardized

assessment (FSA) that assessed the new more rigorous Florida Standards, resulting in a decrease in

assessment scores statewide. Students attending Elementary (South) performed slightly better on the

math assessment compared to the ELA with almost 50 percent of student making an improvement or

maintaining a satisfactory score. At Altamonte, with 40 percent of students either maintained a

proficient score or improved their score on the ELA assessment had the lowest percentage of all three

sites. About 49 percent of students at English Estates improved or increased their score. Casselberry

again had the greatest percentage of students meeting the standard of success with 54 percent of

student improving their assessment score.

Progress: Elementary (South) made some progress on this objective.

5.3.6. Objective 3.1 70% of participating students will improve their science as measured by report card

grades.


Measured





Altamonte 62 56 90%




Findings: In science, 90 percent of Altamonte’s students were able to improve their grade or maintain high grades. At Casselberry and English Estates slightly more than 70 percent of students met the objective.


5.3.7 Objective 3.2 70% of participating students will improve their science as measured by state

assessment (e.g. FSA).


Measured



Altamonte 8 3 38%




Findings: The number of students measured is so low because the statewide Science assessment is

only taken by students in fifth grade. Therefore, unlike the ELA and math assessment, the science objective is not a “growth” or “improvement” metric because there are not two years of student

18

performance to measure. Instead the science objective is based on the percentage of students receiving a satisfactory score, which is a more difficult measurement of student performance. This may help explain the low scores in science. However, with only 38 percent of students receiving a satisfactory score, science programming should remain a high priority for Elementary (South).

Progress: Elementary (South) made some progress on this objective.

5.3.8 Objective 4 80% of the regularly participating students will improve computer technology skills as

measured by Pre-Post Assessment/Survey during the current year.


Measured




Altamonte 58 34 59%




Findings: Students at Casselberry and English Estates significantly improved their computer technology skills throughout the school year with 97 and 80 percent of students meeting the standard of success, respectively. About 60 percent of students at Altamonte improved their computer technology skills.


5.3.9 Objective 5 80% of the regularly participating students will improve fitness as measured by Pre-

Post Assessment/Survey during the current year.


Measured





Altamonte 59 56 95%




Findings: Both Altamonte and English Estates had more than 80 percent of students improve their fitness throughout the school year. About 68 percent of students at Casselberry met the fitness objective.

Progress: Elementary (South) made significant progress on this objective.

19

5.3.10 Objective 6 80% of the regularly participating students will improve social interactions as

measured by Pre-Post Assessment/Survey during the current year.


Measured





Altamonte 62 42 68%




Findings: Casselberry and English Estates exceeded the target for improvement of student social interactions while Altamonte had about 68 percent of students make improvements in this area.


5.3.11 Objective 7 80% of the regularly participating students will demonstrate application of positive

character traits as measured by Pre-Post Assessment/Survey during the current year.


Measured



Altamonte 58 20 34%




Findings: While 93 percent of students at Casselberry demonstrated the application of positive character traits, students at English Estates and Altamonte appeared to have struggled with this objective.

Progress: Elementary (South) made significant progress on this objective.

5.3.12 Objective 8 50% of the regularly participating students will decrease or reduce disciplinary

problems as measured by School/District Records during the current year.


Measured



Altamonte 67 64 96%




Findings: Discipline is not a significant issue at Elementary (South).


20

5.3.13 Objective 9 80% of the regularly participating students will maintain or improve attendance as

measured by School/District Records during the current year.


Measured



Altamonte 67 26 39%




Findings: About half of the students at Casselberry and English Estates maintained or improved their school day attendance. About 40 percent of Altamonte’s students maintained or improved their attendance.

Progress: Elementary (South) made progress towards this objective.

5.3.14 Objective 10 70% of regularly participating students will demonstrate their grade promotion as

measured by school/district records.


Measured





Altamonte 62 60 97%




Findings: About 96 percent of Elementary (South) students were promoted to the next grade level.


5.3.15 Objective 11 75% of the parents of regularly participating students will demonstrate their

knowledge (in a specified area) as measured by pre-post assessment


Measured





Altamonte 42 30 71%




Findings: The Elementary (South) sites had varying levels of family member performance with 100 percent of family members at English Estates and 71 percent at Altamonte improved their knowledge in

21

math skills, reading skill, and health wellness. While on 33 percent of family members were able to improve their knowledge.


5.3.16 Objective 12 50% of the parents of regularly participating students will improve their

involvement in student education as measured by surveys


Measured





Altamonte 58 46 79%




Findings: More than 50 percent of the participating family members increased their involvement in their student’s education.


5.3.17 Objective 13 75% of the parents of regularly participating students will improve their literacy

skills as measured by pre-post assessments.


Measured





Altamonte 63 63 100%

Casselberry 0 0 NA



Findings: 100 percent of Altamonte’s family members and 81 percent of English Estates’ family members improved their literacy skills by participating in events hosted by the 21st CCLC. However, Casselberry did not have any regularly participating family member participate in the literacy activities.


22

5.3.18 Objective 14 50% of the parents of regularly participating students will demonstrate their

involvement in student education as measured by logs


Measured





Altamonte 67 29 43%




Findings: The Elementary (South) sites have varying amounts of parent participation.

Progress: Elementary (South) made some progress towards this objective.

5.4 Other Findings Students and family members responded very favorably to the majority of questions on the end-of-year survey. The majority of family members were very satisfied or satisfied with all aspects of the programs. Only about one to three percent of family members were “unsatisfied” any aspect of the program. Ninety seven percent of family member respondents would sign their child up for the program in the future and would recommend the program to others. Students also felt that the Elementary (South) 21st CCLC programs were beneficial academically and socially. Over 65 percent of respondents felt that the program ‘definitely’ helped with understanding the importance of following rules, solving problems, and academics. Fewer students felt that the program ‘definitely’ helped students improve their grades, approximately 55 percent. Teachers felt that students attending Elementary (South) 21st CCLC programs improved the most in the quality of homework completion and academic performance. However, 53 percent of teachers felt that parental involvement did not change as a result of the program. 5.5 Student Success Snapshot

The Snapshot student, a third grade student, struggled with various social challenges. He would be taken out of the classroom during the school day for disruptive and often violent behavior. His mom and teachers were very frustrated with his school day behavior and how it would impact his overall success. To provide an outlet for her son, the snapshot student’s mom signed him up for a number of after school activities, including 21st CCLC. Knowing the student’s history, the 21st CCLC staff found ways to allow the student to develop leadership skills and become a part of the community. Quickly, he became engaged and helpful, even applying Covey leadership habits. Initially, in the beginning of the school year, the snapshot student was targeted for summer school. However, by the end of the school year, he showed a level gain on standardized testing, as well as a marked improvement in his school day behavior.

23

5.6 Overall Findings for Each Objective The overall progress for each objective is addressed in Section 5.3 Data Analysis and Results. Of the 18 objectives measured, the Elementary (South) either achieved or made significant progress on 13 of them. Some progress was made on the remaining objectives that primarily measured student performance on the statewide assessments and classroom grades. The statewide assessments in ELA and mathematics, Florida Standards Assessment (FSA), are new and more rigorous than previous assessments. Consequently, it may take some time for students and teachers to adjust but the students’ performance suggests that programing changes may be necessary to improve student outcomes. In addition, science needs to remain an area of focus for the program, although, science is only assessed in Grade 5 it is apparent from that students need more support in that area.

6.0 SUSTAINABILITY PLAN 6.1 Vision and Desired Results

6.1.1 Vision: The mission of the Seminole County Public Schools is to ensure that all students acquire

the knowledge, skills, and attitudes to be productive citizens.

6.1.2 Results Orientation: The Elementary South 21st CCLC program achieved or made significant

progress on 13 of the 18 grant objectives for the 2015-16 school year. While student performance has improved in the areas of ELA, Math, and Science over the course of this grant cycle, the program continues to struggle to meet objectives in these areas.

6.1.3 Strategies for Achieving Results: The program utilized the following best practices/strategies

in order to achieve program goals and objectives:

Lessons/instruction aligned to school-day activities

Implementation of Project Based Learning

Staff training in the areas of PBL implementation and classroom management

Frequent review of student data

Regular meetings with the program Facilitators to discuss program details and address any concerns

6.2 Community Relationships

6.2.1 Building Community Support: The programs’ advisory council played a significant role in building community support. By leveraging the partnerships established through the advisory board, the Elementary South programs were able to secure significant support in the area of programming for both students and adult family members.

6.2.2 Strategic Partnerships: The most effective means that the program has utilized to foster strategic partnerships is its Advisory Board. Advisory Board members have been able to access resources and services for the programs that would not have otherwise been accessible. Partnerships with Molina Healthcare and the Center for the Advancement of Science in Space

24

(CASIS) will be vital to the program moving forward as these organizations support progress toward Science, Math, and Health related program objectives.

Table 12: Partnerships and Sub-Contracts

Agency Name Type of

Organization

Sub- Contractor (Yes/No)

Estimated Value ($) of

Contributions

Estimated Value ($) of Sub-

contract

Type of Service

Provided

Molina Healthcare For-Profit No $954 Programming

Redick Media Media Yes

$2,575 Programming

Hoop Dreams Elite For-Profit Yes

$4,600 Programming

Consumer Debt

Counselors Non-Profit No $500 Programming

/ Food

CASIS - Center for the

Advancement of

Science in Space Non-Profit No $10,507 Programming

Note: Value of subcontract must be ZERO if the agency is listed as “No” in the subcontractor column. Likewise, the value of the subcontract must be greater than ZERO if the agency is listed as “Yes” in the subcontractor column. Note: The USED’s federal definition differentiates between a “partner” and a “subcontractor”. A subcontractor receives compensation (to some extent) for their services; partners do not.

6.3 Accounting for Change

6.3.1 Developing Internal Strengths: Professional development was a focus as PBL training was

also provided for all teachers and staff involved in the program to increase the rigor of the programs’ academic components. In addition, district staff and community specialists were recruited to deliver adult family member literacy workshops.

6.3.2 Strategies for Development:

Meetings of program facilitators and district level decision makers

Frequent monitoring and feedback by program

Evaluator Parent and student survey data

Collaboration with school day staff

6.3.3 Adaptability to change: Collaboration between program administration and the school principals proved to be beneficial. Program operations and results were reviewed regularly, issues were addressed that arose during the year and priorities and needs were discussed in order to adjust procedures and policies to meet the needs of all involved.

6.4 Strategic Financing

25

6.4.1 Resource Requirements: The Title I Data Assistant was responsible for data collection from the program staff, ensuring all monthly deliverables are submitted. Each site Facilitator managed daily operations of the program including scheduling, data collection, and parent interaction. In addition, program Facilitators provided support and training for program staff. Regular meetings were essential to ensure continuity within programs.

6.4.2 Cost Management: District purchasing policies governing purchase thresholds, vendors, and approval of all

purchases to ensure they line up with federal guidelines were followed.

Inventory was kept listing available resources and distributed across all sites at the beginning of the year.

Requests for supplies were sent via email to the program director for approval prior to ordering.

All orders were placed by one central bookkeeper to avoid duplication between sites.

6.4.3 Revenue Enhancement: Though several lucrative partnerships have been formed in the effort to sustain the program, the district does not currently possess the funds to continue the Elementary South program without the significant financial support provided by the 21st CCLC grant. The Elementary South programs will continue to work with existing partners as well as accessing the Foundation for Seminole County Public School for assistance in gaining new partnerships.

7.0 LESSONS LEARNED AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Seminole County Public Schools Elementary (South) 21st CCLC program has provided high quality

services to the students and family members who attended this year. The site has achieved or made

significant progress on the majority of the program objectives, including discipline, attendance, and

student performance. There a few key recommendations that may help enhance the program quality:

As a result of the increase rigor of statewide assessments it may be necessary to re-evaluate some of the programming or add additional support to ensure that students are learning and mastering the new standards.

In addition, improving Science achievement is a district priority and should continue to be a focus for the Elementary (South).

A continued effort to encourage more parent participation in the program is recommended.

21st cclc community learning centers summative ......21st cclc community learning centers summative...

Documents