Judy Center EvaluationJuly 2003-June 2004

eQuotient, Inc.803 Trost AvenueCumberland, MD 21502http://www.equotient.nete-mail: equinfo@equotient.netJuly 31, 2004

Judy Center Evaluation,July 2003-June 2004

eQuotient, Inc.803 Trost Avenue

Cumberland, MD 21502http://www.equotient.net

e-mail: equinfo@equotient.netJuly 31, 2004

i

Table of Contents

List of tables, figures, and appendices ................................................................... ii

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appendices ............................................................................................................. 48

List of Tables

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

Table 2.2 Evaluation questions .................................................................................................... 10

Table 2.3 Special research questions ........................................................................................... 11

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

Table 4.1 Partnership ratings .................................................................................................. 15-16

Table 5.1 Years teaching .............................................................................................................. 17

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

Table 5.3 Performance area ratings ........................................................................................ 18-19

Table 5.4 Feeling of families served by Judy Center .................................................................. 20

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

Table 6.2 Programs used......................................................................................................... 25-26

Table 6.3 Learning/reading materials at home ............................................................................ 27

Table 6.4 Activities with children ............................................................................................... 27

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

Table 6.6 Satisfaction with Judy Center services ........................................................................ 29

Table 6.7 Satisfaction with Judy Center in performance areas .............................................. 31-32

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

Table 6.9 Parent rating of Judy Center parent activities .............................................................. 33

Table 6.10 Reason for not attending parent activities ................................................................... 34

Table 6.11 Improvement in child learning and habits because of the Judy Center ....................... 34

Table 6.12 Learning/reading materials at home before and after

Judy Center, percentage of parents .................................................................... 35

Table 6.13 Activities with children, percentage of parents who did

“frequently” before and after Judy Center ......................................................... 35

ii

List of Figures

Figure 2.1 Website page visits ........................................................................................................ 5

Figure 3.1 Enrollment by race ....................................................................................................... 13

Figure 4.1 Lowest partner ratings ................................................................................................. 14

Figure 6.1 Parent satisfaction with Judy Center services,

fall 2001, spring 2002, spring 2003, and spring 2004 ....................................... 28

Figure 6.2 Top 10 performance areas ............................................................................................ 29

Figure 6.3 Bottom 10 performance areas ...................................................................................... 30

Figure 7.1 Kindergarten readiness by domain .............................................................................. 37

Figure 7.2 FARMS readiness by domain ...................................................................................... 37

Figure 7.3 Special Education readiness by domain ...................................................................... 38

Figure 7.4 Kindergarten readiness by domain, 2002-2004 ........................................................... 39

Figure 7.5 Kindergarten readiness, Judy Center, County, and State ............................................. 39

Figure 7.6 Kindergarten readiness by domain, Judy Center, County, and State ........................... 40

Figure 7.7 Pre-Kindergarten readiness .......................................................................................... 41

Figure 7.8 Head Start observation study results ........................................................................... 42

Figure 7.9 MSA proficiency levels ............................................................................................... 42

Appendices

A.1 Judy Center Brochure .................................................................................................. 48

A.2 Judy Center Webpage .................................................................................................. 49

A.3 Steering Committee Survey ......................................................................................... 50

A.4 Pre-K/Kindergarten Staff Survey ................................................................................ 51

A.5 First-Grade Staff Survey .............................................................................................. 52

A.6 Fall Parent Survey ....................................................................................................... 53

A.7 Spring Parent Survey ................................................................................................... 54

A.8 Fall Parent Survey Comments ..................................................................................... 55

A.9 Spring Parent Survey Comments ................................................................................. 58

A.10 HRDC Head Start Early Childhood Observation Record ........................................... 63

iii

1.0 Review of Second Year of Program

The Beall Elementary Judy Center’s second year built upon the successful “One Stop Shop” modeldeveloped during the first year beginning in January 2001. During the first year and a half ofoperation, the Center developed the foundation for the program in the areas of staffing, programs

and curriculum, operating procedures, partnerships, and an evaluation plan that aligned with Judy Centercomponent standards (Allegany County Board of Education 2000; eQuotient 2002). The second yearsaw curriculum improvements, additional partners, new training activities, validation/accreditationcompletion, and further refinement of evaluation efforts. New initiatives included an additionalkindergarten class, expanded before and after day care slots, a center nurse, new staff training efforts,several new partners, and new curriculum modules and materials. These characteristics are describedfurther in the second year evaluation report (eQuotient, Inc. 2003). The following findings from thesecond year report are notable:

• The Judy Center increased the number of children who participated in extended day and extendedyear services by providing a summer program and increasing enrollment in the before- and after-school child care programs.

• The Judy Center added four new program partners including the Allegany County Circuit Court(co-parenting seminars and “kidshare” program), Allegany County Library, Frostburg Branch (readingactivities for children and parents), APPLES for Children (staff training), and the CooperativeExtension Service (Nutrition training and workshops for staff and parents). In addition, FrostburgState University participated in new ways by producing video/broadcast outreach materials, childscreening and tutoring and the YMCA began to offer its Parent Power program on site.

• The Judy Center was able to improve the involvement in parents in child literacy development bypromoting free book distribution, literacy events and workshops.

• Increased monitoring and nurse follow-up helped to boost the average daily attendance rate ofkindergarten students over the previous year.

• Special education referrals decreased during the school year. However, referrals to the principal’soffice for discipline did not decrease.

1

• Parties involved with the Judy Center expressed satisfaction with the Judy Center during its secondyear of operation. Eighty-eight percent of partner agencies and ninety-seven percent of parentsindicated that they were “very satisfied” or “satisfied” with the Judy Center. The top performanceareas cited by parents were friendliness/helpfulness of staff and activities for learning language.The lowest performance areas were sufficiency of space and quality of school meals.

• School readiness as measured by the MMSR (Maryland Model for School Readiness) indicatorsthat are embedded in kindergarten and pre-kindergarten student progress reports indicate that theJudy Center had largely met its goals in achieving benchmarks and milestones identified in the grantapplication. In addition, curriculum changes, staff training and resource additions in the area ofscience helped to boost kindergarten performance in the WSS domain of scientific thinking.Furthermore, child performance for both groups exceeded county (and for Kindergarten, the State)progress levels.

• Second graders who were tested for the California Test of Basic Skills (CTBS) in 2002-03 (and whoincluded many participants from the Judy Center program as Kindergartners in 2000-01) improvedtheir relative scores in most of the tested areas.

2

2.0 Characteristics and Delivery of the Third Year

In year three, the Judy Center established new program targets, partnerships, and program deliverymethods that would further improve the effectiveness of the Center. This new agenda was developedusing information obtained from external evaluation, self-evaluation, and stakeholder surveys. The

major focus of the year’s improvements (detailed in Allegany County Board of Education 2003) werepupils who received Free and Reduced Meals (FARMS) and children with special needs. Theseadjustments were made to realize the goals of No Child Left Behind. The changes are arranged into thecategories Curriculum and Programs, Professional Development, Family Activities, and Partnershipswhich are described further below:

Curriculum and Programs

Fresh Start Program. The Judy Center increased the number of Fresh Start weekly sessionsfrom the previous year level of one to two for eligible children during the summer of 2003 andprovided free transportation.

Second Step Violence Prevention Curriculum. The Judy Center staff introduced this curriculuminto the summer program which teaches social and emotional skills to prevent violence.

Multi-age Linkages. Children from the multi-age class were connected to other educationalprograms available at the Judy Center to provide a full-day of education.

Curriculum Software. The Boardmaker software program for language and literacy learningwas purchased and installed on computers at the Center.

Instructional Alignment for Pre-K and Kindergarten. Staff development in the voluntarystate curriculum for Pre-K and Kindergarten in the core content areas occurred and the curriculumwas implemented.

3

Professional Development

Staff training. Judy Center staff and partners received professional development in workingwith children from low-income families by participating in a Ruby Payne workshop on“Understanding Poverty.”

Teaching Models. Special Education teachers were assisted by introducing an inclusion modelin collaboration with pre-k teachers and the TAT model (Teacher Assistance Team).

Math Module. Continued MMSR training. Staff participated in mathematics module forclassroom instruction.

Family Activities

Reading Night. The Judy Center expanded the Family Reading Night program, conducted inconjunction with the Allegany County Library System into the summer. Previously, theseactivities were held only during the regular school year.

Free Reading Resources. The Judy Center expanded the reading resources available to familiesand children at their homes by: (1) holding Family Fun Nights with free book distribution, (2)providing approximately 500 books to families, and (3) distributing free bookshelves to familieswho participate in Judy Center reading activities.

Parent training. The Judy Center hosted a series of parent training and education workshopsabout parenting under the direction of licensed psychologist Dr. James Miller of the AlleganyCounty Health Department .

Partnerships

YMCA/Parent Power. The YMCA offered a program for parents and children called ParentPower for the full year on site. This was funded through an Adolescent Family Life DemonstrationProject (AFL) grant provided by the Department of Health and Human Services.

Daytime Child Care. Because of the low number of children enrolled in the HRDC daytimeChild Care program during the year, the Judy Center contracted with a private child care providercalled Kids Korner Childcare Center to offer child care services on site during 2003-04. TheJudy Center used grant funds to provide individual “scholarships” to eligible children.

Most features of the program remained basically the same as the second year. For instance, reportingand internal evaluation were carried out in much the same manner as the second year with a designatedSteering Board that met on a quarterly basis and monthly state meetings of Judy Center staff. Programmarketing was similar to the second year, including the use of broadcast, newspaper announcements,website, and print materials. However, there were some notable differences. A new Judy Center brochure

4

was developed which described the comprehensive services offered (see Appendix A.1). Staff mademuch greater use of print announcements to publicize school and after-school special activities. Thisincrease reflected a much more numerous and diverse selection of family activities outside of regularschool hours. In addition, a new Judy Center webpage was established and updated on a regular basis(see Appendix A.2). Whereas the previous webpage fell into disuse, the current revamped versioncontained numerous current links, including a calendar that was kept current. During the year, websitepage visits increased over 200% (see figure 2.1).

The parameters for evaluation were spelled out in the proposal and are listed in table 2.1. The ultimategoals of the program are to broadly improve child learning. Intermediate objectives involve particularkey curriculum components where focused inputs were anticipated to have the greatest potential impact.Strategies describe programmatic improvements and activities include specific program inputs that wereto be expanded in order to realize a particular strategy. The final column briefly describes the achievementof each goal, objective, strategy, and activity. To summarize this table, every goal, objective, and strategyproposed in the grant was realized. A few of the activities described were not fully implemented becausegrant funding was not secured (e.g., core reading program implementation from Early Reading First (ERF)grant, speech/language and occupational therapy program from Foundation for Rural Maryland grant).

Aug-2003

Sep-2003

Oct-2003

Nov-2003

Dec-2003

Jan-2004

Feb-2004

Mar-2004

Apr-2004

May-2004

Jun-2004

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Figure 2.1 Website page visits

5

Table 2.1 Implementation Plan continued on next page

laoG evitcejbO ygetartS seitivitcA tnemeveihcA

,03enuJyBgnitixe,4002

netragrednikehttastneduts

lliwretneCyduJehtniatniam

erocsetisopmocllufehtta%68fo

levelssenidaerSSWllarof

.sniamod

,03enuJyBgnitixe,4002

netragrednikehttastneduts

retneCyduJeviecerohw

dnaeerFslaeMdecudeRlliw)SMRAF(

riehtesaercnierocsetisopmoc

ot%77morfllufehtta%08.levelssenidaer

ehtesaercnIlevelssenidaer

SMRAFfoehtninerdlihc

foniamoddnaegaugnaL

.ycaretiL

atnemelpmI)1(gnidaereroc

-erpnimargorpdnanetragredniktahtnetragrednik

nodesabsidesaBcifitneicS

hcraeseRgnidaeRybdenifedsagnidaeRylraE

gnidaeRdnatsriFniarT)2(.tsriFgnikrowniffats

nerdlihchtiwemocni-wolmorf

ybseilimafnimehtgnivlovni

lanoisseforphtiwtnempoleved

s'enyaPybuRnopohskrow

gnidnatsrednU")3(".ytrevoPdnaeunitnoC

ylimaFehtdnapxetathgiNgnidaeR

grubtsorFehtehtfohcnarB

ytnuoCynagellAmetsySyrarbiL

ehtgnirudkeeS)4(,remmus

esaercniotsyawforebmuneht

otelbaliavaskoobriehtninerdlihc

ybsemohylimaFgnitcudnoc

htiwsthgiNnuF,syawaevigkoob

arofgniylppatnargskooBtsriF

eerfedivorpot-wol02otskoob

seilimafemocnidna,raeyenorofs'nerdlihcgnivig

evitcejbodnalaoG.dezilaer

fossenidaeRnerdlihcSMRAF

.%59otdesaercnidekrowygetartS

nissenidaerhtiwdnaegaugnaL

ycaretiL.gnivorpmi

seitivitcAsadetnemelpmidiD)1(:swollofoteudruccoton

tnargfokcalrofecnatsissa

ybuR)2(,tcejorppohskrowenyaP

taderruccofogninnigeb

htob,raeyloohcssrentrapdnaffats)3(,dedulcnierew

gnidaeRylimaFsawthgiN

dnadeunitnocotdednapxe

,sthginlanoitidda052)4(

dnasevlehskooberewskoob005

gniruddetubirtsidyrarbilremmuseht

dnamargorp)5(,CIWhguorht

tsafkaerBeviFreppuSdnabulC

spohskrowbulCmiJ.rDhtiw

desnecil,relliMmorftsigolohcysP

ynagellAehttnemtrapeDhtlaeH

gniruddleherew.raeyeht

6

,

Table 2.1 Implementation Plan

Table 2.1 Implementation Plan continued from previous page

Table 2.1 Implementation Plan continued on next page

laoG evitcejbO ygetartS seitivitcA tnemeveihcAgg

laudividniotsevlehskoob

ohwseilimafyduJnietapicitrap

.seitivitcaretneCarosnopS)5(gniniarttnerap

noitacudednani,margorp

htiwpihsrentrapynagellAeht

htlaeHytnuoCtaht,tnemtrapeD

04nosucoflliwlatnempoleved

yekeratahtstessas'nerdlihcot

dnahtworgtnempoleved

-- -- ehtesaercnIfossenidaer

nerdlihcSMRAFfoniamodehtni

dnalaicoS.sllikSlanosreP

niffatsniarT)1htiwgnikrowmorfnerdlihc

emocni-wolybseilimaf

nimehtgnivlovnilanoisseforp

htiwtnempoleveds'enyaPybuR

nopohskrowgnidnatsrednU"

)2(".ytrevoPdnaeunitnoC

ylimaFdnapxetathgiNgnidaeR

grubtsorFehtehtfohcnarB

ytnuoCynagellAmetsySyrarbiL

ehtgnirud)3(.remmus

tneraparosnopSdnagniniart

noitacudeni,margorp

htiwpihsrentrapynagellAeht

htlaeHytnuoCtaht,tnemtrapeD

nosucoflliwlatnempoleved

yekeratahtstessas'nerdlihcot

evitcejbodnalaoG.dezilaer

fossenidaeRnerdlihcSMRAF

.%59otdesaercnidekrowygetartSnissenidaerhtiw

lanosrePdnalaicoS.gnivorpmislliks

seitivitcAsadetnemelpmi

ybuR)1(:swollofpohskrowenyaP

taderruccofogninnigeb

htob,raeyloohcssrentrapdnaffats)2(,dedulcnierewsawthgiNgnidaeR

dnadeunitnocotdednapxe

,sthginlanoitiddatsafkaerBeviF)3(

reppuSdnabulCspohskrowbulC

miJ.rDhtiwdesnecil,relliM

morftsigolohcysPynagellAeht

tnemtrapeDhtlaeHgniruddleherew

hserF)4(,raeyehterewsnoissestratS

7

laoG evitcejbO ygetartS seitivitcA tnemeveihcAdnalanosrep

laicos)4(.tnempoleved

ehtelbuoDhserFforebmun

ylkeewtratSesaercni(snoisses

rof)2ot1morfnerdlihcdeifitnedi

ehtgnirud,3002foremmus

htiwnoitatropsnart)5(.dedivorp

ehtetaroprocnIpetSdnoceS

ecneloiVnoitneverP

otnimulucirruCkeew-evifeht

.margorpremmus

owtotdesaercnitropsnarthtiw

)5(dedivorppetSdnoceS

ecneloiVnoitneverP

sawmulucirruC.desu

-- ,03enuJyBgnitixe,4002

netragrednikehttastneduts

retneCyduJeviecerohw

laicepsnoitacude

lliwsecivresriehtesaercni

erocsetisopmocot%04morf

llufehtta%05.levelssenidaer

ehtesaercnIlevelssenidaer

laicepSfonoitacudE

ehtninerdlihcfoniamod

dnaegaugnaL.ycaretiL

oteunitnoC)1(yad-flahareffo.ssalcega-itlum

tegratehTeblliwtnemllorne

ohwnerdlihc02egaugnaltibihxerohceeps,syaled

noitalucitraro/dna,smelborp

ycaretildetimil)2(.secneirepxe

nerdlihckniL-itlumehtmorf

rehtootssalcegaetairporppalanoitacudeotsmargorp

yad-llufaedivorplanoitacudefo

)3(.gnimmargorptnemelpmiylluF

noisulcniehtehtotniledom

netragrednik-erpehT.margorp

netragrednik-erpehtdnarehcaet

noitacudelaiceps-oceblliwrehcaet

evitcejbodnalaoG.dezilaer

fossenidaeRnoitacudElaicepSdesaercninerdlihc

oN.%57otfoecnedive

.sseccusygetartsseitivitcA

sadetnemelpmi-flahA)1(:swollofssalcega-itlumyad

nI.deunitnocsawrehtona,noitidda

ega-itlumyad-flahybdednuf(ssalc

)noitacudElaicepSotdetaercsaw

01etadommocca)2(,nerdlihcmorfnerdlihC

noitacudelaicepsoslaega-itlum

niyadflahatneps,ssalck-erPraluger

gnihcaetmaeT)3(raey4nidesusawehT)4(,K-erPdlo

sawledomTATdeknildnadesu

Table 2.1 Implementation Plan continued on next page

Table 2.1 Implementation Plan continued from previous page

8

laoG evitcejbO ygetartS seitivitcA tnemeveihcA)4(.srehcaet

ehtezilitUrehcaeT

maeTecnatsissAot)TAT(ledomtroppusedivorp

fosrehcaetrofnoitacudelaiceps

)5(.stnedutstnargarofylppA

ehtmorfrofnoitadnuoFdnalyraMlaruRfolaogehthtiwksir-tagnivlovni

netragrednikanistneduts

denibmocegaugnal/hceepslanoitapuccodna

margorpyparehtehtecuderot

tahtdoohilekilnoitacudelaiceps

rofsecivresdnahceepsroegaugnal

egaugnalnettirwnidedeeneblliw

.erutufeht

ylraehtiwfonoitacifitnedi

htiwnerdlihclatnempoleved

.smelborpmorftnargehT)5(rofnoitadnuoFeht

dnalyraMlaruRtubdettimbussaw

.dedrawaton

Table 2.1 Implementation Plan continued from previous page

In this report, a broader spectrum of measures (see table 2.2) is used to measure program effective-ness. This includes the following elements: (1) program enrollment and attendance (were enrollmentand attendance expectations for children and parents achieved?), (2) staff training, curriculum re-sources, and validation (were necessary staff training, program validation, and curriculum materialsavailable as planned?), (3) partner satisfaction (how did partners rate collaboration success?), (4)teacher satisfaction (how did teachers in Pre-K, Kindergarten, and 1st grade view the Judy Center?),(5) parent satisfaction (how did parents view the Judy Center?), (6) child learning (how much didchildren learn according to information from pupil progress reports and other evaluations?), (7) JudyCenter component standard ratings (how did parents and staff view accomplishment of Judy Centergoals), and (8) answers to special research questions about the availability of community resourcesposed in the continuation grant proposal (see table 2.3).

9

Table 2.2 Evaluation questions.

The remainder of the report is divided into seven sections. The next section (3.0) addresses pupilenrollment, family service, training, and validation strategies of the program. Section 4.0 describes theresults of a steering board partner survey. Section 5.0 describes the results of an end-of year teachersurvey and section 6.0 describes the findings of fall and spring surveys of parents. The fall survey asksmainly questions about parenting practices and family resources for use in designing Judy Center activitiesduring the remainder of the year while the spring survey was designed to provide summative informationabout the perceived effectiveness of the Judy Center, different strategies, and overall parent satisfaction.Section 7.0 provides information on child learning achievement as revealed by performance on variouspupil progress reports and tests using benchmark comparisons. Section 8.0 answers special researchquestions (see table 2.3) introduced in last year’s continuation grant application. Section 9.0 describeschanges that are anticipated for next year’s Judy Center. The report ends with a summary.

seussI tnemerusaeM

dellornenerdlihCybsmargorpretneCyduJnidellornenerdlihc#

aera

ecnadnettadlihC setarecnadnettA

tnemevlovnitneraP spohskrowtnerapfoepytdna#

tnempolevedlanoisseforpffatS dednettaspohskrowgniniartepytdna#

noitatiderccamargorP detadilavsmargorp#

noitcafsitasrentraP yevruSrentraP

noitcafsitasrehcaeT yevruSrehcaeT

noitcafsitastneraP yevruStneraP

ssenidaerdlihC stlusertseT,stropeRssergorPlipuP

slaoGretneCyduJhtiwtnemngilA yevrustnerap,yevrusrehcaet

nostceffegnidragersnoitseuqhcraeserlaicepSssenevitceffetsoc,roivahebdlihc

rehto,stnemmocrentrap,slarrefertneduts#

10

Table 2.3 Special research questions

noitseuQ

)1( ?devorpminerdlihcSMRAFnetragrednikfolevelssenidaerehtsaH

)2( ?devorpminerdlihcnoitacudelaicepsnetragrednikfolevelssenidaerehtsaH

)3(dnaegaugnaLehtnotcapmievitisopadahnetragrednik-erpniledomnoisulcniehtsaH

?nerdlihcnoitacudelaicepsfolevelycaretiL

)4(dnalaicoSehtnotcapmievitisopadahnetragrednik-erpniledomnoisulcniehtsaH

?nerdlihcnoitacudelaicepsfoleveltnempoleveDlanosreP

)5(dna,deifitnedi,detiurceryletauqedagniebdeenlanoitacudetsetaergehthtiwnerdlihcerA

rofssenidaerriehtesaercniotsmargorpdoohdlihcylraeetairporppanidellorne?netragrednik

)6(atamrofrepsmargorpega-itlumronetragrednik-erpnidetapicitrapevahohwnerdlihcoDesohtnietapicitraptondidohwnerdlihcesohtnahtssenidaernetragrednikfolevelrehgih

?smargorploohcserp

)7(dnaslarrefernoitacudelaicepsnoylevitisoptcapmiecneirepxeretneCyduJehtseoD

?tnemecalp

)8(nogniniartenyaPybuRehtmorfdetifenebsrentrapgnitapicitrapehtevahsyawtahwnI

?"ytrevoPgnidnatsrednU"

11

3.0 Enrollment, training, and validation

Aduplicated headcount of four hundred and forty-nine (449) students was served by programshoused at the Judy Center. This figure is not comparable to the figure provided for last year’sreport because that number was unduplicated. The figure is also not comparable to first year

operating figures because those included county-wide totals for WIC and Infant and Toddlers whereas2002-03 figures included Judy Center children only. FY 2004 Judy Center funding leveragedprogramming that allowed 94 additional children to enroll. The distribution of children by age is shownin table 3.1 and distribution by race for Pre-K, Kindergarten, and after-school/before school programs infigure 3.1. Child enrollment racial demographics from available partners were slightly lower than theservice area—6.4% of children were minority versus 8.4% reported in the 2000 U.S. Census for Frostburg.

Table 3.1 Enrollment of children by age.

One strategy identified in the FY 2004 grant was to narrow the achievement gap for children whoreceive free and reduced price meals (FARMS) and for students receiving special education services.Enrollment of targeted groups for pre-kindergarten was improved from approximately 61 percent inneed categories (automatic enrollment and priority enrollment) for FY 2003 to approximately 78% inFY 2004 . Additional resources were directed to screening (with First Step Developmental screeningsincreasing from 55 to 92 and language/learning screenings increases) and classroom capacity wasincreased by adding a special education half-day multi-age class with ten slots.

#

3othtriB 34

dlosraey3 44

dlosraey4 79

dlosraey5 05

latoT 052

12

In an effort to reduce costs and improve quality, the Center involved a private day care provider (KidsKorner). This change had the effect of increasing the number of children enrolled in before/after schoolchild care. Total enrollment was 28 in FY 2002, 42 in FY 2003, and jumped to 55 in FY 2004.

Another general goal of this year was to increase the level of family involvement, particularly in after-school activities and parent workshops/trainings. Family activities included: YMCA directed weekly“Parent Power” workshops which involved abstinence and parenting workshops for parents andrecreational activities for children (27 families served in 27 sessions) , family reading nights (41 familiesserved in 5 sessions), a Breakfast/Supper Club in which parenting information was provided by HealthDepartment psychologist Dr. James Miller, and sessions for parents on resume writing, public speaking,computer skills, and voter registration. In total, 45 different parent/family sessions were offered by theJudy Center (including 27 sessions by the YMCA Parent Power program). A duplicated count of onehundred and eight families attended the events. This compares to a total of 13 separate workshops/activities being held and a duplicated number of 118 families participating in FY 2003. These activitieswere announced in the Times-News newspaper, Judy Center flyers and/or calendars distributed to childrenand parents, and postings to the revamped Judy Center website.

Staff development goals outlined in the grant application were achieved. Staff attended Ruby Payne’sworkshop on “Framework for Understanding Poverty” at the beginning of the school year, and staffparticipated in supplemental weekly focus group discussions of the Ruby Payne program during theschool year. In addition, twelve staff and partners attended MMSR training. Additional training wasprovided on the topics of “Giftedness in Poverty”, potty training, humor and stress management, creativearts, and team building.

Validation/accreditation for the Judy Center pre-k, kindergarten and childcare programs was obtained in2002 for a three-year period from MSDE. The Head Start program had a site visit by the NationalAssociation for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) in April 2004 and certification was pendingas of the writing of this report. Head Start, through a grant written by APPLES for Children, received asite visit in May 2004 and accreditation during summer 2004. In addition, the Kids Korner daycarecenter began to work towards obtaining MSDE accreditation for its child care program.

1% 2% 4%

93%

American Indian

Asian

Black

White

Figure 3.1 Enrollment by race

13

4.0 Partner Surveys

During the year, a survey was created by the Judy Hoyer Advisory Council to assist Judy Centersin fostering better partnerships. A copy of this survey is provided in Appendix A.3. The surveyincluded four categories of attitudes that are important to developing effective collaboration,

including (1) Outcomes and Strategy (OS), (2) Communication (C), (3) Participation (P), and (4)Organization and Coordination (OC). Nine of seventeen partners participated in the survey, which wasconducted by mail to ensure confidentiality of the responses. Results were tabulated by the Universityof Maryland School of Public Affairs.

Table 4.1 shows the results of the survey. They show that the Judy Center ranked relatively high on theindicators with an average rating of 3.51 (between “strongly agree” and “generally agree”). Five of thetop ten indicators were Outcomes and Strategy measures. On the other hand, three of the bottom fivemeasures were about “Participation” (see Figure 4.1). Partners expressed only mild disagreement withone statement: “involves community residents and parents in decision-making processes.”

Figure 4.1 Lowest Partnership Ratings

Data is shared effectively among Partners (OC)

Have a role to play in improving school readiness (P)

activities, progress, and results The community hears about

Reviews its outcomes and strategy (OS)

of policy priorities we support Has informed public officials

with other efforts and collaborations (OC)Builds on and integrates its work

effort is shared by all the Partners (P)Successes and failures of this

Come to an agreement on client outcomes (OS)

in decision-making processes (P)Involves front-line workers and their representatives

parents in decision-making processes (P)Involves community residents and

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

14

Table 4.1 Partnership ratings.

ygetartSdnasemoctuO

semoctuotneilcnotnemeerganaotemoC 33.3

ssergorpfotnemssessaehtnotnemeerganaotemoC 88.3

ekilkoollliwsseccustahwnialpxe/dnatsrednunaC 65.3

semoctuotneilcgnivorpmirofygetartsraelC 76.3

semoctuotneilcevorpmiylbarusaemlliwygetartsruO 36.3

ygetartsstievorpmidnaetaulaveotatademoctuotneilcsesU 36.3

gnitegdubdesab-stlusersesU 75.3

ygetartsdnasemoctuostisweiveR 44.3

noitacinummoC

desuerasdohtemnoitacinummocgniognodna,citametsys,ralugeR 76.3

noitacinummocevitceffeevahdnadetcennocerasrebmeM 57.3

troppusewseitiroirpycilopfoslaiciffocilbupdemrofnisaH 4.3

stluserdna,ssergorp,seitivitcatuobasraehytinummocehT 44.3

noitapicitraP

ssenidaerloohcsgnivorpminiyalpoteloraevaH 44.3

sessecorpgnikam-noisicednistnerapdnastnediserytinummocsevlovnI 87.2

ssecorpgnikam-noisicednisevitatneserperriehtdnasrekrowenil-tnorfsevlovnI 11.3

pihsrentrapehtotedamsahrentraphcaestnemtimmocfognidnatsrednuraelC 65.3

krowpihsrentraPehtekamotnoitazinagroymmorftroppusehtevaH 5.3

srentraPehtllaybderahssitroffesihtfoseruliafdnasesseccuS 33.3

pihsrentraPehtnignikrowylevitceffeeromsnoissimstilliflufnacnoitazinagroyM 76.3

Table 4.1 Partnership ratings continued on next page

15

noitanidrooCdnanoitazinagrO

edameboterasnoisicedwohdedicedsahpihsrentraP 65.3

gnivlosmelborpnosgniteemevitcudorp,dezinagrosahpihsrentraP 65.3

ylevitceffeyreviledecivresetanidroocsnoitazinagrO 5.3

srentraPgnomaylevitceffederahssiataD 44.3

sisylanadnanoitcellocatadycnegaretnistidedargpusaH 5.3

deknilsitihcihwotloohcsehtfokrowehtotnikrowstidetargetnisaH 98.3

pihsrentrapehtfokrowehthtiwdetargetnillewerasecivresdnaffatsloohcS 57.3

snoitaroballocdnastrofferehtohtiwkrowstisetargetnidnanosdliuB 33.3

Table 4.1 Partnership ratings continued from previous page

16

5.0 Teacher Surveys

A teacher survey was introduced this year to obtain feedback from staff in kindergarten/pre-k andfirst-grade teachers. The two surveys (included in Appendix A.4 and A.5) are broadly similarand ask about teacher background, satisfaction with school resources and staff and parent

involvement, Center performance on Judy Center component standards, and overall satisfaction withthe Center. Eight teachers in total were surveyed, including five pre-k/kindergarten teachers and threefirst grade teachers. As table 5.1 indicates half of the teachers are relatively new to teaching.

Table 5.1 Years teaching, percentage of teachers.

Table 5.2 shows that teachers are generally satisfied with the amount of resources and cooperation atBeall Elementary. Table 5.3 show that only one performance area (i.e., sufficiency of space) received aminimal rating from a teacher.

2-1 %52

5-3 %52

01-5 %0

51-11 %5.21

eromro61 %5.73

17

Table 5.2 Teacher satisfaction, percentage of teachers(5=Very Satisfied, 3=Somewhat Satisfied, 1=Not Satisfied)

Table 5.3 Performance area ratings, percentage of teachers(4=Excellent, 3=Good, 2=Minimal, 1=Inadequate, 0=NA/Don’t Know).

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

tnempiuqemoorssalcfoytilauQ 5.78 5.21 0 0 0

seitilicaffoytilauQ 5.26 0.52 5.21 0 0

sessalcfoeziS 5.78 0 5.21 0 0

troppusevitartsinimdA 5.78 5.21 0 0 0

seitinutroppotnempolevedlanoisseforP 5.78 5.21 0 0 0

srehcaethtiwnoitaroballoC 5.78 5.21 0 0 0

seicnegadoohdlihcylraehtiwnoitaroballoC 5.26 5.73 0 0 0

noitacudes'nerdlihcnitnemevlovnilatnerapfoleveL 5.73 5.73 0.52 0 0

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

.a noitarepoCJfosyaddnasruoH 001 0 0 0 0

.b yadretfaroerofeberacdlihC 001 0 0 0 0

.c )tsafkaerb,hcnul(slaemloohcsfoytilauQ 5.78 5.21 0 0 0

.d tnemeganamesacylimaF 4.17 3.41 0 0 3.41

.e etisnosecivrestroppusylimafdnadlihcfoyarrA 001 0 0 0 0

.fdnastnafni,.g.e(segallarofsecivresdlihcfoyarrA

)netragrednik,k-erp,srelddot001 0 0 0 0

.g seitilibasidrofgnineercS 4.17 3.41 0 0 3.41

Table 5.3 Performance area ratings, percentage of teachers(4=Excellent, 3=Good, 2=Minimal, 1=Inadequate, 0=NA/Don’t Know) continued on next page

18

.h seitilibasidhtiwnerdlihcrofsecivresfonoisivorP 05 3.33 0 0 7.61

.i,tnemssessalatned,snoitazinummi,.g.e(secivreshtlaeH

)gnineercsgniraeh/noisiv0.57 0.52 0 0 0

.j srehcaetdnaffatsfossenlufpleh/ssenildneirF 001 0 0 0 0

.k enilpicsid/nerdlihcfonoisivrepuS 57 5.21 0 0 5.21

.l yalpdnagninraelrofslairetaM 001 0 0 0 0

.m seitivitcayalP 5.78 0 0 0 5.21

.n trAgninraelrofseitivitcA 57 5.21 0 0 5.21

.o cisuMgninraelrofseitivitcA 0.57 5.21 0 0 5.21

.p noitacudelacisyhPgninraelrofseitivitcA 57 5.21 0 0 5.21

.q gnitirw/gnidaer/egaugnaLgninraelrofseitivitcA 0.57 5.21 0 0 5.21

.r ecneics/erutaNgninraelrofseitivitcA 5.26 0.52 0 0 5.21

.s htaMgninraelrofseitivitcA 0.57 5.21 0 0 5.21

.t sretupmoCgninraelrofseitivitcA 5.26 0.52 0 0 5.21

.u secnerefnocpu-wollofdnastroperssergorP 0.57 5.21 0 0 5.21

.v,spirtdleif,.g.e(seilimafdnastneraprofseitivitcA

)scincip5.26 0.52 0 0 5.21

.wgnitnerap,.g.e(seilimafrofsmargorpnoitacudE

)sessalcDEG,spohskrow0.57 5.21 0 0 5.21

.xgnimocputuobaretneCyduJybdedivorpnoitamrofnI

seitivitca001 0 0 0 0

.y egapbewretneCyduJ 7.58 0 0 0 3.41

.z )CIW,.g.e(ecnatsissanoitirtundnadooF 5.78 0 0 0 5.21

.aa retneCyduJfoytefasdnassenilnaelC 0.57 0.52 0 0 0

.bb ecapsfoycneiciffuS 5.73 5.73 5.21 0 5.21

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

Table 5.3 Performance area ratings, percentage of teachers(4=Excellent, 3=Good, 2=Minimal, 1=Inadequate, 0=NA/Don’t Know) continued from previous page

19

Seven staff felt that families served by the Judy Center were either “very satisfied” or “satisfied” withthe Judy Center (see table 5.4) but one was uncertain. All three 1st grade teachers indicated that theywere satisfied with the Center, but one teacher expressed confusion over the difference between theJudy Center activities and those of the regular pre-k. Two teachers indicated that they were “very satisfied”with the readiness of Judy Center students and one was “satisfied.”

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

30-2002 40-3002

deifsitaSyreV 05 5.26

deifsitaS 05 0.52

deifsitaStahwemoS 0 0

deifsitassiDtahwemoS 0 0

llAtadeifsitaStoN 0 0

wonKt'noD 0 5.21

20

6.0 Parent Surveys

Two parent surveys were administered during the school year. The survey instruments were similarto the ones used in last year’s report. The first survey (see Appendix A.6) collected informationon family resources and attitudes for use in designing curriculum improvements and outside

activities for the school year. The second survey (see Appendix A.7) collected information on parentsatisfaction with various features of the Judy Center, parental assessments of child development duringthe school year, and information on family resources and attitudes.

Since a major effort was made to improve family services during the year, the pre-tests and post-tests wereconstructed to make comparisons for pre-test and post-test responses to see if the program had a positiveeffect on family attitudes and resources. Survey participants were given the option of providing the lastfour digits of their social security numbers so that pairwise matchings of post-test and pre-test responsescould be made. As in previous years, however, there was a large drop off in survey participation betweenthe fall and spring (from 72 collected in the fall to 33 In the spring). However, fourteen (14) responseswere received in the spring from participants in the fall survey so that comparisons could be made. Table6.1 shows the characteristics of Judy Center parent respondents to the first survey. Seventy-two responseswere received. Half of the responding parents are thirty years or older and ninety-three percent are female.Approximately two out of three work (either full or part-time) and are married. Over two-thirds have atleast some college and slightly over half are homeowners. Similar to the previous year, the typical JudyCenter survey respondent has a higher socioeconomic level than the average Frostburg city or AlleganyCounty resident (see eQuotient 2003) . However, this year’s respondent’s level is lower than for 2002-03

Most parents (82%) have only one child enrolled in the Center. Most children are enrolled in pre-k andmulti-age programs. Twenty-eight percent of children have special needs as compared to eighteenpercent of children according to the 2002-03 report (eQuotient 2003). Among the special needs cited byparents, ten (10) children had speech difficulties, three (3) were autistic, one had cystic fibrosis, one hadasthma, and two (2) had emotional or other behavioral problems.

21

Table 6.1 Respondent Demographics, percentage of parents.

egA # %

91-51 0 0

42-02 11 3.51

92-52 52 7.43

43-03 91 4.62

93-53 9 5.21

+04 8 1.11

latoT 27 0.001

redneG %

elaM 1.39

elameF 9.6

sutatStnemyolpmE %

emit-llufdeyolpmE 4.44

emit-trapdeyolpmE 4.91

bojgnikeesdnadeyolpmetoN 7.9

bojgnikeestondnadeyolpmetoN 8.2

rekamemoH 8.02

rehtO 8.2

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

22

sutatSlatiraM %

deirraM 8.46

elgniS 3.81

decroviD 9.61

rewodiW/dewodiW 0.0

levellanoitacudE %

loohcshgihemoS 9.6

amolpidloohcshgiH 0.52

DEG 4.1

egellocemoS 3.04

eergedsetaicossA 1.11

rehgihroeergeds'rolehcaB 3.51

emohtnerronwO %

nwO 6.55

tneR 7.43

sevitalerhtiweviL 7.61

rehtO 0

nerdlihcforebmuN %

enO 7.18

owT 9.61

eerhT 4.1

Table 6.1 Respondent Demographics, percentage of parents continued from previous page.

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

23

nerdlihcfosegA # %

1 0 0

2 3 6.3

3 02 8.32

4 33 3.93

5 42 6.82

5revO 4 7.4

latoT 48 0.001

sdeeNlaicepS %

seY 5.72

oN 0.17

wonkt'noD 4.1

Table 6.1 Respondent Demographics, percentage of parents continued from previous page.

Table 6.2 shows that most parent respondents have children enrolled in kindergarten (44%), pre-k (35%),or multi-age programs (28%), and Head Start (22%). Food programs such as WIC (40%), lunch (42%),and breakfast (38%) were also popular. Fifteen percent of parents utilizes after-school day care andthirteen percent uses before school day care. The percentages of responding parents using early childhoodeducation, food programs, childcare and many other programs have increased since the Center started.

24

Table 6.2 Programs used, percentage of parents.

1002llaF 2002llaF 3002llaF

netragredniK 82 24 44

K-erPdloraey-4 02 23 53

K-erPdloraey3-2 7 11 -

K-erPdloraey5-4-3 21 01 -

K-erPdloraey4&3 - - 82

tratSdaeH 02 3 22

eracdlihcloohcserofeB 6 5 31

eracdlihcloohcsretfA 3 01 51

eracdlihcloohcsgniruD 5 5 7

eracdlihcgnisolcloohcS 7 4 01

tnemeganaMesaC 0 1 1

noitacudElaicepSloohcserP 1 1 4

relddoTdnatnafnI 31 2 -

secivreSlatneD 3 2 6

sseccuSrofsrentraP 1 1 6

krowteNtroppuSylimaF - - 6

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

25

Parents were surveyed about the availability of learning support materials in the household and parentalparticipation in learning activities (see table 6.3). Almost all of the parents (97%) reported that children’sbooks were available while slightly fewer (93%) indicated that they had televisions (93%). Seventy-four percent of households had computers and 64% had Internet access. These figures are similar toaverages reported in a 2001 technology survey (Rephann 2001) of all Allegany County public schoolchildren (there 73% of children reported having home computers and 62% overall had Internet access).For each of the learning/reading materials except “newspapers”, the proportion of households has increasedover last year’s levels.

Approximately nine in ten parents “frequently” praise their children for doing well, eat a meal together asa family, and sit and talk with their children about their day. Four in five parents reported reading with theirchildren “frequently” and two in three “frequently” played with their children. Most “rarely” or “never”went to a library or museum with their children. Other responses include: “sports” and “church.”Parents identified programming of interest for the upcoming year (see table 6.5). Parent-child activitieswere the most popular (identified by one in four) followed by “educational programs for 3-4-5 yearolds” and “parenting classes.”

tratShserF - 0 6

CIW 03 82 04

)tpeDhtlaeH(tratSyhtlaeH 4 3 3

margorPgnirutruN 2 2 -

"bulCtsafkaerB"s'relliM.rD - - 01

noitcnuJylimaF 0 1 6

retneCylimaF—ACMY 3 0 -

retneCyduJ@ssalcACMY 0 0 -

seitivitcadlihC/tneraPACMY - - 4

egaugnaLdnoceSsahsilgnE 0 1 0

)tpeDhtlaeH(htlaeHlatneM 1 0 3

tsafkaerB 22 62 83

hcnuL 62 92 24

)"esruN"(rehtO 1 1

1002llaF 2002llaF 3002llaF

Table 6.2 Programs used, percentage of parents continued from previous page.

26

Table 6.3 Learning/reading materials at home, percentage of parents.

Table 6.4 Activities with children, percentage of parents.

30-2002 40-3002

skoobs'nerdlihC 48 79

nerdlihcrofsenizagaM 14 45

skoobtludA 36 86

srepapsweN 06 85

noisiveleT 38 39

retupmocemoH 16 47

sseccAtenretnIhtiwretupmoC 45 46

rehtO

yltneuqerF semitemoS yleraR reveN AN

yrotsadaeR 9.18 7.61 4.1 0 0

rosyothtiwdeyalPsemagdeyalp

7.66 9.13 4.1 0 0

rofdlihcruoydesiarPllewgniod

4.49 6.5 0 0 0

yrarbilcilbupdetisiVmuesumro

9.6 9.83 3.33 4.91 0

,dnuorgyalpadetisiVanotnewro,krap

cincip7.14 4.15 6.5 4.1 0

rehtegotlaemataEylimafasa

9.88 1.11 0 0 0

tnevenadednettAaybdetsoh

roytinummocpuorgsuoigiler

9.13 7.43 0.52 0 0

ruoyotklatdnatiSreh/sihtuobadlihc

yad5.78 7.9 0 0 8.2

27

Table 6.5 Program interest, percentage of parents.

The spring survey received thirty-three responses and the answers are tabulated in tables 6.6-6.9. Table6.6 and Figure 6.1 show that parent satisfaction with the Judy Center improved slightly over the previousyear. However, satisfaction levels were still lower than the levels achieved at the end of the Center’sfirst year in 2001-2002. Still, the ninety-four percent satisfaction rating (combining “very satisfied” and“satisfied”) is higher than the eighty-nine percent state-wide average satisfaction reported for all MarylandJudy Centers (eQuotient 2003).

seitivitcadlihc/tneraP 2.22

sdloraey5ro,4,3rofsmargorpnoitacudE 7.61

sessalcgnitneraP 9.31

eracdlihC 7.9

DEG 3.8

noitavreserPylimaF 2.4

tratShserF 2.4

seitilibasidhtiwnerdlihcrofsmargorP 8.2

)ecnarusnihtlaehs'nerdlihc(PIHCM 4.1

tratSdaeH 4.1

CIW 0.0

Don't Know

Not Satisfied at All

Somewhat Dissatisfied

Somewhat Satisfied

Satisfied

Very Satisfied

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

May-2002

May-2003

May-2004

Figure 6.1 Parent Satisfaction

28

Table 6.6 Satisfaction with Judy Center services, percentage of parents.

Table 6.7 shows parent satisfaction with features of the Judy Center that align with the Judy CenterComponent Standards. Figure 6.2 displays the top 10 rated areas and figure 6.3 shows the bottom 10rated areas as determined by weighting the responses by the following scale: (4=excellent; 3=good,2=minimal, 1=inadequate). It is important to note that all of the features were rated above 3 (good).

20-1002 30-2002 40-3002

deifsitaSyreV 97 7.06 7.27

deifsitaS 91 1.63 2.12

deifsitaStahwemoS 2 3.3 1.6

deifsitassiDtahwemoS 0 0 0

llAtadeifsitaStoN 0 0 0

ehttuobademrofinurodesufnoC/wonkt'noDdedivorpsecivres

00

0

retnecehttuobagnileefoN/wonkt'noD 0 0 0

29

Figure 6.2 Top 10 Performance Areas

Chid care before or after day

Cleanliness and safety of Judy Center

Activities for learning physical education

Materials for learning and play

Play activities

Array of child services for all ages

Hours and days of Judy Center operation

Information provided by Judy Center about upcoming activities

Food and nutrition assistance

Supervision of children/discipline

3.35 3.4 3.45 3.5 3.55 3.6 3.65

The top rated features were “supervision of children/discipline” and “food and nutrition assistance”.Also rated highly were “information provided by Judy Center about upcoming activities” and “hoursand days of Judy Center operation.” All four of these features were rated higher this year than last year.Although this year’s grant focused more on children with special needs, this category did not figureamong the top ten and decreased somewhat between this year and last.

As with last year the “sufficiency of space” was rated lowest among the features. Surprisingly, given thegreater emphasis of family/parent programming, “activities for parents and families” was rated nextlowest followed by “family case management” and “array of child and family support services on site.”Other areas rated lower included several learning areas such as activities for learning computers, math,science/nature, and music. In open-ended comments, several parents also identified a desire for additionalfamily-child activities and field trips (see Appendix A.9).

Sufficiency of space

Activities for parents and families

Family case management

Array of child and family support services on site

Activities for learning computers

Activities for learning math

Quality of school meals (lunch, breakfast)

Activities for learning nature/science

Friendliness/helpfulness of staff and teachers

Activities for learning music

3.1 3.15 3.2 3.25 3.3 3.35 3.4

Figure 6.3 Bottom 10 Performance Areas

30

Table 6.7 Satisfaction with Judy Center in performance areas, percentage of parents(E=Excellent, G=Good, M=Minimal, I=Inadequate, NA=Not applicable/Not available)

)E( )G( )M( )I( )AN(

noitarepoCJfosyaddnasruoH 0.05 6.04 0 0 4.9

retneCeracdlihCrenroKsdiK 7.02 1.42 0 0 2.55

)tsafkaerb,hcnul(slaemloohcSfoytilauQ 5.53 3.16 0 0 2.3

tnemeganamesacylimaF 0.52 8.34 1.3 0 1.82

etisnosecivrestroppusylimafdnadlihcfoyarrA 3.13 3.65 1.3 0 4.9

stnafni,.g.e(segallarofsecivresdlihcfoyarrA)netragrednik,k-erp,srelddotdna

3.65 5.73 1.3 0 1.3

seitilibasidrofgnineercS 8.52 5.53 0 0 7.83

seitilibasidhtiwnerdlihcrofsecivresfonoisivorP 6.22 0.92 0 0 4.84

latned,snoitazinummi,.g.e(secivreshtlaeH)gnineercsgniraeh/noisiv,tnemssessa

9.14 2.54 0 2.3 7.9

srehcaetdnaffatsfossenlufpleh/ssenildneirF 0.57 9.12 1.3 0 0

enilpicsid/nerdlihcfonoisivrepuS 1.85 6.04 0 1.3 0

yalpdnagninraelrofslairetaM 1.35 9.64 0 0 0

seitivitcayalP 1.35 9.64 0 0 0

trAgninraelrofseitivitcA 9.64 0.05 0 1.3 0

cisuMgninraelrofseitivitcA 8.34 1.35 0 1.3 0

noitacudelacisyhPgninraelrofseitivitcA 9.64 9.64 0 0 3.6

gnitirw/gnidaer/egaugnaLgninraelrofseitivitcA 8.34 1.35 0 0 1.3

ecneics/erutaNgninraelrofseitivitcA 4.43 4.95 0 0 3.6

htaMgninraelrofseitivitcA 3.13 2.65 0 0 5.21

sretupmoCgninraelrofseitivitcA 5.53 6.15 2.3 0 7.9

Table 6.7 Satisfaction with Judy Center in performance areas, percentage of parents(E=Excellent, G=Good, M=Minimal, I=Inadequate, A=Not applicable/Not available)

continued on next page.

31

Table 6.8 shows that all of the parents read flyers and newsletters which are sent home with the children.More than half reported that they “frequently” attend parent-teacher conference, an increase over theprevious year. Much lower levels are indicated for participation in other parent after-school activities,both involving children and parent education. One in five parents participated in parent education orworkshops during the year.

Table 6.9 indicates the specific parent activities that families participated in during the year. Approximately30% of respondents attended the Fall Family Fun Fest followed by about half that many who attendedFamily Movie Night and December Parents Night Out. Activities with an educational dimension suchas the Breakfast Club/Supper Club and YMCA Parent Power achieved lower participation. Only oneactivity received a low rating by any of its participants—one parent rated the “potty training class” asinadequate. Although ideally, parent participation would be much higher than the levels shown here, table6.10 indicates that it was not because of a lack of parental interest. Work obligations and the time of thescheduled activity were barriers. Judy Center Staff remarked that family participation increased after familyvouchers were offered for participation. This system was introduced as a result of Ruby Payne training.

secnerefnocpu-wollofdnastroperssergorP 1.35 4.43 4.9 0 1.3

,spirtdleif,.g.e(seilimafdnastneraprofseitivitcA)scincip

5.73 9.64 3.6 1.3 3.6

gnitnerap,.g.e(seilimafrofsmargorpnoitacudE)sessalcDEG,spohskrow

4.43 9.64 0 0 8.81

tuobaretneCyduJybdedivorpnoitamrofnIseitivitcagnimocpu

6.56 3.13 0 1.3 0

egapbewretneCyduJ 3.33 3.33 3.3 0 0.03

)CIW,.g.e(ecnatsissanoitirtundnadooF 3.34 7.62 0 0 0.03

retneCyduJfoytefasdnassenilnaelC 0.05 8.34 1.3 0 1.3

ecapsfoycneiciffuS 4.43 0.05 4.9 1.3 1.3

)E( )G( )M( )I( )AN(

Table 6.7 Satisfaction with Judy Center in performance areas, percentage of parents(E=Excellent, G=Good, M=Minimal, I=Inadequate, A=Not applicable/Not available)continued from previous page.

32

Table 6.8 Parent participation in Judy Center activities, percentage of parents.

Table 6.9 Parent rating of Judy Center parent activities

yltneuqerF semitemoS yleraR reveN AN

yduJehttadereetnuloVretneC

03 21 55 0 0

s'dlihcdevresbOehtgnirudmoorssalc

yad6 95 31 22 0

retneCyduJdednettAlaicepsloohcs-retfaspirtdleifrostneve

31 22 31 74 6

tnerapdednettArosgniteemnoitacude

bojtuobaspohskrowgnitneraproslliks

0 81 9 76 3

-tnerapadednettAecnerefnocrehcaet

25 81 3 12 3

retneCyduJadaeRrettelswen/reylf

79 3 0 0 0

tnellecxE dooG laminiM etauqedanI AN

bulCtsafkaerB 6 6 0 0 88

rewoPtneraPACMY 0 9 0 0 09

tseFdnuFylimaFllaF 61 31 0 0 17

remmuSylimaFthgiNgnidaeR

margorP0 3 0 0 79

stneraPrebmeceDtuOthgiN

01 3 0 0 78

thgiNeivoMylimaF 61 0 0 0 48

ssalCgniniarTyttoP 0 3 0 3 49

namdleFnaeJ.rDtrecnoC

7 3 0 0 09

bulCreppuS 0 3 0 0 79

33

Table 6.10 Reason for not attending parent activities

Table 6.11 indicates that parents recognize improvements in most child learning and habits because ofthe Judy Center. Four in five parents report “much” improvement in counting numbers and two in threesaw “much” improvement in vocabulary. A majority of parents saw improvements in writing, recognizingletters of the alphabet, drawing, speaking and articulation, and writing. About half of the parents sawmuch improvement in child hygiene, including washing hands and brushing teeth.

Table 6.11 Improvement in child learning and habits because of the Judy Center

%

eludehcskroW 16

tonsawytivitcafoemiTtneinevnoc

85

scipotnidetseretnitoN 81

noitatropsnartfokcaL 6

rehtO 72

hcuM elttilA llAtatoN AN

srebmungnitnuoC 48 31 0 3

tebahplaehtfosrettelgnizingoceR 65 13 9 3

gnitirW 85 31 52 3

gniwarD 35 13 31 3

noitalucitradnagnikaepS 35 83 0 9

yralubacoV 66 13 0 3

slaemyhtlaehdnasuoitirtungnitaE 22 74 52 6

gnisicrexE 14 74 0 31

gnisuretfaslaemerofebsdnahgnihsaWteliot

35 83 6 3

hteetgnihsurB 05 14 6 3

34

A before and after study of a cohort of 14 respondents who had replied to both fall and spring surveyswas conducted in order to analyze the effect of the Judy Center on family resources and interaction inthe home. During the year, the Judy Center made a concerted effort to improve learning resources andthe quality of parenting. Table 6.12 shows that learning/reading materials improved in the areas ofchildren’s books, magazines for children, home computer, and computer with Internet access during theschool year. Table 6.13 indicates that a higher percentage of parents ‘frequently’ read a story to theirchild, visited a public library or museum, and sat and talked to their child about his/her day after exposureto the Judy Center.

Table 6.12 Learning/reading materials at home before and afterJudy Center, percentage of parents

Table 6.13 Activities with children, percentage of parents who did ‘frequently’before and after Judy Center

erofeB retfA

skoobs'nerdlihC 39 001

nerdlihcrofsenizagaM 75 17

skoobtludA 17 17

srepapsweN 46 05

noisiveleT 001 001

retupmocemoH 75 68

sseccAtenretnIhtiwretupmoC 75 17

erofeB retfA

yrotsadaeR 17 68

semagdeyalprosyothtiwdeyalP 46 46

llewgniodrofdlihcruoydesiarP 39 39

muesumroyrarbilcilbupdetisiV 7 41

cincipanotnewro,krap,dnuorgyalpadetisiV 34 34

ylimafasarehtegotlaemataE 97 97

roytinummocaybdetsohtnevenadednettApuorgsuoigiler

63 63

yadreh/sihtuobadlihcotklatdnatiS 39 001

35

7.0 Child Readiness

The ACBOE 2003-04 Judy Center Continuation Grant proposal outlined several child developmentobjectives and milestones for FY 2004. These are as follows:

Goal

By June 30, 2004, exiting kindergarten students at the Judy Center will maintain the composite score of86% at the full readiness level for all WSS domains.

Objectives

By June 30, 2004, exiting kindergarten students at the Judy Center who receive Free and ReducedMeals (FARMS) will increase their composite score from 77% to 80% at the full readiness level.

By June 30, 2004, exiting kindergarten students at the Judy Center who receive special education serviceswill increase their composite score from 40% to 50% at the full readiness level.

The data source for these indicators is the Allegany County Board of Education Kindergarten PupilProgress Report which uses the Work Sampling System (WSS) and is aligned with 30 MMSR indicatorsthat are divided into seven domains (Social and Personal, Language and Literacy, Mathematical Thinking,Scientific Thinking, Social Studies, The Arts, and Physical Development) and that measure pupil readinesswith three levels of progress: (3) “Proficient,” (3) “In process,” or (1) “Needs Development.” Individualdomain scores are obtained from aggregating domain indicators and a composite score is an aggregationof all 30 MMSR indicators. Three readiness categories are assigned based on the aggregated score:“full” readiness, “approaching” readiness, and “developing” readiness.

The Beall Elementary Judy Center exceeded the readiness goal and objectives by the end of the year(see figure 7.1). Overall readiness as measured by the composite score was 79% at the end of the firstperiod and 95% at the end of the year. For students who received Free and Reduced Meals (FARMS),overall readiness increased from 78% at the end of the first period to 95% at the end of the year. Forstudents who received special education services, readiness jumped from 50% at the end of the first

36

Composite

Physical Development

The Arts

Social Studies

Scientific Thinking

Mathematical Thinking

Language and Literacy

Social and Personal

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Period 4

Period 1

Figure 7.2 FARMS Readiness by Domain

37

Composite

Physical Development

The Arts

Social Studies

Scientific Thinking

Mathematical Thinking

Language and Literacy

Social and Personal

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Special Ed.

FARM

All

Figure 7.1 Kindergarten Readiness by Domain

period to 75% at the end of the year. Figure 7.2 shows that the specific strategies of increasing thereadiness level of FARMS children in the domains of Language and Literacy and Social and PersonalSkills were realized. Readiness levels advanced in both of these areas. However, this is not true of thestrategies of increasing the readiness level of children receiving Special Education services in the domainsof Language and Literacy (see figure 7.3). For this domain, no improvement was observed.

Figure 7.4 shows this year’s kindergarten performance compared to the previous two years’ classes afterthe first period. A lower percentage of pupils was ready after the first period using the composite measure.However, in four of the eight domains (scientific thinking, social studies, the arts, and physical development),readiness was the highest of the three year period. A large drop in Social and Personal skills (from 88%readiness to 77% readiness), however, negated these improvements on the composite score.

Figures 7.5 and 7.6 indicate that Judy Center pupils outperformed their peers in the County and State.After the first progress report (see Figure 7.3) period, seventy-nine percent of children was fully preparedcompared to sixty-two percent for Allegany County and fifty-five percent for the State. Three percent ofstudents was categorized as “developing” whereas five percent of the County and six percent for theState were so designated. Among individual domains, Beall Elementary Judy Center pupil readinesslevels exceeds the State and County in every area.

Composite

Physical Development

The Arts

Social Studies

Scientific Thinking

Mathematical Thinking

Language and Literacy

Social and Personal

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Period 4

Period 1

Figure 7.3 Special Education Readiness by Domain

38

Composite

Physical Development

The Arts

Social Studies

Scientific Thinking

Mathematical Thinking

Language and Literacy

Social and Personal

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

2004

2003

2002

Figure 7.4 Kindergarten Readiness by Domain,2002-2004

Maryland

Allegany

Beall Elem.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Full

Approaching

Developing

Figure 7.5 Kindergarten Readiness, Judy Center,County, and State

39

Figure 7.7 shows child performance according to the Pre-kindergarten Progress Report which, like thekindergarten progress report, is based on the WSS. The 1st marking period is based on 24 WSS indicators,the 2nd on 28 indicators, and the 3rd on all 30 indicators. The figure shows how the Pre-K program at theBeall Elementary Judy Center (including both pre-kindergarten and multi-age classes) compares to aCounty average that includes all six schools that have 4-year pre-kindergarten programs (i.e., BeallElementary (4-Year old Pre-K, Cash Valley, George’s Creek, John Humbird, South Penn, and WestSide). The percentage indicator represents the percentage of students who met at least 90% of the keyindicators for that marking period. The figure shows that Judy Center pupils readiness was much higherthan the County average for all three periods. However, these figures are lower than those realized lastyear (eQuotient, 2003).

40

Composite

Physical Development

The Arts

Social Studies

Scientific Thinking

Mathematical Thinking

Language and Literacy

Social and Personal

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Md

Allegany

Beall Elem.

Figure 7.6 Kindergarten Readiness by Domain,Judy Center, County, and State

Figure 7.8 shows the performance of children enrolled in the Head Start Pre-Kindergarten programduring the 2002-03 school years according to the eight development dimensions (see Appendix A.10for the HRDC Head Start Early Childhood Observation Record). These dimensions include: (1)Language—Listening and Understanding/Speaking and Communicating, (2) Literacy, (3) Mathematics,(4) Science, (5) Creative Arts, (6) Social and Emotional Development, (7) Approaches to Learning, and(8) Physical Health and Development. Three rating categories are used: C-consistently observed (morethan 80% of the time), O=Occasionally Observed (between 40% and 79% of the time), and NY=Not yetobserved (less than 39% of the time). The figure shows that child progress occurred in each categorywith an average baseline of 30% in category C versus a final average of 72%. Performance improvedover FY 2003 (eQuotient 2003).

Additional indirect evidence of the effectiveness of the Judy Center is revealed in MSA reading andmath proficiency levels. The percentage of third graders (many of whom were enrolled in kindergartenduring the 2000-01 year) that achieved advanced and proficiency levels in reading increased from 52.3%in 2003 to 77% in 2004. The percentage that achieved the same proficiency levels in mathematicsincreased from 65.9% to 71.7%. These proficiency levels were better than Allegany County averages inboth areas (see Figure 7.9)

Period 1 Period 20

10

20

30

40

50

60

Judy Center

Other Allegany Co.

Figure 7.7 Prekindergarten Readiness

41

42

Language

Literacy

Math

Science

Creative Art

Social/Emotional

Approach to Learning

Physical/Health Development

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Per

cen

tag

e "C

on

sist

entl

y"

Base 04

Final 04

Base 03

Final 03

Figure 7.8 Head Start Observation Study Results

Beall Elementary--Reading

Allegany County--Reading

Maryland--Reading

Beall Elementary--Math

Allegany County--Math

Maryland--Math

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Advanced

Proficient

Basic

Figure 7.9 MSA proficiency levels, BeallElementary, Allegany County, and the State

8.0 Special Research Questions

As part of the 2003-04 Judy Center continuation grant application, the Allegany County Board ofEducation posed 8 questions about the procedures and effectiveness of the Center. The questionsand answers are arranged as follows:

Has the readiness level of kindergarten FARMS children improved?

The percentage of students assessed at “full” readiness on the composite indicator increasedfrom 78% at the end of the first period to 95% at the end of the fourth period.

Has the readiness level of kindergarten special education children improved?

Yes, based on fall School Readiness information, the percentage of students who were at fullreadiness as measured by the composite score increased from 50% after the first period to 75%after the fourth period.

Has the inclusion model in pre-kindergarten had a positive impact on the Language andLiteracy level of special education children?

Because of the small numbers involved, no generalizations are possible.

Has the inclusion model in pre-kindergarten had a positive impact on the Social and PersonalDevelopment level of special education children?

Because of the small numbers involved, no generalizations are possible.

Are children with the greatest educational need being adequately recruited, identified andenrolled in appropriate early childhood programs to increase their readiness for kindergarten?

Yes. In the multi-age class, all students have identified special needs such as speech, language,etc. For Pre-K, three selection criteria are used in the enrollment of 4-year olds: (a) automaticenrollment (highest need), (b) priority enrollment (need), and (c) open enrollment. Accordingto this year’s figures, 70% of children enrolled in Judy Center funded Pre-K were from the firsttwo categories. This compares to 60% the previous year.

43

Do children who have participated in pre-kindergarten or multi-age programs perform at ahigher level of kindergarten readiness than those children who did not participate in thosepreschool programs?

School readiness data from the MSDE indicate that Kindergarten students who participated inPre-K performed at a higher level than those who received family care during the previous year.Whereas eighty-five percent of Pre-K/Judy Center students were at full readiness for Kindergartenat the end of the first period, fifty percent of family care children were at full readiness.

Does the Judy Center experience impact positively on special education referrals andplacement?

Special education referrals have continued to decrease. There were six special education referralsduring the 2001-2002 school year – 4 in Kindergarten and 2 in 1stgrade. During the 2002-2003school year, the total dropped to two – 1 in Kindergarten and 1 in 1st grade. In the 2003-04school year, there was one in Kindergarten.

In what ways have the participating partners benefits from the Ruby Payne training on“Understanding Poverty”?

Two of three partners who completed surveys indicated that the Ruby Payne training had improvedtheir understanding of behavior related to generational poverty and enabled them to better workwith and motivate students and families from lower income backgrounds.

44

9.0 Changes Introduced

The Judy Center continues to refine the successful model developed during the past three years.However, more emphasis is placed on continuity than new programming. Next year’simprovements (Allegany County Board of Education 2004) will continue to focus on pupils who

received Free and Reduced Meals (FARMS) and children with special needs. Action steps for newprogramming are arranged into the categories Curriculum and Programs, Professional Development,and Family Activities as described further below.

Curriculum and Programs

New Programs for At-Risk Students. An MSDE Discretionary Grant for Special Projects willbe submitted. This grant will have the goal of creating a speech/language and occupationaltherapy program(s) for at-risk prekindergarten and kindergarten students. It is hoped thatparticipation in this program will decrease the likelihood that students will later need specialeducation services.

Professional Development

MMSR Training. An effort will be made to provide training in MMSR for all Judy Centerpartners. This training will include the new Exemplars for the Fall and Spring indicators.

Ruby Payne Training. Continue training to the next level by looking at parents as consumersand examining language and language delays in children.

Family Activities

Parent Attendance. The Judy Center will attempt to increase participation in its parentworkshops/activities by offering food vouchers as incentives. This is identified as a strategy inthe Ruby Payne program.

Family Support Network. An effort will be made to distribute books to all families whoparticipate in evening activities with this program.

45

10.0 Summary and conclusions

The third funding cycle (FY 2004) for the Beall Elementary Judy Center preserved the model builtduring the 2001-2002 period which included pre-k (multi-age and 4-year-old) kindergarten classesand on-site services delivered by partners such as HRDC and the Department of Social Services.

Several new programs were introduced to improve child development for certain categories of students(FARMS and Special Education) that showed proficiency gaps in previous years. New initiatives includedan additional multi-age day class, a new private provider of daycare services (Kids Korner), staff trainingefforts that included the Ruby Payne framework for understanding poverty, new partners (e.g., YMCAParent Power program), and expanded parental and family after school activities. The goal and objectivesestablished in the grant continuation application were met. A few activities were not carried out in themanner described in the grant application for a number of reasons but the absence of these activities hadno effect on attaining the objectives of the grant.

Partner surveys indicate a relatively high degree of participation and cooperation. Staff, and parentsurveys continue to show a strong satisfaction with the Beall Elementary Judy Center. Teachers continueto agree that the amount of resources and cooperation available at Beall Elementary were good and thatteachers were satisfied with the Judy Center. Parent satisfaction levels remained high in the currentsurvey and are above state Judy Center statewide averages. Parents recognized improvements in childlearning and development during the year. A before/after study of parental responses shows that familylearning resources at home and family activities were strengthened during the year. Sufficiency ofspace at the Center, however, continued to be an area of concern identified by both staff and parents.

Progress report results from the Allegany County Board of Education and HRDC assessment data indicatethat significant child learning and development occurred during the year. These results were observedfor all categories of students, including those targeted by this year’s grant (i.e., students receiving freeand reduced school meals, students receiving Special Education services). School readiness improvedfor each of the targeted groups and exceeded milestones established for the domains of Social andPersonal skills and Language and Literacy. As in previous years, moreover, Kindergarten studentsoutperformed County and State peers. Pre-k students enrolled in Judy Center pre-k programs as well asHRDC Head Start also showed significant improvement.

Other results indicate that the Center is meeting program goals. A greater share of children with educationalneed were admitted to the Center this year than last year. Moreover, program data show that specialeducation referrals continue to decline.

46

References

Allegany County Board of Education. 2002. Continuation Grant Application for Judith P. Hoyer EarlyChild Care and Education Center Grants (Judy Centers). (June 3, 2002)

Allegany County Board of Education. 2003. Continuation Grant Application for Judith P. Hoyer EarlyChild Care and Education Center Grants (Judy Centers). (May 25, 2003)

Allegany County Board of Education. 2004. Continuation Grant Application for Judith P. Hoyer EarlyChild Care and Education Center Grants (Judy Centers). (June 2, 2004)

eQuotient, Inc. 2002. Allegany County Judy Center Evaluation: January 2001-June 2002. Cumberland,MD: eQuotient, Inc.

eQuotient, Inc. 2003. Allegany County Judy Center Evaluation: July 2002-June 2003. Cumberland,MD: eQuotient, Inc.

Maryland State Department of Education. 2003. Children Entering School Ready to Learn: SchoolReadiness Information. Baltimore: MSDE.

MGT of America, Inc. 2004. Judith P. Hoyer Early Child Care and Education Enhancement ProgramEvaluation: Final Results Brief.

Rephann, Terance. 2001. Technology Literacy Challenge Grant Evaluation. September 2000-August2001. Cumberland, MD: Allegany College of Maryland.

University of Maryland School of Public Affairs and Maryland State Department of Education. 2003.A Guide for Results and Performance Accountability and Evaluation in Judy Center Partnerships.

47

A.1Judy Center Brochure

48

A.2Judy Center Webpage

49

A.3Partner Survey Instrument

50

A.4Pre-K/Kindergarten Staff Survey

51

A.5First-Grade Staff Survey

52

A.6Fall Parent Survey

53

A.7Spring Parent Survey

54

A.8Fall Parent Survey Comments

55

I would like to see the Judy Center provide

Family activities, child and parent crafts but learning ones. Like the make and take workshopsthat Head Start used to have years ago. I can explain if you need me to.

Exactly what they are now providing.

Help for split homes. Something working parents can attend after hours or at least resources forthose who want to try. This is my third request in these surveys and no response given. I reallyneed some help in this area.

Caring and educational services to their children. Compassion and patience towards their children.A structured and disciplined atmosphere rooted from love.

I really know of no services that I need.

They have about everything that children need.

I am very pleased with everything. My son looks forward to going to school everyday andreally enjoys it.

Think you are doing great—really like the Breakfast Club.

We are very pleased with how things operate. Matthew loves it and we pray you never close!

Head Start that is not based on income but as 1st come basis.

I like everything the way it is.

Pre-K is great—my son loves it. The before and after school care is a life saver for workingparents. Thank you!

Do you have any comments or questions about the Judy Center?

I am very impressed with the outcome of the Judy Center. I have only positive things to say!

The Judy Center is great. They are there to help.

I feel the programs have helped my family a great deal and I hope it does continue for a long time.

I feel that the Judy Center is a great place for my children! I have nothing but positive things tosay about the center.

I think what the Judy Center offers is wonderful and wouldn’t change a thing.

56

I appreciate your services and guidance. [I] would like more of an opportunity to participate infunctions offered, but most are during my work hours.

I would like to have my 3 year old evaluated for his speech—I really feel that preschool wouldbenefit him. He is a homebody. When should I send him? Should I wait until kindergarten?

The Judy Center does a great job!

You guys do a great job! Thank you.

I would love to attend Dr. Millers Breakfast Club but it is held while I have to work.

I am glad the center is hear and is doing a wonderful job.

I have questions about the cost of childcare during the summer.

I’ve had WIC since I got pregnant. I don’t know what I do without it. Thank you.

I think the Judy Center is a great place. They are wonderful with the children and willing to helpparents when needed.

I think this is an excellent Center.

57

A.9Spring Parent Survey Comments

58

In what ways has the Judy Center helped your child?

It has helped her with learning to be around other children and sharing things. It has also helpedher make friends which was not available before to her since she is an only child and there areno other children her age where we live. She has learned so much in this class and the things shealready knew she now can pronounce better.

The Judy Center has given my child a jump start on education.

Reading. Socialization. Counting.

Helped greatly when he was in day care—getting him used to leaving mom and a school routine.The camp is wonderful and a learning experience.

Helped my child learn numbers, reading (some) and writing.

By attending school she communicates more with us and says twice the words she did before school.

1. Able to talk and play with children his own age. 2. He has come out of his shell.

My child has learned how to write and recognize many words.

He has learned a lot so far this year. He is doing better in all areas academically. Also his socialskills have become better and he enjoys school daily.

It has helped his social skills

My child’s communication skills and speech have improved tremendously and with this theconfidence and happiness have grown.

I feel if there is any kind of problem you can always count on the staff at the Judy Center. Great job.

He has been a lot better at sitting with the family when it is time to eat and now he loves to learn.

Socially [my child] has been able to interact with kids other than family or close friends.

My child has become more assertive and better adjusted socially. She has enjoyed her teachersand some playmates.

Gave them school readiness skills for school. Helped with doctors when they were well enoughto attend.

His speech is coming along nicely. He can count to 27 and know a lot of his colors.

Teachers at the center are wonderful and Matt talks about them quite often.

59

He has made many friends.

Kirsten has gotten better with sharing, washing hands, and brushing teeth.

My daughter is learning her numbers and letters very well thanks to the staff at KidsKorner. My son has excelled greatly since he’s been at Beall Elementary. Thanks to the JudyCenter staff and Kids Korner.

She is responding more to the family.

We’ve had our struggles, but finally feel we’re getting somewhere with Fresh Start. Just wishresources were introduced at the beginning of problems instead of letting them get out of managedcontrol.

The program has definitely helped in letter and number recognition. The concept that learningis fun shine’s through!

In what ways has the Judy Center helped you and/or other members of your family?

It provides a safe, healthy, learning environment for my child so that I can work without havingto worry about who is taking care of her that day and I feel confident in the Judy Center so Idon’t worry about her the whole time I’m at work (ex. If she’s safe or not)

Because of the jump start on education, it has made homework/learning easy to achieve for us.

Good suggestions on ways my child could improve in some areas.

We are able to adapt more to the autistic child we love.

Helped me get my son ready for Kindergarten next year, because he will only do certain thingsfor me and Mrs. Kurtz and Mrs. Robinson has got Keith to do a lot more things than I can do.

Availability for child care.

I’m well informed on how my child is doing. I have learned of a lot of people I as a parent canturn to if I need help.

It has helped me because my son has learned a lot and really likes to go to school. It is a treat tohave such a nice school and teachers and other faculty members.

Helped us prepare him for kindergarten

The Judy Center provides options and so many other schools don’t. I can volunteer, attendmeetings, talk to the coordinators and teacher any time. It’s a very open helpful place.

Whenever I needed help with things for my children and when I wanted to know about current

60

events going on around the school.

It has enabled me to go to work without putting such a demand on our mothers and I know mykids are being taken care of well!

Child returns quite happy from school and looks forward to going to school every day.

IEP discussion but still questioning dyslexia in Timothy. Straitening stuff out with Steven.

Giving us ideas on working with [my child].

Nurse Jackie Bryant is exceptional! She has been very kind and informative about Cameron’sprogress and any time he has been sick or had an accident. She keeps in contact with meregarding Cameron very well.

Not had opportunity to benefit due to work and now that there’s a supper club son might attend church.

It helps point us in the right direction on how to teach our child learn new things, and when tostart teaching different things.

What activities would you like to see added at the Judy Center for your child and/or family?

Well, next year she will be going to pre-k but I would like to be informed in her progress oflearning (report cards, etc.). Also, I would like to be able to come in (all parents) and watch oneday to see what she is learning and what types of things they do in class and the teachers approachon teaching methods. Since we did not get to attend any activities, I would like to see her inlittle plays, skits, programs, etc. that we may have missed out on in the past (which I’m sure arealready available now but we just didn’t get her registered until late).

More field trips or family events.

Everything is fine the way it is. This is a wonderful program and we would hate to see it leaveour area. Keep up the good work.

More field trips and activities during weekend hours maybe.

More field trips to the zoo or museums. Something that would be of a lot of interest to thechildren.

Field trips.

More workshops on teaching our kids at home where to get supplies, age appropriate worksheetsand activities.

Early head start.

61

None that I can think of it is already a great program! We are very pleased.

Case study/role play in social interaction (the good and the bad). How to deal with otheraggressive children, bullies, etc. and not become a bully oneself. How to defend oneself. Cultural/national/racial sensitivity and interest in children different from our own. Organize/arrange forlessons in swimming, music, etc. for 3-4 year olds.

Parent child activities. Parenting resources. IEP classes getting to know your rights and resources.IEP classes getting to know your rights and resources. Transportation. Home visits 1x a monthwith Shelia or a school visit. Judy Center get to know night (only Judy Center Families) thenthe school setting activities. Teacher reports for like monthly for what they are doing, learning,behavior of child problem with child. More take homes for children with reasonable time tocomplete something. Like the take-home packets of homework. I personally would like toattend more trainings, conferences to learn more info. More geared to problem areas of familiesservices (like education, etc.). Awareness training of community resources, contacts for parents.More ideas to come as I think of them. Any questions call me please. Thank you all for allowingme to attend the conference today. Great information. Thank you very much. Really enjoyedgoing.

I think you have them pretty much covered. Keep up the nice work. I like when parents cancome up to school and help make some of art work with Cory. Hopefully that will become a bi-monthly activity.

I have no activities in mind to add at this time.

Single parent support groups.

Maybe a class on how and when to start your child reading. What techniques are good, when to start??

62

A.10HRDC Head Start Early Childhood

Observation Record

63