Allegany County (MD) Judy Center Report 2013

Judy Center Evaluation,

July 2012-June 2013

Terance J. Rephann96 Red Cedar RoadBarboursville, VA 22923e-mail: [email protected]

Judy Center Evaluation, July 2012-June 2013

Terance J. Rephann96 Red Cedar Road

Barboursville, VA 22923e-mail: [email protected]

July 31, 2011

i

Page

Table of Contents i

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

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................... iv

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

2.0 Characteristics and Delivery of This Year’s Training .........................................................2

3.0 Enrollment, Training, and Validation................................................................................7

4.0 Partner Surveys .............................................................................................................12

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

6.0 Parent Surveys ...............................................................................................................20

7.0 Child Readiness Progress ...............................................................................................29

8.0 Special Research Questions...........................................................................................34

9.0 Changes Introduced .....................................................................................................36

10.0 Summary and conclusions ...........................................................................................37

Appendices ..........................................................................................................................40

ii

Page

List of Tables

Table 2.1 Implementation plan ..................................................................................................3-4

Table 2.2 Evaluation questions .....................................................................................................5

Table 2.3 Special research questions ............................................................................................6

Table 3.1 Enrollment of children by age .......................................................................................8

Table 3.2 Judy Center enrollment by age and program, 2011-12 ..................................................8

Table 3.3 Kindergarten enrollment by need ..................................................................................9

Table 4.1 Allegany County Judy Center Partners and Roles ....................................................12-14

Table 4.2 Activity level of partners .............................................................................................14

Table 4.3 Collaboration success .................................................................................................15

Table 4.4 Goal success ...............................................................................................................15

Table 4.5 Performance area rating ..............................................................................................16

Table 4.6 Partner satisfaction with Judy Center ...........................................................................16

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

Table 5.2 Teacher satisfaction .....................................................................................................17

Table 5.3 Performance area ratings .............................................................................................18

Table 5.4 Adequacy of materials at Judy Center .........................................................................19

Table 5.5 Feeling of families served by Judy Center .....................................................................19

Table 6.1 Respondent characteristics .....................................................................................20-22

Table 6.2 Learning/reading materials at home ............................................................................22

Table 6.3 Activities with children ...............................................................................................23

Table 6.4 Satisfaction with Judy Center Services .........................................................................23

Table 6.5 Satisfaction with Judy Center services by site, percentage of parents, Spring 2012 ...............24

Table 6.6 Satisfaction with Judy Center in performance areas, Beall Elementary .........................25

Table 6.7 Satisfaction with Judy Center in performance areas, South Penn Elementary ...............26

Table 6.8 Parent participation in Judy Center activities ...............................................................27

Table 6.9 Improvement in child learning and habits because of the Judy Center .........................28

iii

Page

List of Figures

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

Appendices

A.1 Fall Parent Survey Comments ...............................................................................................40

A.2 Spring Parent Survey Comments ...........................................................................................44

iv

Executive Summary

In FY 2013, the Judy Center introduced a new site at South Penn and discontinued service at John Humbird Elementary with Beall Elementary remaining as a base site. The Judy Center implementation plan this year involved many of the same elements and activities as last year. However, these services are now introduced at the new South Penn Elementary site. The goals and objectives for Beall Elementary remained the same and focused on the domains of Social and Emotional Development and Language and Literacy. In addition to these same two domains, South Penn had additional goals and objectives centering on Mathematical Thinking. Because South Penn was new, initial milestones were established at a lower level than Beall Elementary.

Table 2.1 of this report summarizes progress made in the implementation plan toward the goals, objectives, and milestones in the grant. Activities supporting these goals are also listed. These activities were carried out as described in the plan.

Child readiness lagged levels achieved in the past several years. Beall Elementary arrived at school with slightly lower readiness levels than the previous four years while South Penn entered its first year at a relatively low level of readiness in fall 2012. Therefore, the two locations combined achieved only a 72.5 percent readiness level in 2012 (See Figure 7.1). This was the lowest composite readiness level in the last 8 years for the Allegany County Judy Center. Since South Penn Elementary was added as a new Judy Center site in 2012, students there did not have the same level of exposure to the early childhood services as Beall Elementary students during earlier developmental years. Therefore, it is not surprising that they lagged Beall Elementary students in readiness levels. These results suggest there was definite need at South Penn and support the decision to expand services there.

Judy Center Beall Elementary and South Penn pupils combined lagged their peers in the State and County in terms of overall readiness. However, 93.3 percent of students with prior Judy Center experience enrolled at Beall Elementary were at full readiness in 2013, which is up from the previous year level of 90 percent.

Considerable child-learning progress occurred during the 2012-2013 school year. Although only 72.5 percent of students entered at full-readiness in the fall, ninety-four percent exited at full readiness in the spring as measured by the composite score. This exit readiness level was actually higher than the ninety-two percent full readiness achieved with last year’s Judy Center cohort focused on Beall Elementary and John Humbird Elementary in FY 2012. Progress was charted in every single domain with the most impressive progress in Language and Literacy, which increased from 57.25 percent readiness to 90.4 percent readiness. Ninety-five percent of Beall Elementary students were fully ready by spring 2013 as measured by the composite score compared to ninety-two percent of South Penn Elementary students.

Survey results were very positive as in previous years. Partner surveys indicate a relatively high degree of participation and cooperation, and they indicated in open-ended comments that they were prepared to offer even more cooperation and additional services. Staff and parent surveys continue to show strong satisfaction. Teachers continue to agree that the amount of resources and cooperation available were good and that teachers were satisfied with the Judy Center. Parents recognized improvements in their children’s learning and development during the year.

1

1.0 Review of Eleven Year of Program

FY 2012 represented the second decade of Maryland State Department of Education support for the Allegany County Judy Center. In the second decade, the Judy Center was operating at three sites (Beall Elementary, John Humbird Elementary, South Penn Elementary) and offered an array of services that addressed each of the Judy Center components in a comprehensive manner for all early childhood age groups, children with special needs, and families. The Center was also running summer camps and offering an extensive School Readiness Fair at the Country Club Mall to introduce the community to the varied services offered by the Center and its multiple agency and nonprofit organization partners.

The eleventh year evaluation report described other accomplishments and challenges during the year:

v Progress toward goals and objectives in the Judy Center continuing grant application was good. The composite score goals were achieved although objectives in the social and personal, and language and literacy for Beall Elementary were slightly lower than targets. The goals and objectives for the composite score, language and literacy score and social and development score for John Humbird Elementary were also on target to be met. For both Beall and John Humbird Elementary, office referrals were lower than the 3% targeted rate. The activities were carried out as specified in the original continuing grant application.

v The duplicated number of children in Judy Center programs increased from 349 in FY 2011 to 631 in FY 2012. Much of this growth could be attributed to the expansion of the Center into Cumberland South End elementary schools.

v The total number of health screenings increased over the previous year to a new record level of 1,465.

v WSS results indicate that children with prior pre-k Judy Center experience performed as well as other students at the start of Kindergarten than the previous year, with 90 percent at full readiness compared to 87 percent the previous year.

v Beall Elementary arrived at school with readiness levels similar to the previous three years while John Humbird Elementary pupils improved from 66 percent readiness to 75 percent to 85 percent readiness during the period the Judy Center was operating there. Therefore, the two locations combined improved to 90 percent readiness in 2011. Both FARMS and Special Education subgroups saw significant readiness increases over the previous year in composite readiness.

v Parent, partner, and teacher surveys continue to show a strong level of satisfaction with the Judy Center. In addition, parents recognized sizeable improvements in child learning and development during the year.

v Family participation in Judy Center after-school activities continued to climb. Parent workshops/trainings increased from a duplicated headcount of 1,045 in FY11 to 1,406 in FY12.

2

2.0 Characteristics and Delivery of the Twelfth Year

In FY 2013, the Judy Center shrank from three sites to two sites: one at Beall Elementary and the other at the site of South Penn Elementary. The year saw many programming and activities that were used during the last fiscal year funding cycle retained. In addition, the Judy Center continued to improve its curriculum, programming, and activities, including the following:

v Summer Camp was offered at the South Penn Elementary site.

v A behavioral hotline was established at the South Penn site.

v New parent training, including training by Family Junction and a math night, was offered for parents to work on math problems with their children.

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

The parameters for evaluation were spelled out in the proposal and are listed in table 2.1. The ultimate goals of the program are to improve child readiness for elementary school. These goals are supported by objectives that target particular learning domains for specific categories of at risk students. Milestones represent particular numerical targets for assessment measures. The final column briefly describes the achievement of each goal, milestone, and activity. To summarize this table: the activities were carried out as specified in the original continuing grant application but progress toward goals and objectives in the Judy Center continuing grant application was mixed. The composite score goals were on target to be achieved for Beall Elementary with fall MMSR scores falling slightly short of targets. The target-achievement gaps for South Penn Elementary were much wider, suggesting that they were less likely to be achieved based on fall MMSR data. However, as data presented later in section 7 shows, South Penn students did exceed goal benchmarks by the fourth quarter. Moreover, South Penn students did not receive full Judy Center early childhood services during the previous school year.

Tabl

e 2.

1 I

mpl

emen

tati

on P

lan

Goa

lO

bjec

tive

Mile

ston

eA

chie

vem

ent

By

the

fall

of 2

013,

ent

erin

g K

inde

rgar

ten

stud

ents

at B

eall

Elem

enta

ry w

ill h

ave

a co

mpo

site

sco

re o

f 87%

as

mea

sure

d by

th

e W

ork

Sam

plin

g sc

ores

.

By

the

fall

of 2

013,

90%

of a

ll en

teri

ng

stud

ents

at B

eall

Elem

enta

ry w

ho r

ecei

ve

FAR

MS

will

ach

ieve

full

read

ines

s le

vel

in th

e ar

ea o

f Soc

ial a

nd E

mot

iona

l D

evel

opm

ent.

1. B

y th

e fa

ll of

201

3, 9

0% o

f ent

erin

g ki

nder

gart

en s

tude

nts

at B

eall

Elem

enta

ry

who

rec

eive

Fre

e an

d R

educ

ed M

eals

will

ac

hiev

e fu

ll re

adin

ess

leve

l in

the

area

of

Soc

ial a

nd E

mot

iona

l Dev

elop

men

t as

det

erm

ined

by

the

WSS

indi

cato

rs. 2

. B

y th

e fa

ll of

201

3, th

e nu

mbe

r of

offi

ce

refe

rral

s pe

r m

onth

will

be

less

than

3%

of

the

tota

l sch

ool p

opul

atio

n. T

his

data

w

ill b

e co

llect

ed a

nd m

onito

red

mon

thly

.

Goa

l on

targ

et to

be

achi

eved

in fa

ll 20

12.

87.5

% o

f stu

dent

s ha

d ac

hiev

ed

full

read

ines

s as

mea

sure

d by

the

com

posi

te s

core

in fa

ll 20

12.

How

ever

, on

ly 8

2.5%

of F

AR

MS

stud

ents

had

ac

hiev

ed fu

ll re

adin

ess

leve

l in

the

area

of

Soc

ial a

nd E

mot

iona

l Dev

elop

men

t. O

ffice

ref

erra

ls w

ere

1.1%

of t

he

popu

latio

n. A

ttend

ance

was

mon

itore

d.

All

activ

ities

wer

e de

liver

ed.

By

the

fall

of 2

013,

ent

erin

g ki

nder

gart

en

stud

ents

at B

eall

Elem

enta

ry w

ill h

ave

a co

mpo

site

sco

re o

f 87%

as

mea

sure

d by

th

e W

ork

Sam

plin

g Sc

ores

.

By

the

fall

of 2

013,

90%

of a

ll en

teri

ng

kind

erga

rten

stu

dent

s at

Bea

ll El

emen

tary

w

ho r

ecei

ve F

AR

MS

will

ach

ieve

full

read

ines

s le

vel i

n th

e ar

ea o

f Lan

guag

e &

Li

tera

cy.

1. B

y th

e fa

ll of

201

2, 9

0% o

f ent

erin

g ki

nder

gart

en s

tude

nts

at B

eall

Elem

enta

ry

who

rec

eive

Fre

e an

d R

educ

ed M

eals

(F

AR

MS)

will

ach

ieve

full

read

ines

s le

vel i

n th

e ar

ea L

angu

age

& L

itera

cy

as d

eter

min

ed b

y th

e W

SS in

dica

tors

. 2.

By

the

fall

of 2

012,

60%

of e

nter

ing

kind

erga

rten

stu

dent

s at

Bea

ll El

emen

tary

w

ho r

ecei

ve F

ree

and

Red

uced

Mea

ls

will

sco

re in

the

profi

cien

t ran

ge in

the

DIB

ELS

asse

ssm

ent.

Goa

l on

targ

et to

be

achi

eved

in fa

ll 20

13.

87.5

% o

f stu

dent

s ha

d ac

hiev

ed

full

read

ines

s as

mea

sure

d by

the

com

posi

te s

core

in fa

ll 20

12.

How

ever

, on

ly 7

2.5%

of F

AR

MS

stud

ents

had

ac

hiev

ed fu

ll re

adin

ess

leve

l in

the

area

of

Lan

guag

e an

d Li

tera

cy. 5

1% o

f FA

RM

S st

uden

ts s

core

d in

pro

ficie

nt r

ange

on

DIB

ELS

in s

prin

g 20

13. A

ll ac

tiviti

es w

ere

deliv

ered

.

By

the

fall

of 2

013,

ent

erin

g ki

nder

gart

en

stud

ents

at S

outh

Pen

n El

emen

tary

w

ill h

ave

a co

mpo

site

sco

re o

f 80%

as

mea

sure

d by

the

Wor

k Sa

mpl

ing

Syst

em

scor

es.

By

the

fall

of 2

013,

62%

of a

ll ki

nder

gart

en s

tude

nts

at S

outh

Pen

n El

emen

tary

who

rec

eive

FA

RM

S w

ill

achi

eve

full

read

ines

s in

the

Lang

uage

an

d Li

tera

cy D

omai

n as

mea

sure

d by

the

Wor

k Sa

mpl

ing

Syst

em S

core

s.

1. B

y th

e fa

ll of

201

3, 6

2% o

f ent

erin

g ki

nder

gart

en s

tude

nts

at S

outh

Pen

n El

emen

tary

who

rec

eive

Fre

e an

d R

educ

ed M

eals

(FA

RM

S) w

ill a

chie

ve

full

read

ines

s le

vel i

n th

e ar

ea L

angu

age

& L

itera

cy a

s de

term

ined

by

the

WSS

in

dica

tors

. 2.

By

the

fall

of 2

013,

50%

of

ent

erin

g ki

nder

gart

en s

tude

nts

at

Sout

h Pe

nn E

lem

enta

ry w

ho r

ecei

ve

Free

and

Red

uced

Mea

ls w

ill s

core

in

the

profi

cien

t ran

ge in

the

DIB

ELS

asse

ssm

ent.

Goa

l and

obj

ectiv

e ar

e no

t lik

ely

to b

e ac

hiev

ed in

fall

2013

. 52

.3%

of s

tude

nts

had

achi

eved

full

read

ines

s as

mea

sure

d by

the

com

posi

te s

core

. 38

.5%

of F

AR

MS

stud

ents

had

ach

ieve

d fu

ll re

adin

ess

leve

l in

the

dom

ain

of L

angu

age

and

Lite

racy

. 78

% o

f FA

RM

S st

uden

ts s

core

d in

pr

ofici

ent r

ange

on

DIB

ELS

in fa

ll 20

11.

Atte

ndan

ce w

as m

onito

red.

All

activ

ities

w

ere

deliv

ered

.

Con

tinue

d on

nex

t pag

e

Goa

lO

bjec

tive

Mile

ston

eA

chie

vem

ent

By

the

fall

of 2

013,

ent

erin

g ki

nder

gart

en

stud

ents

at S

outh

Pen

n El

emen

tary

w

ill h

ave

a co

mpo

site

sco

re o

f 80%

as

mea

sure

d by

the

Wor

k Sa

mpl

ing

Syst

em

scor

es.

By

the

fall

of 2

013,

65%

of a

ll en

teri

ng

kind

erga

rten

stu

dent

s at

Sou

th P

enn

Elem

enta

ry w

ho r

ecei

ve F

AR

MS

will

ac

hiev

e fu

ll re

adin

ess

in th

e do

mai

n of

So

cial

and

Em

otio

nal D

evel

opm

ent.

1. B

y th

e fa

ll of

201

3, 6

5% o

f ent

erin

g ki

nder

gart

en s

tude

nts

at S

outh

Pen

n El

emen

tary

who

rec

eive

Fre

e an

d R

educ

ed M

eals

will

ach

ieve

full

read

ines

s le

vel i

n th

e ar

ea o

f Soc

ial a

nd E

mot

iona

l D

evel

opm

ent a

s de

term

ined

by

the

WSS

in

dica

tors

. 2.

By

the

fall

of 2

013,

the

num

ber

of o

ffice

ref

erra

ls p

er m

onth

w

ill b

e le

ss th

an 3

% o

f the

tota

l sch

ool

popu

latio

n. T

his

data

will

be

colle

cted

an

d m

onito

red

mon

thly

.

Goa

l and

obj

ectiv

e at

ris

k fo

r no

t bei

ng

achi

eved

in fa

ll 20

13. 5

2.3%

of s

tude

nts

had

achi

eved

full

read

ines

s as

mea

sure

d by

the

com

posi

te s

core

. 52

.3%

of F

AR

MS

stud

ents

had

ach

ieve

d fu

ll re

adin

ess

leve

l in

the

dom

ain

of S

ocia

l and

Em

otio

nal

Dev

elop

men

t. T

he n

umbe

r of

offi

ce

refe

rral

s w

as 6

.3%

. Atte

ndan

ce w

as

mon

itore

d. A

ll ac

tiviti

es w

ere

deliv

ered

.

By

the

fall

of 2

013,

ent

erin

g ki

nder

gart

en

stud

ents

at S

outh

Pen

n El

emen

tary

w

ill h

ave

a co

mpo

site

sco

re o

f 80%

as

mea

sure

d by

the

Wor

k Sa

mpl

ing

Syst

em

scor

es.`

By

the

fall

of 2

013,

86%

of a

ll en

teri

ng

kind

erga

rten

stu

dent

s at

Sou

th P

enn

Elem

enta

ry w

ho r

ecei

ve F

AR

MS

will

ac

hiev

e fu

ll re

adin

ess

in th

e do

mai

n of

M

athe

mat

ical

Thi

nkin

g.

1. B

y th

e fa

ll of

201

3, 8

6% o

f ent

erin

g ki

nder

gart

en s

tude

nts

at S

outh

Pen

n El

emen

tary

who

rec

eive

Fre

e an

d R

educ

ed M

eals

(FA

RM

S) w

ill a

chie

ve fu

ll re

adin

ess

leve

l in

the

area

Mat

hem

atic

al

Thin

king

as

dete

rmin

ed b

y th

e W

SS

indi

cato

rs.

2. B

y th

e fa

ll of

201

3, 6

0%

of e

nter

ing

kind

erga

rten

stu

dent

s at

So

uth

Penn

Ele

men

tary

who

rec

eive

Fr

ee a

nd R

educ

ed M

eals

will

sco

re

in th

e pr

ofici

ent r

ange

in th

e D

IBEL

S as

sess

men

t.

Goa

l and

obj

ectiv

e at

ris

k of

not

bei

ng

achi

eved

in fa

ll 20

13.

52.3

% o

f stu

dent

s ha

d ac

hiev

ed fu

ll re

adin

ess

as m

easu

red

by th

e co

mpo

site

sco

re. 6

7.7%

of F

AR

MS

stud

ents

had

ach

ieve

d fu

ll re

adin

ess

leve

l in

the

dom

ain

of M

athe

mat

ical

Th

inki

ng. 4

0% o

f FA

RM

S st

uden

ts s

core

d in

pro

ficie

nt r

ange

on

DIB

ELS

in s

prin

g 20

13.

Tabl

e 2.

1 I

mpl

emen

tati

on P

lan

Con

tinue

d fr

om p

revi

ous

page

5

In this report, a broader spectrum of measures (see table 2.2) is used to measure program effectiveness. This includes the following elements: (1) marketing and outreach efforts (did the Judy Center meet expectations for program marketing and conduct outreach to other schools in the county?) (2) program enrollment and attendance (were enrollment and attendance expectations for child programs and family activities achieved?), (3) staff training, curriculum resources, and validation (were necessary staff training, program validation, and curriculum materials available as planned?), (4) partner satisfaction (how did partners rate collaboration success?), (5) teacher satisfaction (how did teachers in Pre-K and Kindergarten, view the Judy Center?), (6) parent satisfaction (how did parents view the Judy Center?), (7) child learning (how was school readiness improved according to information from pupil progress reports and other assessment data?), (9) Judy Center component standard ratings (how did parents, staff and partners view accomplishment of Judy Center goals), and (10) answers to special research questions posed in the continuation grant proposal (see table 2.3).

Table 2.2 Evaluation questions.

Issues Measurement

Marketing and outreach Public school outreach activities, Parent survey results

Children enrolled # children enrolled in Judy Center programs by area

Parent involvement #, type, and level of participation in parent workshops, Parent survey results

Staff professional development # and type training workshops attended

Program accreditation # programs validated

Student discipline # Referrals and attendance

Partner satisfaction Partner survey results

Teacher satisfaction Teacher survey results

Parent satisfaction Parent survey results

Child readiness and progress MMSR results, DIBELS assessments, MSA scores

Alignment with Judy Center Goals Teacher survey, Parent survey, MSDE Accreditation and site evaluation comments

Special research questions MMSR results and partner survey results

6

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

Table 2.3 Special research questions

Question

(1) How have community partnership changed and strengthened since the 10+ years that the Judy Center was introduced?

(2) How did the outcomes in all domains at John Humbird Elementary change during the years that the Judy Center operated there?

7

3.0 Enrollment, training, and validation

Programs housed at the Judy Center during FY 2013 served an unduplicated headcount of 657. The duplicated headcount was 729 compared to a duplicated count of 631 during FY 2012. Much of this growth can be attributed to the expansion of the Judy Center into the South Penn Elementary School in Cumberland’s South End. The unduplicated distribution of children by age over the last four years is shown in table 3.1 and the unduplicated distribution by race for Pre-K, Kindergarten, and after-school/before school programs in figure 3.1. Table 3.2 provides a breakdown of 2011-12 attendance by age and Judy Center Program. One hundred and thirty two pupils were enrolled in Kindergarten programs. Table 3.3 indicates that approximately 67 percent of Beall Elementary and South Penn kindergarten students participated in the Free and Reduced Price Meals (FARM) program and 14 percent were enrolled in Special Education.

Child enrollment racial demographics from available partners showed that minority enrollment was slightly lower than the service area—9.4% of children were minority versus 11.8% percent of the total population and 10.1 % of children aged four and younger reported in the 2010 U.S. Census. The Census estimate includes a large minority adult population in state and federal correctional institutions.

Figure 3.1 Enrollment by Race

3% 0%

1%

5%

Other (N=20)

Hispanic (N=3)

Asian (N=8)

Black (N=31)

White (N=598)

8

Table 3.1 Duplicated Enrollment of children by age.

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

Birth to 3 78 51 101 162

3-year old 70 67 71 111

4 year old 135 151 159 235

5 year old 115 120 160 149

Total 398 349 491 657

Table 3.2 Judy Center enrollment by age and program, 2012-13

Birth to 3 3 year old 4 year old 5 year old

Infant and Toddlers 107 35 36

YMCA Playgroup 11

Kids Korner Daycare 11 10 25 12

Little Tykes 13 9 12 5

WIC 19 8 6

Autism Class

Head Star 10 10

Pre-K 130

Multi-age 39 16

Kindergarten 132

Total 162 111 235 149

9

Figure 3.2 Child Daycare Attendance, 2002-2013

Table 3.3 Kindergarten enrollment by need*

# %

Free and Reduced Price Meals 89 67

English Language Learners 0 0

Special Education 19 14

* Students may participate in more than one program.

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

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013

Perc

enta

ge

Fig. 3.2 Child Daycare Attendance, 2002-2013

10

Figure 3.3 Health Screenings, 2004-2012

In an ongoing effort to improve parent-child connectedness and reinforce positive behaviors learned in school, the Judy Center continued to offer during school and after-school activities and parent workshops/trainings. Family training/workshops and events included a well-attended School Readiness Fair at the Country Club Mall in Cumberland and numerous holiday programs and activities. A record duplicated count of 1,511 was estimated to have attended. This is a 10 percent increase over the previous year record total of 1,406 attendance (see Figure 3.4). As in previous years, activities were announced in the Times-News newspaper, on the radio, in Judy Center monthly newsletters with activity calendars and/or flyers distributed to children and parents.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

# of

chi

ldre

n

Year

Figure 3.3 Health Screenings, 2004-2012

Dental

Vision

Hearing

Growth and Nutrition

Immunizations

Amblyopia

Blood Lead Testing

Mental Health

11

Judy Center staff and partners attended a number of professional development workshops, conferences and trainings during the year. Newly hired Judy Center staff, Special Education staff, childcare center staff and Head Start staff participated in MMSR training. Four kindergarten teachers (three from South Penn and one from Beall) attended the annual kindergarten conference in Baltimore. The Judy Center Coordinator attended several training sessions and workshops during the year, including an autism workshop, Maryland Leadership Academy for Early Childhood Advisory Councils, a Head Start Conference, and Transition training. Instructional assistants at the Judy Centers attended Center on the Social and Emotional Foundations for Early Learning (CSEFEL) training focused on promoting child social emotional development.

The Beall Elementary and South Penn Judy Center pre-k and kindergarten programs obtained re-validation by the MSDE in spring 2013. The Kids Korner daycare center obtained MSDE re-accreditation for its Beall Elementary childcare program in spring 2013. Head Start was re-accredited in 2010 and will be seeking MSDE re-accreditation at the end of this year. The new childcare partner for South Penn, Little Tykes Childcare, will seek to obtain accreditation by spring 2014.

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

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013

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

12

Continued on next page

4.0 Partner Surveys

Partner surveys were administered to the Judy Center partners in spring 2013. These partners are listed in Table 4.1 along with their principal roles in the Judy Center program.

Table 4.1 Allegany County Judy Center Partners/Friends (F) and Roles

Agency/Organization/Department Principal Role(s)

Allegany Co. Public Schools Education, Health, and Family Education Services; Case management; Adult Education

Special Education Department

Family Support Network

Family Literacy/GED programs

Pre-k classrooms

Kindergarten classrooms

Multiage classrooms

Preschool Special Education

Infant’s & Toddler’s Program

Nutritional services (provision of meals)

Pupil Services Office

Child Find Clinic

Allegany Co. Health Dept. Health Screening and Services

Nursing Services

Dental Screenings

Fetal and Infant Mortality Board

Mental Health Dept.

HRDC, Inc.

Head Start Early Childhood Education

13

continued from previous page

Table 4.1 Allegany County Judy Center Partners/Friends (F) and Roles



Frostburg State University Student interns and tutoring

Education Department

Psychology Department

Foreign Language Department

Allegany College of Maryland (F) Student classroom volunteers

Department of Social Services Parenting Education

Family Preservation Program

YMCA – Family Center Child and Family Activities

WIC Child Nutrition

Apples for Children Personnel Training

Md. Cooperative Extension Nutrition Training Support

Allegany Co. Public Libraries Child and Family Literacy

Family Junction Parenting Programs

Kids Korner Childcare Childcare and Family

14

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


Little Tykes Childcare Childcare

Child Care Providers Association Child Referrals

Lion’s Club (F) Vision screenings

Allegany County Sheriff’s Department Truancy Enforcement

The survey instrument was the same as ones administered in previous years and can be found in the Appendix of previous reports (e.g., Rephann 2011). It included questions about partners’ level of participation in the Judy Center, collaboration success, grant achievement, Center performance on selected features that align with the Judy Center component standards, and satisfaction with the Judy Center. A total of eleven out of nineteen partners sent surveys responded to this year’s survey.

The first two tables indicate that the Judy Center partners continue to maintain good working relationships. Table 4.1 shows that partners reported being as active as previous years, although one member was not active. As in previous years, all of the partners rated collaboration success highly (see table 4.2). All partners agreed (see table 4.3) that the Judy Center had become more visible in the community, was implementing strategies described in the grant, and was realizing positive results. They indicated in open-ended comments that they were prepared to offer even more cooperation and additional services including training to instruct youth mental health first aid, nutrition and food budgeting sessions, training on the Search Institute’s 40 Developmental Assets, and workshops to parents who have children with disabilities.

Table 4.2 Activity levels of partners, percentage of partners (11 respondents in 2012-13).

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

Very Active 40 14 64 55

Somewhat active 50 86 27 27

Not very Active 10 0 9 9

Inactive 0 0 0 9

15

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

09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13

The composition of the Steering Committee members is appropriate for making Judy Center decisions.

100 100 100 100

The Judy Center staff communicated openly and clearly during meetings.

100 100 100 100

The Judy Center staff communicated openly and clearly between meetings.

100 100 100 100

Member of the Judy Center staff established informal communication networks (e-mail communication, phone calls, etc.)

100 100 100 100

Members of the Judy Center staff have relationships built on trust and mutual respect

100 100 100 100

I understand the goals and objectives of the Judy Center project

100 100 100 100

I understand my roles and responsibilities as a member of this project

100 100 100 100

The Judy Center team has clear and effective decision making procedures.

100 100 100 100

Table 4.4 Goal success, percentage of partners (11 respondents in 2012-13).

09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13

Community awareness of the Judy Center has increased in the past year.

100 100 100 100

Resources for this project were adequate to meet objectives 100 100 100 91

The strategies of this grant have been implemented. 100 100 100 100

The strategies of this grant are demonstrating positive outcomes.

100 100 100 100

Enough is being done to help families with their needs. NA NA NA 60

Enough is being done to help children be successful in school. NA NA NA 55

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

16

Table 4.5 Performance area ratings, percentage of partners (4=Excellent, 3=Good, 2=Minimal, 1=Inadequate, 0=NA/Don’t Know) (11 respondents in 2012-13).

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

a. Child care before or after school care 55 27 0 0 18

b. Array of child and family support services on site 55 36 0 0 9

c.Array of child services for all ages (e.g., infants and toddlers, pre-k, multi-age, kindergarten)

63 18 0 0 18

d. Free summer camp for children 82 0 0 0 18

e. Screening for disabilities 73 9 0 0 18

f. Provision of services for children with disabilities 73 9 0 0 18

g.Health services (e.g., Dental assessment, vision/hearing screening)

82 9 0 0 9

h. Friendliness/helpfulness of staff 82 9 0 0 9

i.Activities for parents and families (e.g., field trips, family literacy nights, infant & toddler playgroups)

82 9 0 0 9

j.Education programs for families (e.g., parenting workshops, GED classes)

82 18 0 0 0

k.Information provided by Judy Center about upcoming activities

73 18 0 0 9

l. Food and nutrition assistance (e.g., WIC) 73 9 0 0 18

Table 4.5 shows partner satisfaction compared to the previous three. All of the partners expressed that they were “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with the Center. Two of eight partners, however, indicated in a separate survey question that involvement with the Judy Center had not been cost effective.

Table 4.6 Partner satisfaction with Judy Center, percentage of partners 11 respondents in 2012-13).

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

Very Satisfied 70 86 82 82

Satisfied 30 14 18 18

Somewhat Satisfied 0 0 0 0

Somewhat Dissatisfied 0 0 0 0

Not Satisfied at All 0 0 0 0

17

5.0 Teacher Surveys

Teacher surveys used to obtain feedback from staff in kindergarten/pre-school. The survey is similar to those used in previous years and is included in those reports. It asks about teacher background, satisfaction with school resources and staff and parent involvement, Center performance on Judy Center component standard areas, and overall satisfaction with the Center. Eleven of the 12 surveyed teachers at South Penn and Beall Elementary responded. As table 5.1 shows this year’s teacher pool contains two relatively new teachers. The others have substantial prior teaching experience.

Table 5.1 Years teaching, percentage of teachers (11 respondents).

1-2 18

3-5 0

5-10 18

11-15 18

16 or more 45

Table 5.2 shows that pre-k teachers are generally satisfied with resources, support and collaboration, professional development opportunities, and parental involvement. However, the lowest relative rating was obtained for the category of professional development opportunities with only fifty-five percent being very satisfied. Table 5.3 shows that many categories received “Don’t know” ratings, including child care, child and family support services, and array of child services. With the extension of the Judy Center to the South Penn Elementary site, some of these services may not yet be fully available. Table 5.4 indicates that teachers perceived resources at the Judy Center to excellent on average. Table 5.5 shows that all teachers believe that the families are either very satisfied or “satisfied” with the Judy Center.

Table 5.2 Pre-K Teacher satisfaction, percentage of teachers (5=VerySatisfied,3=SomewhatSatisfied,1=NotSatisfied)(11respondents).

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

Quality of classroom equipment 73 27 0 0 0

Judy Center support 82 9 9 0 0

Professional development opportunities 55 27 9 9 0

Collaboration with other teachers 64 27 9 0 0

Collaboration with early childhood agencies 70 30 0 0 0

Level of parental involvement in children’s education 91 9 0 0 0

18

Table 5.3 Performance area ratings, percentage of teachers (4=Excellent, 3=Good, 2=Minimal, 1=Inadequate, 0=NA/Don’t Know) (11 respondents).

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

a. Support from Judy Center staff 100 0 0 0

b. Behavioral support 91 9 0 0 0

c. Child care before or after day 60 10 0 0 30

d. Family case management (lunch, breakfast) 82 9 9 9 0

e. Array of child and family support services on site 73 0 0 0 27

f.Array of child services for all ages (e.g., infants and toddlers, pre-k, kindergarten)

73 9 0 0 18

g. Screening for disabilities 82 18 0 0 0

h. Provision of services for children with disabilities 100 0 0 0 0

i. Providing a variety of field trip experiences 100 0 0 0 0

j.Health services (e.g., immunizations, dental assessment, vision/hearing screening)

100 0 0 0 0

k. Friendliness/helpfulness of staff and teachers 90 10 0 0 0

l. Education programs for families 100 0 0 0 0

m. Progress reports and conferences 90 10 0 0 0

n. Judy Center newsletter 100 0 0 0 0

o. Information about upcoming activities 100 0 0 0 0

19

Table 5.4 Adequacy of materials at Judy Center (4=Excellent, 3=Good, 2=Minimal, 1=Inadequate, 0=NA/Don’t Know) (11 respondents).

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

a. Activities/materials for learning art 100 0 0 0 0

b. Activities/materials for learning music 88 12 0 0 0

c. Activities/materials for learning PE 100 0 0 0 0

d. Activities/materials for learning language/reading/writing 100 0 0 0 0

e. Activities/materials for learning nature/science 88 12 0 0 0

f. Activities/materials for learning math 100 0 0 0 0

g. Activities/equipment for learning to use computers 71 29 0 0 0

h. Materials for learning and play 100 0 0 0 0

i. Activities for parents and families 100 0 0 0 0

Table 5.5 Feeling of families served by Judy Center, percentage of teachers (N=11).

2008-9 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

Very Satisfied 57 67 38 77 73

Satisfied 43 33 50 23 27

Somewhat Satisfied 0 0 12 0 0

Somewhat Dissatisfied 0 0 0 0 0

Not Satisfied at All 0 0 0 0 0

Don’t Know 0 0 0 0 0

20

6.0 Parent Surveys

Two parent surveys were administered during the school year. The survey instruments were similar to previous years and can be found in previous year reports. The fall survey collected information on family resources and attitudes for use in designing curriculum improvements and outside activities for the school year. The spring survey collected information on parent satisfaction with various features of the Judy Center, parental assessments of child development during the school year, and information on family resources and attitudes.

Table 6.1 shows the characteristics of Beall Elementary Judy Center parent respondents to the fall survey based on the 92 respondents (out of 157 total parents for a response rate of 59 percent). The demographics of respondents are similar in some respects to previous years, but were older, more educated and more likely to have a full time job than last year. Fifty-five percent of the responding parents is thirty years or older and ninety percent is female. Approximately eighty percent work (either full or part-time), a much higher percentage than last year. Sixty-nine percent is married. Approximately three-quarters has at least some college and half are homeowners. The typical Judy Center survey respondent has a socioeconomic level higher than the average Allegany County resident.

Most parents (79%) have only one child enrolled in the Center. A similar percentage of survey respondents reported having children with special needs as in previous years (27%). Twenty-four percent of parents reported having another child enrolled at the Judy Center in the past.

Table 6.1 Respondent characteristics, percentage of parents, Fall 2012 (92 respondents).

Age # %

15-19 1 1

20-24 14 15

25-29 26 28

30-34 17 18

35-39 19 21

40+ 15 16

Total 92 100.0

Gender # %

Male 9 10

Female 82 90


21

Employment Status %

Employed full-time 56

Employed Part-time 22

Not Employed and seeking job 5

Not Employed and not seeking job 1

Homemaker 8

Student/business owner 8

Marital Status %

Married 69

Single 24

Divorced 5

Widowed/Widower 1

Educational level

Some high school 3

High school diploma 19

GED 2

Some College 26

Associates Degree 21

Bachelor’s degree or higher 29

Own or rent home

Own 70

Rent 23

Live with relatives 7




22

Number of children

One 79

Two 21

Special needs

Yes 27

No 73

Parents were surveyed about the availability of learning support materials in the household and parental participation in learning activities (see table 6.2). A similar percentage to previous years reported having books, magazines, and television. A slightly higher percentage reported a computer.

Nearly all parents reported “frequently” praising their children for doing well and nearly all sit and talk with their children about their day. Nine in ten reported eating dinner together as a family (see table 6.3). Eight in ten in ten played with toys or played games with their children and three quarters read to their children. Six in ten parents “frequently” visited a playground, park, or went on a picnic with their children. A slightly higher percentage of parents reported attending an event hosted by a community or religious group or visiting a public library or museum with their child than last year. Table 6.2 Learning/reading materials at home, percentage of parents, Fall 2006-2012 (92 respondents in 2012)

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Children’s books 100 100 96 100 98

Magazines for children 55 48 42 48 58

Adult books 79 75 70 82 76

Newspapers 67 56 49 53 50

Television 97 92 89 93 92

Home computer 79 80 80 86 86

Computer with Internet Access 78 77 81 80 80



23

Table 6.3 Activities with children, percentage of parents, Fall 2012 (92 respondents).

Frequently Sometimes Rarely Never NA

Read a story 84 16 0 0 0

Played with toys or played games. 81 19 1 0 0

Praised your child for doing well. 97 3 0 0 0

Visited public library or museum. 17 42 33 8 0

Visited a playground, park, or went on a picnic

58 41 1 0 0

Eat a meal together as a family 93 6 1 0 0

Attended an event hosted by a community or religious group

35 38 23 3 0

Sit and talk to your child about his/her day

96 4 0 0 0

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

Table 6.4 Satisfaction with Judy Center services, percentage of parents, Spring 2006-Spring 2013 (64 respondents).

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Very Satisfied 72 78 87 79 70 76

Satisfied 23 19 9 15 20 21

Somewhat Satisfied 4 0 1 3 1 0

Somewhat Dissatisfied 0 0 0 0 0 0

Not Satisfied at All 2 0 0 0 0 0

Don’t know/Confused or uniformed about the services provided

0 0 0 1 1 2

Don’t know/No feeling about the center 0 3 0 3 8 2

24

Table 6.5 Satisfaction with Judy Center services by site, percentage of parents, Spring 2013 (64 respondents)

Beall South Penn Total

Very Satisfied 85 61 76

Satisfied 13 35 21

Somewhat Satisfied 0 0 0

Somewhat Dissatisfied 0 0 0

Not Satisfied at All 0 0 0

Don’t know/Confused or uniformed about the services provided

0 4 2

Don’t know/No feeling about the center 2 0 2

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

Figure 6.1 Parent Satisfaction, 2002-2013

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Perc

entag

e

Figure 6.1 Parent Satisfaction, 2002-2013

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

25

Table 6.6 Satisfaction with Judy Center in performance areas, percentage of parents (E=Excellent, G=Good, M=Minimal, I=Inadequate, A=Not applicable/Not available), Spring 2013, Beall Elementary (41 respondents).

(E) (G) (M) (I) (NA)

Child care before or after day 54 0 0 3 43

Judy Center summer camp 39 3 3 0 56

Family case management 31 6 3 0 60

Improving child’s behavior/attendance 50 24 5 0 21

Array of child and family support services on site 46 10 3 0 41

Array of child services for 0-5 year old 78 19 0 0 3

Screening for disabilities 61 25 0 0 14

Provision of services for children with disabilities 39 14 0 0 47

Health services 81 16 0 0 3

Friendliness/helpfulness of JC staff 85 15 0 0 0

Friendliness/helpfulness of teachers 87 13 0 0 0

Supervision of children/discipline 90 10 0 0 0

Materials for learning and play 85 13 0 0 3

Activities for learning art 82 15 0 0 3

Activities for learning music 79 18 0 0 3

Activities for learning language/ reading/writing 79 18 0 0 3

Activities for learning nature/science 79 18 0 0 3

Activities for learning math 77 20 0 0 3

Activities for learning computers 72 15 5 0 8

Activities for physical activities 79 18 0 0 3

Progress reports and follow-up conferences 85 15 0 0 0

Activities for parents and families 72 26 3 0 0

Education programs for families 64 18 0 0 18

Information provided by Center about upcoming activities 79 18 0 0 3

Judy Center newsletter 77 18 3 0 3

Food and nutrition assistance 59 8 0 0 33

26

Table 6.7 Satisfaction with Judy Center in performance areas, percentage of parents (E=Excellent, G=Good, M=Minimal, I=Inadequate, A=Not applicable/Not available), Spring 2013, South Penn Elementary (23 respondents).

(E) (G) (M) (I) (NA)

Family case management 35 30 5 0 30

Behavior management 45 35 0 0 20

Provision of services for children with disabilities 35 30 0 0 35

Health services 65 30 0 0 5

Friendliness/helpfulness of staff and teachers 75 25 0 0 0

Supervision of children/discipline 50 30 0 0 20

Materials for learning and play 45 45 0 0 10

Activities for parents and families 75 25 0 0 0

Education programs for families 60 35 0 0 5

Information provided by Center about upcoming activities 75 25 0 0 0

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

27

Table 6.8 Parent participation in Judy Center activities, percentage of parents, Spring 2013, (41 Beall Respondents and 23 South Penn Respondents).

Frequently Sometimes Rarely Never NA

Beall Elementary Site

Came to do parent/child activity 24 45 18 11 3

Attended JC after-school event or field trip

5 34 34 26 0

Attended parent-teacher conference 53 24 11 8 5

Read a JC flyer/newsletter 84 13 0 3 0

South Penn Site

Volunteered in child’s classroom 10 15 10 55 10

Attended the School Readiness Fair 5 5 10 60 20

Attended parent-teacher conference 65 5 10 15 5

Read a JC flyer/newsletter 70 25 5 0 0

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

28

Table 6.9 Improvement in child learning and habits because of the Judy Center, Spring 2013, (41 Beall Respondents and 23 South Penn Respondents).

Much A little Not at All NA

Beall Elementary Site

Counting numbers 92 3 0 5

Recognizing letters of the alphabet 89 5 0 5

Writing/Drawing 82 13 0 5

Speaking, articulation, vocabulary 84 5 3 7

Eating nutritious and healthy meals 61 21 5 13

Behavior 61 32 0 8

Exercising 63 26 3 8

Washing hands before meals and after using toilet 76 16 3 5

Brushing teeth 79 5 5 10

Wanting to read books and be read to 82 8 3 8

South Penn Elementary Site

Counting numbers 77 23 0 0

Recognizing letters of the alphabet 82 18 0 0

Writing/Drawing 64 32 4 0

Speaking and articulation 77 23 0 0

Vocabulary 86 14 0 0

Asking to read to 64 32 4 0

Eating nutritious/health meals 50 45 0 5

Behavior/following routines 64 35 0 0

29

7.0 Child Readiness Progress

Evidence on achievement towards milestones outlined in the Judy Center continuing grant application were reported in section 2. These milestones were based on separating Beall Elementary and South Penn Elementary site results. This section examines time trend readiness progress for the schools, domains, and student subcategories such as FARMS, Special Education, and students with previous Judy Center experience.

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

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

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

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

Judy Center--All

Judy Center--FARM

Judy Center--SPED

Maryland--All

Maryland--FARM

Maryland--SPED

Allegany--All

Allegany--FARM

Allegany--SPED

30

Figure 7.2 Kindergarten Readiness by Domain for All Students, 2004-2012

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Figure 7.2 Kindergarten Readiness by Domain for All Students, 2004-2012

Social and Personal

Language and Literacy

Mathematical Thinking

Scientific Thinking

Social Studies

The Arts

Physical Development

Composite

Figure 7.3 Kindergarten Readiness by Domain by Judy Center School, 2012

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Social and Personal

Languageand Literacy


Scientific Thinking

SocialStudies

The Arts Physical Development

Composite

Figure 7.3 Kindergarten Readiness by Domain by Judy Center School, 2012

South Penn Beall All

31

South Penn Elementary was added as a new Judy Center site in 2012. Therefore, the students did not have exposure to the same array of early childhood services as Beall Elementary during earlier developmental years. Indeed, many pupils at Beall Elementary have had 3 years of exposure to Judy Center services. Therefore, it is not surprising that they lagged Beall Elementary students in readiness levels. These readiness lags (see Figure 7.3) extended to every domain. These results support the selection of South Penn as a new site and may argue in favor of activities that address each of the domains instead of a targeted few.

Figure 7.4 indicates that Beall Elementary and South Penn pupils combined lagged their peers in the State and County in terms of overall readiness. Allegany County Judy Center readiness levels started out at a much higher level when it covered only one school (Beall Elementary) but decreased substantially when it extended coverage to the South Penn Elementary site. Also, 93.3 percent of students with prior Judy Center experience enrolled at Beall Elementary were at full readiness in 2013, which is up from the previous year level of 90 percent. As in previous years FARMS and Special education readiness lagged behind other students (See figures 7.1 and 7.5).

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

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

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

Maryland

Allegany

Beall Elementary

John Humbird

South Penn

Westernport

All Judy Center

Prior JC Experience

32

Figure 7.5 Kindergarten Readiness by Domain, All, FARM, and Special Education, 2012

0 20 40 60 80 100

Social and Personal



Scientific Thinking

Social Studies

The Arts


Composite

Percentage

Figure 7.5 Kindergarten Readiness by Domain, All, FARM, and Special Education, 2012

All FARM Special Ed.

Figure 7.6 Kindergarten Scores by Domain for Fall 2012 (131 Students) and Spring 2013 (125 Students)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Social and Personal



Scientific Thinking

Social Studies

The Arts


Composite

Figure 7.6 Kindergarten Scores by Domain for Fall 2012 (131 Students) and Spring 2013 (125 Students)

Fall Spring

33

Figure 7.6 show that child-learning progress occurred during the 2012-2013 school year. Although only 72.5 percent of students entered at full-readiness in the fall, ninety-four percent exited at full readiness in the spring as measured by the composite score. This exit readiness level was actually higher than the ninety-two percent full readiness achieved with last year’s Judy Center cohort focused on Beall Elementary and John Humbird Elementary. Progress was charted in every single domain with the most notable progress in Language and Literacy, which increased from 57.25 percent readiness to 90.4 percent readiness. Ninety-five percent of Beall Elementary students were fully ready by spring 2013 as measured by the composite score compared to ninety-two percent of South Penn Elementary students.

Some additional evidence of the effectiveness of the Judy Center is provided by MSA reading and math proficiency (see Figure 7.7). There were 98 students third graders at Allegany County Schools who were enrolled in Judy Center pre-kindergarten during the 2009-10 school year. Approximately 88 percent achieved proficiency in reading and 69 percent achieved proficiency in 2013. Forty-three of these students were enrolled at Beall Elementary for third grade and achieved proficiency levels of 86 percent for reading and 77 percent for math. These compare to proficiency rates of 94 percent and 89 percent in reading and math respectively for 19 third grade Beall students with no prior Judy Center experience. The Judy Center student proficiency rates were lower than what Beall Elementary students in third grade with Judy Center realized in 2012: 92 percent for reading and 81 percent for math. They were also lower than all Allegany County third graders (85 percent for reading and 82 percent for math) and the State of Maryland (83 percent for reading and 82 percent for math) in 2013.

Figure 7.7 Third Grade MSA Proficiency, Maryland, Allegany County, and Judy Center

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

Reading Math

Perc

ent P

rofic

ient

Figure 7.7 Third Grade MSA Proficiency, Maryland,Allegany County, and Judy Center

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

8.0 Special Research Questions

As part of the 2012-13 Judy Center continuation grant application, the Allegany County Board of Education posed two questions about child progress during the year:

v How have community partnership changed and strengthened since the 10+ years that the Judy Center was introduced?

Judy Center partnerships have been an integral part of the Allegany County Judy Center since its beginning. They have participated in Steering Committee meetings, been involved in case management coordination, provided non-duplicative services for children and parents, shared information in the monthly Judy Center newsletter, delivered training to parents and teachers, and provided activities for parents and children. The number of partners has incrementally expanded from 10 in 2002-2003 to 18 in the most recent year. Moreover, activities and trainings have expanded in number, size, and scope. For instance, the Judy Center initiated a School Readiness Fair with its partners and community agencies in 2010. This hugely successful event held at the Country Club Mall in LaVale has attracted approximately 500 parents and children each year and been well received by the community and partnering agencies and organizations. It has also help strengthened cooperation among the participating agencies and organization in other endeavors.

34

Figure 8.1 Partner Satisfication, 2003-2013

3.8

4

4.2

4.4

4.6

4.8

5

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Aver

age S

atisfa

ction

Fiscal Year

Figure 8.1 Partner Satisfication, 2003-2013

35

Figures 8.1 and 8.2 shows partner average satisfaction and self-reported activities levels throughout the period of the Allegany County Judy Center’s existence as reported in Partner Surveys since 2002-2003 (2003-2004 is interpolated because the survey questions were not asked that year). The graph shows satisfaction on a five point scale (5=Very satisfied; 4=Satisfied; 3=Somewhat satisfied; 2=Somewhat dissatisfied; 1=Not satisfied). These results show that average partner satisfaction with the Judy Centers rose markedly after the first year and has remained at a high level close to “very satisfied.” Figure 8.2 shows that partner activity levels also have been high on a four point scale (4=Very active; 3=Somewhat active; 2=Not very active; 1=Inactive). The average rating over time has been midway between “very active” and “somewhat active.”

v How did the outcomes in all domains at John Humbird Elementary change during the years that the Judy Center operated there?

John Humbird Elementary pupils showed progress on composite readiness during most years that the Judy Center was present. Readiness in Fall 2007 (prior to the time Judy Center resources could have affected in readiness scores) was 69.1 percent. This increased to 84.8 percent in 2008 before falling back to 66 percent in 2009. After that, improvement was made from 75 percent readiness in 2010 to 85 percent readiness in 2011 and 82 percent in 2012. During the entire period, the average readiness level was 78.6 percent compared to the pre-test year of 69.1 in 2007, suggesting improved readiness.

Figure 8.2 Partner Activity Level, 2004-2013

2

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Aver

age A

ctivit

y Lev

el

Fiscal Year

Figure 8.2 Partner Activity Level, 2004-2013

36

9.0 Changes Introduced

The Judy Center will maintain most of the programming and activities that were used during the fiscal year 13 funding cycle. For both sites, goals and objectives will be for the same domains of Language and Literacy, Social and Emotional Development. Goals and objectives are not included for Mathematical Thinking for South Penn as was done in FY 2013. Among the new or expanded activities to be conducted during the FY 2014 year are the following:

v Both Judy Center schools will be piloting the new WSS in the next school year.

v APPLES for Children will train people in Allegany County to facilitate a “Parent Café” program and will create a resource library at the Kids Korner, Mt. Ridge site

v The JC will purchase 5 ASQ (Ages & Stages Questionnaire) kits that will be used by family childcare providers after they are trained by APPLES for Children

v Field trips will be taken to multiple locations, including Rocky Gap, Brookdale Farms, Hixson Farms, Cumberland Theatre, Cumberland Zoo, Wagner’s Sugar Camp, New Germany State Park, Glendenning Park

v The South Penn Judy Center will send 4 childcare providers to attend the NAEYC Conference

v A speech therapist will come into the South Penn JC classrooms 2 ½ days/week and work with students who have speech issues but who do not qualify for services

37

10.0 Summary and conclusions

The latest funding cycle (FY 2013) for the Beall Elementary Judy Center continued the model and coverage developed during previous three years, including activities designed to enhance child readiness for FARMS students. The domains of focus decreased from three (social and personal development, language and literacy, and mathematical thinking) to two for South Penn Elementary (social and personal development and language and literacy). The domains remained the same for Beall Elementary (social and personal development and language and literacy).

Kindergarten child readiness levels decreased from last year, largely because of the addition of a new site at South Penn Elementary where students did not have prior exposure to the full array of Judy Center services. Students at the Beall Elementary site showed a slight drop in readiness levels from the previous year. However, students with prior Judy Center experience showed high readiness levels according to the fall MMSR. These gains were not evident in the third grade--third grade students who had previous Judy Center experience did not show higher performance on either the reading or the math portion of the MSA than other students. The lag was particularly large for the math portion. These results suggest that the area of mathematical thinking should be the focus of additional focus.

Other measured indicators show similar progress. Parent participation levels in Judy Center and partner sponsored activities continued to increase during the 2013-14 school year by over 10 percent from the previous year. Survey results are also very positive. Partner surveys indicate a relatively high degree of participation and cooperation. Staff and parent surveys continue to show a strong satisfaction. Teachers continue to agree that the amount of resources and cooperation available were good and that teachers were satisfied with the Judy Center. Parents recognized improvements in their children’s learning and development during the year.

Progress toward goals and objectives in the Judy Center continuing grant application was mixed. The goals and objectives in the social and personal and language and literacy domains for Beall Elementary are close to being met. However, the domains for FARMS children lag slightly the established milestones. The goals and objectives for the composite score, language and literacy, social and personal and mathematical thinking domains for South Penn lagged substantially the milestones established. However, the site is new. Moreover, students made rapid progress during the school year and had exceeded milestones by the conclusion of the year.

38

REFERENCES

Allegany County Board of Education. 2013. Continuation Grant Application for Judith P. Hoyer Early Child Care and Education Center Grants (Judy Centers). (June 2013)

Allegany County Board of Education. 2012. Continuation Grant Application for Judith P. Hoyer Early Child Care and Education Center Grants (Judy Centers). (June 2012)

Rephann, Terance. 2011. Allegany County Judy Center Evaluation: July 2010-June 2011.

Rephann, Terance. 2012. Allegany County Judy Center Evaluation: July 2011-June 2012.

Maryland State Department of Education. 2012. Children Entering School Ready to Learn: School Readiness Information. Baltimore: MSDE.

Maryland State Department of Education. 2012. Maryland Report Card. http://www.mdreportcard.org

A.1 Fall Parent Survey Comments on Additional Needs

40

42

Afternoon Pre-K as well as morning.

Information about childcare after school when needed.

My son with a small used computer of his own.

Social skills play group.

To help me find a dentist that can fix [My son’s] cavities in Oakland because he will have to be put to sleep. He does have dental insurance.

Weekly reports on the kids.

A.2 Spring Parent Survey

44

46

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

BEALL ELEMENTARY

Speech

She learns languages

Provided a great learning environment

Given with options we could use if needed

Has helped him to interact with other children

He has gained so much in all areas. I am mostly happy with his thirst for learning

Great peer interaction

My daughter loves multiage. It has helped her open up so much.

Camp and Kids Korner were amazing in shaping [my child]. The encouragement and support have been outstanding.

He has become more sociable.

He loves going to school and being ther.

The multi-age class has been wonderful getting my child ready for school.

Socialization--interaction with other kids/new people

Judy Center has helped my daughter to be able to speak and do things that she didn’t at the beginning of the year.

[My child] has really opened up. She’s more confidant with herself. I’m very pleased. Speech

School has helped her with remembering certain things as well as teaching her the seasons, months, alphabet, etc.

Becoming more social. Learned a lot. Made neat projects.

My son’s behavior has changed 90% since he’s started school.

Having the time to work and clean up the house is such a gift

Provide a safe environment while parents are working

The Judy Center helped me personally by helping me afford childcare while getting my degree.

Great with daycare

Newsletter in getting info.

47

Our communication skills between us have improved very much.

Different ways to teach her such as songs or rhymes.

Helped provide safe care before and after school.

On how to help with his behavior.

Know more information that’s going on in school

Just knowing they are there to help me with anything is a nice feeling! And they accepted her into this program! Thank you!

Giving with the experiences

All 3 of my children have gone through a Judy Center program and done school.

Able to provide a daycare (Kids Korner) for working parents before and after school hours.

Child care

Understanding school requirements and policy keeping me informed of school activities and changes. Activities outside of school ties.

With my son’s ADHD

SOUTH PENN

Helped to want to go to school and learn, and be happy with school.

Reading books together.

Helped me maintaining routine but child still has some problems at home but have taken to Dr. regarding situation. The Center also helped with my child eating better at home.

With school field trips and with X-mas thank you so much for the help with holiday.

The summer camp is a very good opportunity for my child. It is a full day. He learns and has supervised play and the field trips are fantastic!

Reading, writing, social skills.

It seems that he has furthered his understanding somewhat and has learned a little more since the beginning of this school year. I think that a little bit came from the activities.

I didn’t know they offered all that.

It has helped him learn his alphabet, learning it and writing it.

The activities they sponsor.

Provided for fun learning activities.

Behavior issues.

48

My son’s disabilities at school IEP.

Made us feel involved with the children and want to come to programs at school

Helpful in many ways. Reading the flyers sent home gives me good teaching hints.

The Judy Center has helped me and other family members come up with better activities to do with my child.

I should take advantage of more the Judy Center has to offer.

His behavior.

The activities have helped by giving us fun things to do as a family. Things that the children enjoy doing is always a plus also.

Dealing productively with behavior issues with child and stress from it.

For my son at school.

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

I would like to see a lot of computer work. It’s good for the future.

Camp for older kids!

More family nights. More field trips. Fundraisers.

More field trips

The field trips were great! Always good to visit places around town when possible.

Support groups on site.

Allegany County (MD) Judy Center Report 2013

Documents

judy center enrollment

judy center evaluation

evaluation questions

kindergarten enrollment

enrollment of children

special research questions

years training

partner surveys