Allegany County Judy Center Evaluation, 2004-2005

Judy Center Evaluation,
July 2004-June 2005
eQuotient, Inc.
803 Trost Avenue
Cumberland, MD 21502
http://www.equotient.net
e-mail: equinfo@equotient.net
July 31, 2005
Page
Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .i
• 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 ..............................................................2
• 3.0 Enrollment, Training, and Validation ................................11
• 4.0 Partner Surveys....................................................................14
• 5.0 Teacher Surveys ...................................................................17
• 6.0 Parent Surveys .....................................................................21
• 7.0 Child Readiness....................................................................37
• 8.0 Special Research Questions ................................................50
• 9.0 Changes Introduced.............................................................51
• 10.0 Summary and Conclusions .................................................53
• Appendices.....................................................................................55
Page i
Page
List of Tables
Table 2.1 Implementation plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-8
Table 2.2 Evaluation questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
Table 2.3 Special research questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
Table 3.1 Enrollment of children by age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
Table 4.1 Activity levels of partners, percentage of partners . . . . . . . . . . .14
Table 4.2 Collaboration success, percentage of partners agreeing . . . . . . .15
Table 4.3 Goal success, percentage of partners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
Table 4.4 Partner satisfaction with Judy Center, percentage of partners . . . . . .16
Table 5.1 Years teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
Table 5.2 Teacher satisfaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
Table 5.3 Performance area ratings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
Table 5.4 Feeling of families served by Judy Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20
Table 6.1 Respondent characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22-23
Table 6.2 Programs used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24-25
Table 6.3 Learning/reading materials at home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26
Table 6.4 Activities with children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26
Table 6.5 Program interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27
Table 6.6 Satisfaction with Judy Center Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28
Table 6.7 Satisfaction with Judy Center in performance areas . . . . . . .29-30
Table 6.8 Parent participation in Judy Center activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36
Page ii
Page
List of Figures
Figure 2.1 Website page visits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
Figure 3.1 Enrollment by race . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
Figure 3.2 Child daycare attendance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
Figure 6.1 Parent satisfaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28
Figure 6.2 Top 10 performance areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30
Figure 6.3 Bottom 10 performance areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31
Figure 7.1 Kindergarten readiness by domain, 2004-05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38
Figure 7.2 Kindergarten readiness by domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39
Figure 7.3 FARMS readiness by domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40
Figure 7.4 Special Education readiness by domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41
Figure 7.5 Kindergarten readiness, Judy Center, County, and State . . . . .42
Figure 7.6 Kindergarten readiness by domain,
Judy Center, County, and State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43
Figure 7.7 Period 4 FARMS readiness by domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44
Figure 7.8 Period 4 Special Education readiness by domain . . . . . . . . . . .45
Figure 7.9 Pre-Kindergarten readiness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46
Figure 7.10 Head Start observation study results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47
Figure 7.11 4th grade MSA proficiency levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48
Figure 7.12 3rd grade MSA proficiency levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49
Appendices
A.1 Partner Survey Instrument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55
A.2 Partner Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57
A.3 Pre-K/Kindergarten Staff Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61
A.4 First-Grade Staff Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63
A.5 Fall Parent Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65
A.6 Spring Parent Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67
A.7 Fall Parent Survey Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69
A.8 Spring Parent Survey Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73
Page iii
1.0 Review of Third Year of Program
The Beall Elementary Judy Center’s third year continued the model built during the 2000-2002 period which
included pre-k (multi-age and 4-year old), kindergarten classes and on-site services delivered by a variety of
local partners. Several new programs were introduced to improve child readiness for certain categories of
students (special needs and FARMS) that showed achievement gaps in previous years (eQuotient, Inc. 2004).
The year saw curriculum improvements, two new partners, new training activities, new family activities, and
further refinement of evaluation efforts. New initiatives included an additional multi-age class, a new pri-
vate provider of daycare services (Kids Korner), staff training efforts that included the Ruby Payne
Framework for Understanding Poverty, new partners (e.g., YMCA Parent Power program), and expanded
parental and family after school activities. These characteristics are described further in the third year eval-
uation report (eQuotient, Inc. 2004). The following findings from the third year report are notable:
• A greater share of children with educational need were admitted to the Center during
the year than the previous year. Moreover, program data show that special education
referrals continued to decline.
• The goals and objectives listed in the grant application were met. Kindergarten students
attained the readiness level milestones for the targeted domains. The overall goal was
assisted by the performance of subcategories of students (FARMS and Special Needs)
who achieved readiness level milestones for the same targeted domains.
• 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. A before/after study of parental responses shows that fami-
ly learning resources at home and family activities were strengthened during the year.
• The Judy Center ratcheted up its family programming by offering a variety of parent
training and education opportunities, distributing free reading resources for families,
and expanding the family reading night program. Marketing of these offerings was
improved also.
• The Judy Center contracted with a private child care provider called Kids Korner
Childcare Center to offer child care services on site during the year. Enrollment in
this new Center increased. Also, the YMCA began to offer a program for parents and
children called Parent Power for the full year on site. This was funded through an
Adolescent Family Life Demonstration Project (AFL) grant provided by the
Department of Health and Human Services to promote abstinence.
• Judy Center staff and partners received professional development in working with
children from low-income families by participating in a Ruby Payne workshop on
“Understanding Poverty.”
Page 1
2.0 Characteristics and Delivery of the Fourth Year
In year four, the Judy Center introduced several new initiatives to improve the effectiveness of the Center. This
new agenda was developed using information obtained from student assessment results,external evaluation, self-
evaluation, and stakeholder surveys. As in the third year of the grant, the major focus of the year’s improvements
(detailed in Allegany County Board of Education 2004) were pupils who received Free and Reduced Meals
(FARMS) and children with special needs. The changes are arranged into the categories Curriculum and
Programs, Professional Development, and Family Activities as described further below:
Curriculum and Programs

New Multi-age classroom. A new multi-age classroom was created to serve three and
four year old children.
Professional Development
Staff training. Judy Center staff continued to receive professional development in work-
ing with children from low-income families by participating in a Ruby Payne workshops
and discussions.
Revised Curriculum Guide. Training was provided to kindergarten teachers on the
revised curriculum guide.
MMSR Training. Multiple sessions of training in MMSR were offered to Judy Center
staff and partners.
Family Activities
Parent Attendance. The Judy Center attempted to increase participation in its parent
workshops/activities. To enhance participation, foods were used as incentives in a man-
ner recommended by the Ruby Payne framework. Food vouchers were offered through
the Infant and Toddler program in conjunction with the Food Bank. Also, food was used
in a variety of other events such as “Welcome Back to School Night” and “Pre-K/Multi-
age. Orientation,” “Cooking for the Holidays,” the “School Food Pantry Program,” and
“Creative Breakfast.”
Family Support Network. Books were distributed to families who participated in
evening activities with this program. Also, new parent support groups were created
including the: (a) Premature Baby Support Group, (b) Down Syndrome Support Group,
and (c) ADHD Support Group.
Page 2
Figure 2.1 Website Page Visits
3000
2500
2000
1500 2003-04
2004-05
1000
500
0
st r er r r
u be b be be ar
y
ar
y ch ril ay ne ly
ug m to m m u u ar Ap M Ju Ju
A te Oc ve ce an br M
p
No De
J Fe
Se
Most features of the program remained basically the same as the third year. For instance, reporting and
internal evaluation were carried out in much the same manner as the third year with a designated
Steering Board that met on a quarterly basis and regular state meetings of Judy Center staff. Program
marketing was similar to the third year, including the use of broadcast, newspaper announcements, web-
site, and print materials. However, there was a marked increase in the number of school and after-
school activities during the year and correspondingly more announcements were distributed. In addi-
tion, website page visits increased over the 2003-2004 baseline (see figure 2.1). As will be seen later,
these increases moved in tandem with parent participation levels in Judy Center family activities.
The parameters for evaluation were spelled out in the proposal and are listed in table 2.1. The ultimate
goals of the program are to broadly improve child learning. Intermediate objectives involve particular
key curriculum components where focused inputs were anticipated to have the greatest potential impact.
Strategies describe programmatic improvements and activities include specific program inputs that were
to be expanded in order to realize a particular strategy. The final column briefly describes the achieve-
ment of each goal, objective, strategy, and activity. To summarize this table, every goal and objective
was realized. However, there was no evidence that one strategy (increase the readiness of FARMS chil-
dren in the domain of Social and Personal Skills) had achieved the intended result. All but one of the
activities (co-teaching in Special Education Prekindergarten) was carried out as outlined in the original
continuing grant application.
Page 3
Table 2.1 Implementation Plan
Goal Objective Strategy Activities Achievement

By June 30, 2005, By June 30, 2005, Increase the readi- 1) Implement newly Goal and objective
88% of exiting 80% of exiting ness level of revised kindergarten realized. Readiness
kindergarten stu- kindergarten stu- FARMS children in curriculum, includ- of children was
dents at the Judy dents at the Judy the domain of ing use of a core 92% at end of year.
Center will achieve Center who receive Language and reading program Readiness of
full readiness level Free and Reduced Literacy. that is based on FARMS children
in the composite Meals (FARMS) Scientific Based was 83%. Strategy
score of the Work will achieve full Reading Research worked with readi-
Sampling System readiness level in (SBRR)as defined ness in Language
indicators. the composite score by Reading First, and Literacy
of the Work (2) Include the Judy improving from
Sampling System. Center’s prekinder- 67% to 72%.
garten teacher on Activities imple-
the Allegany mented as follows:
County public (1) Core reading
school’s committee program was imple-
to revise the mented, (2) the
prekindergarten cur- Judy Center
riculum to align Coordinator and a
with the MD Pre-K teacher
Essential attended Pre-K cur-
Curriculum, (3) riculum committee
Train staff (includ- meetings, (3) staff
ing Judy Center and partners partici-
Partners) in work- pated in staff train-
ing with children ing and discussions,
from low-income (4) Family Reading
families by involv- Night was contin-
ued and expanded,
ing them in profes-
(5) Utilizing a First
sional development
Books grant, books
based on Ruby
and bookshelves
Payne’s work on
were distributed to
“Understanding
low income families
enrolled in the
Continued on next page
Page 4
Table 2.1 Implementation Plan Continued from previous page

Poverty.” (4) Healthy Start pro-
Continue the gram which targets
Family services to children
Reading Night at 3 years of age and
the Frostburg books were distrib-
Branch of the uted during Family
Allegany County Fun nights, (6) An
Library System dur- additional session
ing the summer and of multi-age was
extend the program provided.
thru the school year,
(5) Increase the
number of books
available to children
in their homes by:
(a) utilizing the
First Books grant to
provide free books
to 30 low-income
families for one
year, (b) conducting
Family Fun Nights
with book give-
aways, and (c) giv-
ing children’s indi-
vidual bookshelves
to families who par-
ticipate in Judy
Center activities.
(6) Provide an addi-
tional session of
multi-age (3-4 yr.
olds) to serve 10
children with a
focus on language
development.
Page 5

-- -- Increase the readi- (1) Train staff in Goal and objective
ness of FARMS working with chil- realized. Readiness
children in the dren from low- of FARMS children
domain of Social income families by increased. No evi-
and Personal Skills. involving them in dence that readiness
professional devel- improved in Social
and Personal skills.
opment based on
Activities imple-
Ruby Payne’s work mented as follows:
on “Understanding (1) Staff and part-
Poverty.” (2) ners participated in
Provide twice Ruby Payne training
weekly Fresh Start and discussions, (2)
sessions for identi- Fresh Start provide
fied children during twice weekly ses-
the summer of 2004 sions for summer
(3) Continue to 2004, (3) The
incorporate the Second Step
Second Step Violence Prevention
curriculum contin-
Violence Prevention
ued to be utilized
Curriculum into the during the summer
five-week summer program, (4) Family
program (4) participation
Increase attendance increased in work-
at evening parent shop/activities and
workshops/activi- bags of food were
ties by offering used in conjunction
food vouchers as with Food Bank, (5)
incentives (a Ruby Several partners
Payne strategy), (5) (Head Start, Judy
Provide training in Center Teachers, and
Kids Korner Staff)
MMSR for all part-
participated in
ners, including the MMSR training pro-
new Exemplars for vided by Apples for
Fall and Spring Children or the
indicators. Board of Education.
Page 6

-- By June 30, 2005, Increase the readi- (1) Continue to Goal and objective
50% of exiting ness level of offer a half-day realized. Readiness
kindergarten stu- Special Education multi-age class. of Special
dents at the Judy children in the The target enroll- Education children
Center who receive domain of ment will be chil- was 50% at end of
special education Language and dren who exhibit program.
services will Literacy. language delays, Readiness for
achieve full readi- speech or articula- Special Education
ness in the compos- tion problems, children in
ite score of the and/or limited liter- Language and
Work Sampling acy experiences, as Literacy increased
System. well as children to from 0% to 33%
serve as good mod- Activities imple-
els. (2) Link chil- mented as follows:
dren from the multi- (1) A half-day
age class to other multi-age class was
appropriate educa- continued. (2)
tional programs to Children from spe-
provide a full-day cial education
of educational pro- multi-age also spent
gramming. (3) a half day in regular
Refine the imple- Pre-k class, (3) Full
mentation of the inclusion for all
inclusion model in children with spe-
the prekindergarten cial needs was
program. available.
Prekindergarten However, co-teach-
teacher and the spe- ing was discontin-
cial education
ued—the special
teacher will be co-
education teacher
teachers. (4)
served as a resource
Continue to utilize
person and the
the Teacher
Assistance Team
model (TAT)
Page 7

-- -- to provide support classroom teacher
for teachers of spe- provides instruc-
cial education stu- tion, (4) The TAT
dents. (5) Apply model continued to
for a MSDE be used for support-
Discretionary Grant ing children identi-
for Special Projects fied as being “at
with the goal of risk,”(5) Grant was
involving at-risk submitted but not
prekindergarten and funded. (6) Books
kindergarten stu- were provided to
dents in a the Family Support
speech/language Network.
and occupational
therapy program(s)
to reduce the likeli-
hood that special
education services
will be needed in
the future. The
Judy Center has a
fully equipped
Sensory Integration
room that will be
utilized to provide
these experiences.
(6) Provide books
for the Family
Support Network to
distribute to fami-
lies who participate
in their evening
activities.
Page 8
In this report, a broader spectrum of measures (see table 2.2) is used to measure program effectiveness.
This includes the following elements: (1) program enrollment and attendance (were enrollment and atten-
dance expectations for children and parents achieved?), (2) staff training, curriculum resources, and vali-
dation (were necessary staff training, program validation, and curriculum materials available as planned?),
(3) partner satisfaction (how did partners rate collaboration success?), (4) teacher satisfaction (how did
teachers in Pre-K, Kindergarten, and 1st grade view the Judy Center?), (5) parent satisfaction (how did par-
ents view the Judy Center?), (6) child learning (how much did children learn according to information
from pupil progress reports and other assessment data?), (7) Judy Center component standard ratings (how
did parents and staff view accomplishment of Judy Center goals), and (8) answers to special research ques-
tions posed in the continuation grant proposal (see table 2.3).
Table 2.2 Evaluation questions.
Issues Measurement
# children enrolled in Judy Center programs
Children enrolled
by area
Child attendance Attendance rates
Parent involvement # and type of parent workshops
Staff professional development # and type training workshops attended
Program accreditation # programs validated
Partner satisfaction Partner Survey
Teacher satisfaction Teacher Survey
Parent satisfaction Parent Survey
Child readiness Pupil Progress Reports, Test results
Alignment with Judy Center Goals Teacher survey, Parent survey
Special research questions Partner comments, other
Page 9
The remainder of the report is divided into seven sections. The next section (3.0) addresses pupil enroll-
ment, 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 dur-
ing 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
Questions
Are we successfully reaching more of the 0-3 population by adding programs such as Healthy
(1)
Start as a partner?
How do children who have participated in the multi-age program perform in the area of
(2)
Language and Literacy when they become kindergartners?
Page 10
3.0 Enrollment, training, and validation
A duplicated headcount of five hundred and thirty-seven (537) students was served by programs housed at the
Judy Center. This figure compares to four hundred and forty-nine (449) students served last year, an increase
of nearly twenty percent. FY 2005 Judy Center funding leveraged programming that allowed 154 additional
children to enroll. The unduplicated distribution of children by age is shown in table 3.1 and distribution by
race for Pre-K, Kindergarten, and after-school/before school programs in figure 3.1. Child enrollment racial
demographics from available partners showed that minority enrollment was less than half of the service area-
3.4% of children were minority versus 8.4% reported in the 2000 U.S. Census for Frostburg.
Table 3.1 Enrollment of children by age.
2003-04 2004-05
Birth to 3 43 61
3-year old 44 120
4 year old 97 86
5 year old 50 58
Total 250 325
One strategy identified in the FY 2005 grant was to narrow the achievement gap for children who receive
free and reduced price meals (FARMS) and for students receiving special education services. Enrollment
of targeted groups for pre-kindergarten was improved from approximately 61 percent in need categories
(automatic enrollment and priority enrollment) for FY 2003 to approximately 78% in FY 2004 and 80%
in FY 2005. Additional resources were directed to screening (with First Step Developmental screenings
increasing from 92 to 94 ) and having hearing/vision/height/weight screenings performed for all Judy
Center students. Classroom capacity was increased by adding a multi-age class.
In an effort to reduce costs and improve quality, the Center contracted with a private day care provider
(Kids Korner) in FY 2004. Scholarships to offset some of the costs associated with childcare were offered
to eligible families. Enrollment in the center has continued to expand. Total enrollment was 28 in FY
2002, 42 in FY 2003, 55 in FY 2004, and 63 in FY 2005 (see figure 3.2).
Page 11
Figure 3.1 Enrollment by Race
1%
2%
Asian
Black
White
97%
In an effort to improve parent-child connectedness and reinforce positive behaviors learned in school, the
Judy Center continued to upgrade after-school activities and parent workshops/trainings. Family training
events included YMCA directed weekly “Parent Power” workshops which involved abstinence and par-
enting workshops for parents and recreational activities for children (71 families served in 27 sessions) ,
family reading nights (12 families served in 3 sessions), Infant Massage (6 families served in one session),
Effective Discipline (12 families served in 4 sessions), Reading with Child at Home (60 families served in
one session). In total, 44 different parent/family sessions were offered by the Judy Center. A duplicated
count of two hundred and thirty one attended. This compares to 45 sessions and one hundred and eight
families for similar programming in FY 2004, and 13 sessions and 118 families participating in FY 2003.
Additional activities were sponsored (such as Spring Fling, Grandparents Day, Pumpkin carving, Easter
Hat Day) that attracted several hundred participants. As in previous years activities were announced in the
Times-News newspaper, Judy Center flyers and/or calendars distributed to children and parents, and post-
ings to the Judy Center website.
Page 12
Staff development goals outlined in the grant application were achieved. Staff attended Ruby Payne's
workshop on “Framework for Understanding Poverty” at the beginning of the school year and in supple-
mental weekly focus group discussions of the Ruby Payne program during the school year. In addition,
staff and partners attended MMSR training. In addition, parent training was provided on the topics of
“potty training,” “attack anxiety,” “healthy cooking,” and “effective discipline.”
Validation/accreditation for the Judy Center pre-k, kindergarten and multi-age programs was obtained in
2002 for a three-year period from MSDE. The Center is up for re-accreditation and will undergo this
process during the next fiscal year. The Head Start program received accreditation from both National
Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) and MSDE during 2004. The Kids Korner
daycare center is working towards obtaining MSDE accreditation for its child care program and expects
to receive this accreditation in fall 2005.
Figure 3.2 Child Daycare Attendance
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005
Page 13
4.0 Partner Surveys
Partner surveys (see Appendix A.1) were administered to the Judy Center partners in spring 2005. The
survey instrument was the same one administered in spring 2003 revised and included questions about
partners' level of participation in the Judy Center, collaboration success, grant achievement, Center per-
formance on a number of features that align with the Judy Center component standards, and satisfaction
with the Judy Center.
The first two tables indicate that the Judy Center partners have developed good working relationships that
have resulted in good levels of participation. Table 4.1 shows that two of the partners characterized them-
selves as being very active in the Judy Center while the remaining two partners were “somewhat active.”
All four of the partners also rated collaboration success highly (see table 4.2). Partners agreed (see table
4.3) that the Judy Center had become more visible in the community, had adequate resources for its goals,
was implementing strategies described in the grant, and was realizing positive results.
Table 4.1 Activity levels of partners, percentage of partners.
2002-03 2004-05
Very Active 25 50
Somewhat active 75 50
Not very Active 0 0
Inactive 0 0
Page 14
Table 4.2 Collaboration success, percentage of partners agreeing.
2002-03 2004-05
The composition of the Steering Committee members is appropriate
100 100
for making Judy Center decisions.
The Judy Center staff communicated openly and clearly
100 100
during meetings
The Judy Center staff communicated openly and clearly
87.5 100
between meetings
Member of the Judy Center staff established informal communication
100 100
networks (e-mail communication, phone calls, etc.)
Members of the Judy Center staff have relationships built on trust
87.5 100
and mutual respect
I understand the goals and objectives of the Judy Center project 100 100
I understand my roles and responsibilities as a member of this project 100 100
The Judy Center team has clear and effective decision

87.5 100
making procedures.
Table 4.3 Goal success, percentage of partners
Community awareness of Judy Center has increased in the past year 100 100
Resources for this project were adequate to meet objectives 100 100
The strategies of this grant have been implemented 100 100
The strategies of this grant are demonstrating positive outcomes 100 100
Page 15
Table 4.4 shows partner satisfaction compared to two years ago. All of the partners expressed that they
were “very satisfied” with the Center. Additional written comments are provided in Appendix A.2).
Table 4.4 Partner satisfaction with Judy Center, percentage of partners.
2002-2003 2004-2005
Very Satisfied 75 100
Satisfied 12.5 0
Somewhat Satisfied 12.5 0
Somewhat Dissatisfied 0 0
Not Satisfied at All 0 0
Page 16
5.0 Teacher Surveys
Teacher surveys used to obtain feedback from staff in kindergarten/pre-k and first-grade teachers. The two
surveys (included in Appendix A.3 and A.4) are the same as used in last year's report. They are broadly
similar and ask about teacher background, satisfaction with school resources and staff and parent involve-
ment, Center performance on Judy Center component standards, and overall satisfaction with the Center.
Seven teachers in total were surveyed, including four pre-k/kindergarten teachers and three first grade
teachers. As table 5.1 shows most teachers have at least five years experience in teaching.
Table 5.1 Years teaching, percentage of teachers.
1-2 29
3-5 14
5-10 14
11-15 0
16 or more 43
Table 5.2 shows that teachers are generally satisfied with resources and cooperation at Beall Elementary.
However, one teacher is dissatisfied with his/her class size and three teachers are neutral about the level of
parental involvement in education. Table 5.3 show that only two performance areas (i.e., quality of school
meals and activities for learning computers) received minimal or inadequate ratings from any teacher.
Page 17
Table 5.2 Teacher satisfaction, percentage of teachers
(5=Very Satisfied, 3=Somewhat Satisfied, 1=Not Satisfied)
(5) (4) (3) (2) (1)
Quality of classroom equipment 86 14 0 0 0
Quality of facilities 57 43 0 0 0
Size of classes 86 0 0 0 14
Administrative support 86 14 0 0 0
Professional development opportunities 71 29 0 0 0
Collaboration with teachers 100 0 0 0 0
Collaboration with early childhood agencies 72 14 14 0 0
Level of parental involvement in children’s education 14 43 43 0 0
Page 18
Table 5.3 Performance area ratings, percentage of teachers
(4=Excellent, 3=Good, 2=Minimal, 1=Inadequate, 0=NA/Don’t Know).
(4) (3) (2) (1) (0)

a. Hours and days of JC operation 100 0 0 0 0
b. Child care before or after day 100 0 0 0 0
c. Quality of School meals (lunch, breakfast) 43 29 29 0 0
d. Family case management 29 43 0 0 29
e. Array of child and family support services on site 100 0 0 0 0
Array of child services for all ages (e.g., infants and
f. 100 0 0 0 0
toddlers, pre-k, kindergarten)
g. Screening for disabilities 57 29 0 0 14
h. Provision of services for children with disabilities 71 39 0 0 0
Health services (e.g., immunizations, dental assessment,
i. 100 0 0 0 0
vision/hearing screening)
j. Friendliness/helpfulness of staff and teachers 100 0 0 0 0
k. Supervision of children/discipline 100 0 0 0 0
l. Materials for learning and play 86 14 0 0 0
m. Play activities 86 14 0 0 0
n. Activities for learning Art 43 14 0 0 43
o. Activities for learning Music 57 0 0 0 43
p. Activities for learning Physical education 39 39 0 0 43
q. Activities for learninglanguage/reading/writing 43 14 0 0 43
r. Activities for learning Nature/science 57 0 0 0 43
s. Activities for learning Math 43 14 0 0 43
t. Activities for learning Computers 43 0 0 14 43
u. Progress reports and follow-up conferences 71 14 0 0 14
v. Activities for parents and families (e.g., field trips, picnics) 86 14 0 0 0
Education programs for families (e.g., parenting workshops,
w. 71 0 0 0 29
GED classes)
x. Information provided by Judy Center about upcoming activities 100 0 0 0 0
y. Judy Center webpage 43 14 0 0 43
z. Food and nutrition assistance (e.g., WIC) 100 0 0 0 0
aa. Cleanliness and safety of Judy Center 100 0 0 0 0
bb. Sufficiency of space 71 14 0 0 14
Page 19
All teaching staff felt that families served by the Judy Center were “very satisfied” with the Judy Center
(see table 5.4). In addition, all three 1st grade teachers indicated that they were very satisfied with the
Center and satisfied with the readiness of Judy Center students.
Table 5.4 Feeling of families served by Judy Center, percentage of teachers
2002-03 2003-04 2004-05

Very Satisfied 50 62.5 100
Satisfied 50 25.0 0
Somewhat Satisfied 0 0 0
Somewhat Dissatisfied 0 0 0
Not Satisfied at All 0 0 0
Don’t Know 0 12.5 0
Page 20
6.0 Parent Surveys
Three parent surveys were administered during the school year. The first survey was given to obtain infor-
mation on parental preferences for family program topics. The other two surveys were administered for
evaluation purposes. The survey instruments were similar to the one's used for last year's report. The fall
survey (see Appendix A.5) collected information on family resources and attitudes for use in designing
curriculum improvements and outside activities for the school year. The spring survey (see Appendix A.6)
collected information on parent satisfaction with various features of the Judy Center, parental assessments
of child development during the school year, and information on family resources and attitudes.
Since a continued effort was made to improve family services during the year, the pre-tests and post-tests
were constructed to make comparisons for pre-test and post-test responses to see if the program had a pos-
itive effect on family attitudes and resources. Survey participants were given the option of providing the
last four digits of their social security numbers so that pairwise matching of post-test and pre-test respons-
es could be accomplished. As in previous years, there was a drop off in survey participation between the
fall and spring (from 66 collected in the fall to 52 In the spring). Sixteen (16) responses were received in
the spring from participants in the fall survey so that comparisons could be made over time.
Table 6.1 shows the characteristics of Judy Center parent respondents to the fall survey. Sixty-six respons-
es were received. Nearly sixty percent of the responding parents is thirty years or older and ninety-two
percent is female. Approximately two out of three work (either full or part-time) and seventy percent are
married. Nearly two-thirds has at least some college and three in five are a homeowner. Similar to the
previous years, the typical Judy Center survey respondent has a higher socioeconomic level than the aver-
age Frostburg city or Allegany County resident (see eQuotient 2003) .
Most parents (82%) have only one child enrolled in the Center. Most children are enrolled in pre-k and multi-
age programs. A growing percentage of children are enrolled in before, during, or after school programs (see
Table 6.2). A higher percentage of children has special needs (thirty-two percent compared to twenty-eight
percent in 2003-04 and eighteen percent in 2002-03). Among the special needs cited by parents, twelve (12)
children had speech difficulties, two (2) were autistic, two had Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
(ADHD), one has Down Syndrome, one has hearing loss, and one has a rare disease.
Page 21
Table 6.1 Respondent Demographics, percentage of parents.
Age # %
15-19 0 0
20-24 12 18
25-29 16 24
30-34 21 32
35-39 11 17
40+ 6 9
Total 66 100
Gender
Male 8
Female 92
Employment Status
Employed full-time 49
Employed Part-time 18
Not Employed and seeking job 3
Not Employed and not seeking job 2
Homemaker 25
Other 3
Marital Status
Married 70
Single 18
Divorced 12
Widowed/Widower 0
Page 22
Table 6.1 Respondent Demographics, percentage of parents.
Continued from previous page
Educational Level # %
Some high school 5
High school diploma 29
GED 3
Some College 27
Associates Degree 14
Bachelor’s Degree or higher 23
Own or rent home

Own 59
Rent 35
Live with relatives 3
Other 3
Number of children
One 82
Two 15
Three 3
Special needs
Yes 22
No 66
Don’t know 2
Page 23
Table 6.2 Programs used, percentage of parents.
2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05

Kindergarten 28 42 44 32
4-year old Pre-K 20 32 35 39
2-3 year old Pre-K 7 11 - -
3-4-5 year old Pre-K 12 10 - -
3 & 4 year old Pre-K - - 28 44
Head Start 20 32? 22 17
Infant and Toddler 13 2 - 2
Before school childcare 6 5 13 18
After school childcare 3 10 15 24
During school childcare 5 5 7 9
School closing childcare 7 4 10 17
Case Management 0 1 1 -
Computer Classes - - - 0
Preschool Special Education 1 1 4 3
Dental Services 3 2 6 0
Partners for Success 1 1 6 2
Family Support Network - - 6 3
Frostburg Library Family Nights - - 4 2
Preschool Partners 2 1 1 6
Family Literacy (GED) 0 0 0 0
Family Preservation (DSS) 3 7 0 3
Fresh Start - 0 6 3
WIC 30 28 40 39
Healthy Start (Health Dept) 4 3 3 8
Adult seminars - - - 2
Nurturing Program 2 2 - -
Dr. Miller's “Breakfast Club” - - 10 -
Page 24
Table 6.2 Programs used, percentage of parents. Continued from previous page
2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05

Family Junction 0 1 6
YMCA-Family Center 3 0 - -
YMCA Parent Power 0 0 4 2
English as Second Language 0 1 0
Mental Health (Health Dept) 1 0 3 8
Breakfast 22 26 38 42
Lunch 26 29 42 41
Other - 1 1 2
Parents were surveyed about the availability of learning support materials in the household and parental
participation in learning activities (see table 6.3). All of the parents reported that children's books were
available while only slightly fewer (97%) indicated that they had televisions. Seventy-seven percent of
households had computers and sixty-eight percent had Internet access. These figures are higher than last
year and the year before. This upward trend, in part, may reflect the success of Judy Center efforts in
building family learning resources since some of the parents have multiple children who have been
schooled at the Center and many children were enrolled in Judy Center programs during previous years
(e.g., Infant and Toddlers, Pre-k, multi-age programs, Kindergarten).
All parents reported “frequently” praising their children for doing well and nearly all “frequently” sit and
talk with their children about their day. Four in five parents reported “frequently” eating a dinner togeth-
er as a family and reading with their children. Seven out of ten indicated that they “frequently” played
with their children. Most “rarely” or “never” went to a library or museum with their children.
Parents identified programming of interest for the upcoming year (see table 6.5). Similar to last year, par-
ent-child activities were the most popular (identified by one in four) followed by “educational programs
for 3-4-5 year olds” and “parenting classes.” Also identified by a significant number of respondents were
programs for children with disabilities.
Page 25
Table 6.3 Learning/reading materials at home, percentage of parents.
2002-032 2003-04 2004-05

Children’s books 84 97 100
Magazines for children 41 54 55
Adult books 63 68 79
Newspapers 60 58 67
Television 83 93 97
Home computer 61 74 77
Computer with Internet access 54 64 68
Table 6.4 Activities with children, percentage of parents.
Frequently Sometimes Rarely Never NA
Read a story 82 16 2 0 0
Played with toys or played games 73 24 3 0 0
Praised your child for doing well 100 0 0 0 0
Visited public library or museum 8 37 41 14 0
Visited a playground, park, or

32 61 8 0 0
went on a picnic
Eat a meal together as a family 80 20 0 0 0
Attended an event hosted by a

42 27 23 8 0
community or religious group
Sit and talk to your child about
97 3 0 0 0
his/her day
Page 26
Table 6.5 Program interest, #/% of parents.
# %
GED 1 2
Childcare 4 6
Family Preservation 1 2
MCHIP (children’s health insurance) 2 3
Educational programs for 3, 4, or 5 year olds 8 12
Parenting classes 9 14
Parent/child activities 15 23
Programs for children with disabilities 8 12
WIC 1 2
Head Start 2 3
Fresh Start 1 2
Healthy Start 1 2
Adult Training Seminars 4 6
The spring survey received fifty-two responses and the answers are tabulated in tables 6.6-6.9. Table 6.6
and Figure 6.1 show that parent satisfaction with the Judy Center held steady. Satisfaction levels were still
lower than the levels achieved at the end of the Center's first year in 2001-2002. But, the ninety-four per-
cent satisfaction rating (combining “very satisfied” and “satisfied”) is higher than the eighty-nine percent
state-wide average satisfaction reported for all Maryland Judy Centers (MGT of America, Inc. 2003).
Page 27
Table 6.6 Satisfaction with Judy Center services, percentage of parents.
2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05

Very Satisfied 79 60.7 72.7 75.5
Satisfied 19 36.1 21.2 18.9
Somewhat Satisfied 2 3.3 6.1 1.9
Somewhat Dissatisfied 0 0 0 1.9
Not Satisfied at All 0 0 0 0
Don’t know/Confused or uniformed about

0 0 0 0
the services provided
Don’t know/No feeling about the center 0 0 0 1.9
Figure 6.1 Parent Satisfaction
Very Satisfied
Satisfied
May-2002
Somewhat Satisfied
May-2003
Somewhat Dissatisfied May-2004
May-2005
Not Satisfied at All
Don't Know
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Page 28
Table 6.7 shows parent satisfaction with features of the Judy Center that align with the Judy Center
Component Standards. Figure 6.2 displays the top 10 rated areas and figure 6.3 shows the bottom 10 rated
areas as determined by weighting the responses by the following scale: (4=excellent; 3=good, 2=minimal,
1=inadequate). As in previous years all of the features were rated above 3 (good).
The top rated features were “array of child services for all ages” and “hours and days of Judy Center oper-
ation.” These features were also rated in the top five last year, but their average ratings improved over the
previous year. Also rated highly was “friendliness/helpfulness of staff and teachers” (which was listed sec-
ond from bottom in 2003-04) and “activities for learning art” which was possibly boosted by the distribu-
tion of free arts kits to children.
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)
(E) (G) (M) (I) (NA)

Hours and days of JC operation 73 23 0 0 4
Kids Korner Childcare Center 34 12 0 2 52
Quality of School meals (lunch, breakfast) 48 38 10 0 4
Family case management 35 28 0 2 35
Array of child and family support services on site 50 34 2 0 14
Array of child services for all (e.g., infants and toddlers,
76 18 2 0 4
pre-k, kindergarten)
Screening for disabilities 44 26 4 0 26
Provision of services for children with disabilities 35 22 2 0 41
Health services (e.g., immunizations, dental assessment,
51 39 0 0 10
vision/hearing screening)
Friendliness/helpfulness of staff and teachers 82 14 2 2 0
Supervision of children/discipline 63 35 0 2 0
Materials for learning and play 65 35 0 0 0
Play activities 69 31 0 0 0
Activities for learning Art 73 27 0 0 0
Activities for learning Music 69 29 0 0 2
Activities for learning Physical education 60 30 0 0 10
Activities for learning language/reading/writing 70 28 0 0 2
Activities for learning Nature/science 58 34 0 0 8
Activities for learning Math 62 32 0 0 6
Page 29
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
(E) (G) (M) (I) (NA)

Activities for learning Computers 38 32 4 0 26
Progress reports and follow-up conferences 60 32 4 2 2
Activities for parents and families (e.g., field trips, picnics) 66 28 2 2 2
Education programs for families (e.g., parenting
47 22 4 0 27
workshops, GED classes)
Information provided by Judy Center about upcoming activities 72 28 0 0 0
Judy Center webpage 25 19 8 0 48
Food and nutrition assistance (e.g., WIC) 44 24 0 0 32
Cleanliness and safety of Judy Center 68 32 0 0 0
Sufficiency of space 46 48 6 0 0
Figure 6.2 Top 10 Performance Areas
Array of child services for all ages
Hours and days of JC operation
Friendliness/helpfulness
of staff and teachers
Activities for learning Art
Information provided by Judy

Center about upcoming activities
Activities for learning
language/reading/writing
Activities for learning Music
Play activities
Cleanliness and safety of Judy Center
Activities for learning Math
3.5 3.55 3.6 3.65 3.7 3.75 3.8
Page 30
Figure 6.3 Bottom 10 Performance Areas
Activities for learning

Physical education
Judy Center webpage
Quality of School meals (lunch, breakfast)
Sufficiency of space
Activities for learning Computers
Family case management

Progress reports and
follow-up conferences
Screening for disabilities
Array of child and family
support services on site
Provision of services for
children with disabilities
3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6
The lowest rated features were “activities for learning physical education,” “Judy Center webpage,” and
“quality of school meals.” As in previous years “sufficiency of space” was also rated low. Although this
year's grant focused on children with special needs, “screening for disabilities” and “provision of services
for children with disabilities” made the bottom ten. However, both category ratings increased over the pre-
vious year. In open-ended comments, several parents also identified a desire for additional family-child
activities and parenting classes (see Appendix A.7).
Table 6.8 shows that all of the parents read flyers and newsletters which are sent home with the children. Sixty-
three percent reported that they “frequently” attend parent-teacher conference, which continued an upward
trend from last year. A much higher percentage of parents indicated also that they had attended Judy Center
after-school special events or field trips (sixty-four percent at least “sometimes” versus thirty-five percent the
previous year). Only one in four parents participated in parent education or workshops during the year.
Page 31
Table 6.9 shows parent ratings of various parent-child activities that were held during the year. Levels of
participation in the activities can be determined by computing the percentage of respondents who were
able to rate the activities. Overall, activities achieved a much higher level of participation than in 2003-
04. Sixty-three percentage of parents attended Judy Center orientation (Pre-K, Multi-age and/or K orien-
tation) and sixty-one percent participated in the “Reading at Home free book initiative.” A majority of par-
ents also indicated that they went to Easter Hat Decorating Day and Pumpkin Carving Day. The Fall
Family Fun Fest, which was carried over from the previous year, saw participation improve from twenty-
nine percent to forty-five percent. On the other, hand the YMCA Parent Power remained unchanged at
approximately ten percent. Parent ratings of all these activities ranged from “good” to “excellent.”
Table 6.10 indicates that when parents were not able to participate in Judy Center activities, it was generally
not because of a lack of interest in the topics, but rather because of work obligations and the time of the sched-
uled activity. However, these factors were smaller barriers than they were for last year's cohort of parents.
Table 6.8 Parent participation in Judy Center activities, percentage of parents.
Frequently Sometimes Rarely Never NA

Volunteered at the Judy Center 4 22 18 56 0
Observed child’s classroom

16 48 22 14 0
during the day
Attended Judy Center after-
school special events oor fild 28 36 8 26 2
trips
Attended parent education meet-
ings or workshops about job 8 12 6 66 8
skills or parenting?
Attended a parent-teacher
63 16 8 13 0
conference
Read a Judy Center flyer/
88 12 0 0 0
newsletter
Page 32
Table 6.9 Parent rating of Judy Center parent activities
Excellent Good Minimal Inadequate NA

Creative Breakfast 6 13 0 0 81
YMCA Parent Power 6 4 0 0 90
Fall Family Fun Fest 21 21 2 0 56
Family Summer Reading Night
6 8 0 0 86
Program @ Library
Grandparent's Day 30 17 0 2 51
Family Movie Night 10 13 0 0 77
Easter Hat Decorating Day 45 8 0 0 47
Pumpkin Carving Day 41 10 0 2 47
Effective Discipline Classes 6 6 0 0 88
Veteran's Day Program 8 10 0 0 82
Reading @ Home/Free Book Initiative 43 16 2 0 39
Cooking Healthy for the Holidays 12 6 0 0 82
Pre-K, Multi-age and/or K orientation 49 12 2 0 37
PTO Open House 15 13 0 0 73
Infant massage class 4 4 0 0 92
Preemie Babies Support group 4 4 0 0 92
Down Syndrome Support group 4 4 0 0 92
ADHD Support group 2 9 0 0 89
Budget Management Seminar 4 6 0 0 90
Family Skate Night @ YMCA 4 6 0 0 90
Shriner's Circus 29 16 0 0 55
Family Support Network
6 6 0 0 88
Christmas Party
Multi-age Thanksgiving Feast 29 14 0 0 57
Page 33
Table 6.10 Reason for not attending parent activities
%
Work schedule 48
Time of activity was not convenient 44
Not interested in topics 17
Lack of transportation 6
Other 23
Table 6.11 indicates that parents recognize improvements in most child learning and habits because of the
Judy Center. Four in five parents report “much” improvement in counting numbers. Three quarters
observed “much” improvement in recognizing letters of the alphabet, vocabulary and speaking and artic-
ulation. Two thirds saw improvements in writing and drawing,. Three out of five saw improvement in
child hygiene, including washing hands and brushing teeth. These improvements were greater than what
were reported by last year's cohort of parents.
Table 6.11 Improvement in child learning and habits because of the Judy Center
Not
Much A little NA
at All
Counting numbers 79 17 0 4
Recognizing letters of the alphabet 77 15 2 6
Writing 69 23 2 6
Drawing 65 29 0 6
Speaking and articulation 74 18 2 6
Vocabulary 76 22 0 2
Eating nutritious and healthy meals 37 45 12 6
Exercising 45 47 2 6
Washing hands before meals after using toilet 61 31 2 6
Brushing teeth 57 35 2 6
Page 34
A before and after study of a cohort of 16 respondents who had replied to both fall and spring surveys was con-
ducted in order to analyze the effect of the Judy Center on family resources and interaction in the home. During
the year, the Judy Center redoubled its efforts to improve learning resources and the parenting skills. This is
reflected in a much more elaborate list of parent-child activities that were sponsored during the year.
Table 6.12 shows changes in learning/reading materials and table 6.13 shows changes in parent-child inter-
action. Statistically significant changes using a pairwise t-test of means are indicated by asterisks. These
results indicate that parents were more likely to have magazines for children at the home and more likely
to read a story and visit a playground, park, or go on a picnic after involvement with the Judy Center.
These changes are more impressive because parents initially started out with more resources and interac-
tion with children than previous cohorts.
Table 6.12 Learning/reading materials at home before and after

Judy Center, percentage of parents.
Before After
Children’s books 100 100
Magazines for children 50 75**
Adult books 88 81
Newspapers 75 69
Television 100 100
Home computer 100 94
Home computer with Internet Access 88 81
*=.10, **=.05, ***=.01
Page 35
Table 6.13 Activities with children, percentage of parents who did
‘frequently’ before and after Judy Center
Before After
Read a story 81 100*
Played with toys or played games 75 81
Praised your child for doing well 100 100
Visited public library or museum 6 19
Visited a playground, park, or went on a picnic 38 63**
Eat a meal together as a family 81 88
Attended an event hosted by a community or religious group 44 44
Sit and talk to child about his/her day 100 94
*=.10, **=.05, ***=.01
Page 36
7.0 Child Readiness
The ACBOE 2004-05 Judy Center Continuation Grant proposal outlined several child development
objectives and milestones for FY 2005. They are as follows:
Goal
By June 30, 2005, 88% of exiting kindergarten students at the Judy Center will achieve
full readiness level in the composite score of the Work Sampling System indicators.
Objectives
By June 30, 2005, 80% of exiting kindergarten students at the Judy Center who receive
Free and Reduced Meals (FARMS) will achieve full readiness level in the composite score
of the Work Sampling System.
By June 30, 2005, 50% of exiting kindergarten students at the Judy Center who receive
special education services will achieve full readiness in the composite score of the Work
Sampling System.
The data source for these indicators is the Allegany County Board of Education Kindergarten Pupil
Progress Report which uses the Work Sampling System (WSS) and is aligned with 30 MMSR indicators
that are divided into seven domains (Social and Personal, Language and Literacy, Mathematical Thinking,
Scientific Thinking, Social Studies, The Arts, and Physical Development) and that measure pupil readiness
with three levels of progress: (3) “Proficient,” (3) “In process,” or (1) “Needs Development.” Individual
domain scores are obtained from aggregating domain indicators and a composite score is an aggregation
of all 30 MMSR indicators. Three readiness categories are assigned based on the aggregated score: “full”
readiness, “approaching” readiness, and “developing” readiness.
Page 37
Figure 7.1 Kindergarten Readiness by Domain, 2004-05
Composite
Physical Development
The Arts
Social Studies All
Scientific Thinking FARM
Mathematical Thinking Special

Ed.
Language and Literacy
Social and Personal
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Beall Elementary Judy Center pupils arrived at school with high readiness levels (see figure 7.1) though
FARMS and Special education readiness lagged behind other students. Figure 7.2 shows this year's
kindergarten performance compared to the previous three years' classes after the first period. A dramati-
cally higher percentage of pupils was ready after the first period using the composite measure. Moreover,
in every domain except social and personal, readiness was the highest of the three year period. Readiness
was also higher for FARMS and Special education students than at the beginning of the previous year (See
Figure 7.3 and 7.4).
Page 38
Figure 7.2 Kindergarten Readiness by Domain
Composite
2001-02
The Arts 2002-03
Social Studies 2003-04
Scientific Thinking 2004-05
Mathematical Thinking
Social and Personal
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Page 39
Figure 7.3 FARMS Kindergarten
Readiness by Domain
Composite
The Arts
Social Studies
2004-05
Scientific Thinking
2003-04
Social and Personal
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Page 40
Figure 7.4 Special Education Kindergarten
Readiness by Domain
Composite
The Arts
2003-04
Social Studies
2004-05
Scientific Thinking
Social and Personal
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Page 41
Figure 7.5 Kindergarten Readiness
Judy Center, County, and State, 2004-05
Beall Elem.
Allegany
Developing
Approaching
Full
Maryland
0 20 40 60 80 100
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 7.5) period, ninety-five percent of children was fully prepared
compared to sixty-eight percent for Allegany County and fifty-eight percent for the State. No students
were categorized as “developing” whereas five percent of the County and six percent for the State were so
designated. Among individual domains, Beall Elementary Judy Center pupil readiness levels exceeds the
State and County in every area.
Page 42
Figure 7.6 Kindergarten Readiness by Domain,
Judy Center, County, and State, 2004-05
Composite
The Arts
Social Studies Md
Scientific Thinking Allegany
Beall
Mathematical Thinking Elem.
Social and Personal
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Page 43
Pupil progress report results for students who began and ended the year at the Judy Center were also high
(the composite score was 92% at the end at the end of the year) and met or exceeded benchmarks estab-
lished in the grant application. For students who received Free and Reduced Meals (FARMS), overall
readiness was 83% at the end of the year (see Figure 7.7). For students who received special education
services, readiness was 50% at the end the year (see Figure 7.8). The specific strategies of increasing the
readiness level of FARMS children in the domains of Language and Literacy were realized. For FARMS
students, readiness improved from 67% to 72%. For Special Education students, it improved from 0% to
33%. However, readiness did not improve in Social and Personal skills for FARMS students. Moreover,
scores for students during the 4th grading period generally lagged behind those achieved for students in
2003-04 (see Figures 7.7 and 7.8).
Figure 7.7 Period 4 FARMS Readiness by Domain
Composite
The Arts 2003-04
Social Studies 2004-05
Scientific Thinking
Social and Personal
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Page 44
Figure 7.8 Period 4 FARMS Special Education
Readiness by Domain
Composite
The Arts
2003-04
Social Studies
2004-05
Scientific Thinking
Social and Personal
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Page 45
Figure 7.9 shows child performance according to the Pre-kindergarten Progress Report which, like the
kindergarten progress report, is based on the WSS. The 1st marking period is based on 24 WSS indica-
tors, the 2nd on 28 indicators, and the 3rd on all 30 indicators. The figure shows how the Pre-K program
at the Beall Elementary Judy Center (including both pre-kindergarten and multi-age classes) compares to
a County average that includes all six schools that have 4-year and multi-age pre-kindergarten programs
(i.e., Beall Elementary, Cash Valley, George's Creek, John Humbird, South Penn, and West Side). The per-
centage indicator represents the percentage of students who met at least 90% of the key indicators for that
marking period. The figure shows that Judy Center pupils readiness was much higher than the remaining
County average for the first three periods but lagged slightly by the final period.
Figure 7.9 Pre-Kindergarten Readiness
70
60
50
40
Judy Center
30
Other Allegany Co.
20
10
0
Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Period 4
Page 46
Figure 7.10 Head Start Observation Study Results
Approaching
to Learning
Change in Percentage
"Consistently"
Change 03
Science
Change 04
Change 05
Language
0 20 40 60 80 100
Figure 7.10 shows changes in the readiness of children enrolled in the Head Start Pre-Kindergarten program
during the past three year school years (2002-03, 2003-04, and 2004-05) according to the eight development
dimensions. These dimensions include: (1) Language-Listening and Understanding/Speaking and
Communicating, (2) Literacy, (3) Mathematics, (4) Science, (5) Creative Arts, (6) Social and Emotional
Development, (7) Approaches to Learning, and (8) Physical Health and Development. Three rating categories
are used: C-consistently observed (more than 80% of the time), O=Occasionally Observed (between 40% and
79% of the time), and NY=Not yet observed (less than 39% of the time). The figure shows that child progress
occurred in each category with an average baseline of 4% in category C versus a final average of 54%. Although
entering students exhibited the lowest readiness scores for the three year period (the average baseline indicator
was 18% in 2003 and 30% in 2004), pupils experienced the largest net increase in readiness of the three cohorts.
Page 47
Mixed evidence of the effectiveness of the Judy Center is provided by MSA reading and math proficiency
levels. The percentage of fourth graders (many of whom were enrolled in kindergarten during 2000-01) that
achieved advanced and proficiency levels in reading increased from 67% in 2004 to 87% in 2005 and math
from 60 in 2003 and 89 in 2005. These proficiency levels were better than Allegany County and the State (see
Figure 7.11). However, the percentage of third graders (many of whom were enrolled in kindergarten during
the 2000-01 year) saw little change in proficiency levels (see Figure 7.12). Reading proficiency dropped from
77 percent to 75 percent and mathematics rose from 71.7 percent to 72.2 percent.
Figure 7.11 MSA 4th Grade Proficiency Levels

Beall Elementary, Allegany County, and the State
Maryland--Math
Allegany County--Math
Beall Elementary--Math
Maryland--Reading 2004
2005
Allegany County--Reading
Beall Elementary--Reading
0 20 40 60 80 100
Page 48
Figure 7.12 MSA 3rd Grade Proficiency Levels
Beall Elementary, Allegany County, and the State
Maryland--Math
Allegany County--Math
Beall Elementary--Math
2003
Maryland--Reading 2004
2005
Allegany County--Reading
Beall Elementary--Reading
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Page 49
8.0 Special Research Questions
As part of the 2004-05 Judy Center continuation grant application, the Allegany County Board of
Education posed two questions about the procedures and effectiveness of the Center. The questions and
answers are arranged as follows:
• Are we successfully reaching more of the 0-3 population by adding programs such as
Healthy Start as a partner?
The Healthy Start program reached 44 families during the year. An estimated 25 percent-
age of these families were added by including Healthy Start as a partner.
• How do children who have participated in the multi-age program perform in the area
of Language and Literacy when they become kindergartners?
Seven of the thirty seven kindergarten pupils were enrolled in multi-age pre-kindergarten
the previous year. Of these seven, forty-three percent (three of the seven) were at full-
readiness in the Language and Literacy domain according to the first progress report. By
the end of the year, eighty-six percent (6 of 7) were at full-readiness. All seven were at
full readiness according to the composite measure.
Page 50
9.0 Changes Introduced
The Judy Center will introduce several changes over the fiscal year 06 funding cycle. However, the basic
model and areas of emphasis on FARMS and Special Education students will continue (details can be
found in Allegany County Board of Education 2005) because of the significant gaps in readiness that con-
tinue to exist between these subgroups and other children. Major changes include a new focus on scien-
tific thinking readiness. In addition, the Center will begin to examine the influence of gender differences
in learning to address gaps in male and female readiness found in this year's MMSR results.
Action steps for new programming are arranged into the categories Curriculum and Programs,
Professional Development, and Family Activities as described further below.
Curriculum and Programs

New program objective. The Judy Center will add a new objective and strategies to
strengthen scientific thinking readiness.
Expansion of market area. Beall Elementary will expand its pre-k service area to three
entire elementary school districts, including Mt. Savage and Frost Elementary in addition
to the home school of Beall Elementary.
Staff and program expansion. A half-day multi-age class will be discontinued, but
the number of children served will remain the same because these children are being
moved to larger classrooms in the remaining two multi-age classes. One pre-k and one
kindergarten class will be created.
Curriculum development. Judy Center staff will serve on a Allegany County public
school committee to begin to revise the pre-k curriculum to align with the MD Voluntary
State Curriculum.
Science Learning. The Judy Center will provide field trips, hands on activities, exploration
centers, new curriculum materials, new instructional activities, and a science book parent-
child activity to improve student readiness in scientific thinking.
Science Book Parent-Child Activity. The Judy Center will begin a home study program that
involves children in the exploration of science through reading.
Page 51
Professional Development
Reading Institute. Judy Center staff and partners will receive training on the pre-k
Houghton Mifflin reading core program and the associated assessments created by the
author of DIBELS.
Science Learning. Judy Center staff will participate in professional development that
focuses on instructional delivery to encourage scientific exploration and thinking.
Ruby Payne Training. Judy Center staff will continue ongoing training on Ruby Payne's
framework for understanding poverty. Emphasis will be on the the use of mental models
to improve student cognitive skills.
Family Activities
Parent reading workshops. Staff will provide parent workshops for parents on strate-
gies they can use at home to improve child reading skills.
Family Reading Night. This program will be expanded from summer to occur through-
out the year.
Gender differences discussions. Staff will participate in focus group discussions with
partners to examine gender differences in classroom learning experiences.
Special needs training. Staff will provide training for parents on strategies they can use
to encourage social and personal development of children will special needs including (a)
disabilities tolerance parent training, (b) Down's syndrome support group, (c) ADHD sup-
port group, and (d) Preemie Babies.
Fathers and Families Grant. The Center is partnering with the YMCA to provide
monthly activities to involve fathers in their children’s education and lives.
Page 52
10.0 Summary and conclusions
The fourth funding cycle (FY 2005) for the Beall Elementary Judy Center improved service delivery to
enhance child readiness in targeted categories of students (FARMS and Special Education) that showed
proficiency gaps in previous years. A slightly higher share of children with educational need were admit-
ted to the Center this year than last year. New initiatives included an additional multi-age class, staff train-
ing efforts that included the Ruby Payne framework for understanding poverty and the MMSR indicators,
and expanded parental and family after school activities. The goal and objectives established in the grant
continuation application were met. One activity (co-teaching in Special Education Prekindergarten) was
not carried out in the manner described in the grant application.
Partner surveys indicate a relatively high degree of participation and cooperation. Staff, and parent sur-
veys continue to show a strong satisfaction with the Beall Elementary Judy Center. Teachers continue to
agree that the amount of resources and cooperation available at Beall Elementary were good and that
teachers were satisfied with the Judy Center. Parent satisfaction levels remained high in the current sur-
vey and are above state Judy Center statewide averages. Parents recognized improvements in child learn-
ing and development during the year. A before/after study of parental responses shows that family learn-
ing resources at home and family activities were strengthened during the year.
Progress report results from the Allegany County Board of Education and HRDC assessment data indicate
that child learning and development occurred during the year. School readiness for each of the targeted
groups (i.e., students receiving free and reduced school meals, students receiving Special Education serv-
ices) and exceeded milestones established for the domains of Social and Personal skills and Language and
Literacy. As in previous years, moreover, Kindergarten students outperformed County and State peers.
HRDC Head Start also showed significant improvement while students enrolled in Judy Center pre-k pro-
grams lagged their county counterparts slightly by the final progress report period.
Page 53
REFERENCES
Allegany County Board of Education. 2002. Continuation Grant Application for Judith P. Hoyer Early
Child Care and Education Center Grants (Judy Centers). (June 3, 2002)
Child Care and Education Center Grants (Judy Centers). (May 25, 2003)
Child Care and Education Center Grants (Judy Centers). (June 2, 2004)
Child Care and Education Center Grants (Judy Centers). (June ?, 2005)
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.
eQuotient, Inc. 2004. Allegany County Judy Center Evaluation: July 2003-June 2004. Cumberland,
MD: eQuotient, Inc.
Maryland State Department of Education. 2003. Children Entering School Ready to Learn: School
Readiness Information. Baltimore: MSDE.
MGT of America, Inc. 2004. Judith P. Hoyer Early Child Care and Education Enhancement Program
Evaluation: Final Results Brief.
Rephann, Terance. 2001. Technology Literacy Challenge Grant Evaluation. September 2000-August
2001. Cumberland, MD: Allegany College of Maryland.
University of Maryland School of Public Affairs and Maryland State Department of Education. 2003. A
Guide for Results and Performance Accountability and Evaluation in Judy Center Partnerships.
U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Summary File 1.
Page 54
A.1 Partner Survey Instrument
Page 55
A.2 Partner Comments
Page 57
Is there anything that could be done differently regarding the education of children?
[I] wish the program could expand to other sites in the jurisdiction to involve all children 0-5!
I feel that Judy Center staff make positive and consistent efforts to ensure quality services
are provided to the children and families.
How do you think children have benefited from the Judy Center grant?
Effective collaboration and case management leads to better services being provided to
children and families (i.e., duplication in services has decreased due to collaboration).
The variety and quality of activities and program available to children and families is top-
notch. Academics are important, but the social support provided is of the most benefit.
I think many children have been better prepared to enter kindergarten and 1st grade. Also,
there are several families we would not be able to serve if it were not for the Judy Center.
If you participated in the free monthly food bag program, did you find that it increased family
involvement with your program?
Yes, as much as can be expected within the first year. The monthly food bag program will
continue to enhance family involvement as word spreads and awareness increases.
To some degree it certainly helped maintain involvement more consistently with service
providers.
Do you have any additional comments or suggestions?
Excellent program! We greatly enjoy working with the Judy Center.
Page 59
A.3 Pre-K/Kindergarten Staff Survey
Page 61
A.4 First-Grade Staff Survey
Page 63
A.5 Fall Parent Survey
Page 65
A.6 Spring Parent Survey
Page 67
A.7 Fall Parent Survey Comments
Page 69
I would like to see the Judy Center provide
Maybe small plays or skits once in a while.
Doing a great job! My child is doing great progress and only been in school a short time.
More papers to practice letters and number for the children to practice at home. I would
like to receive a more detailed report on the activities my child participated in that day,
especially as it pertains to his speech and OT sessions. We want to continue working on
the same things his teachers are working on when he comes home.
Excellent program with very helpful services and kind, caring staff.
To continue to provide these services
They already provide everything I need.
So far a great program that I see.
More Judy Centers
I would like to thank the Judy Center for providing my child with a good start in her edu-
cational journey. She enjoys her classmates and teachers very much.
(1) Swimming classes, (2) Lessons on good citizenship, assertiveness, civic consciousness,
good behavior
My son was in the infants and toddlers program. If the ladies I had contact with at that
time are any reflection of the Judy Center as a whole, then I would have nothing but good
things to say about the services and people who work there.
I think the Judy Center is just fine.
Do you have any comments or questions about the Judy Center?
I have been pleased with the Judy Center.
How often does the Judy Center reevaluate a student's IEP?
Page 71
I think the Judy Center programs have helped my daughter a lot. The Judy Center
programs are the best for helping our kids to get an early start in education.
You are doing a great job. Keep up the good work.
I think the Judy Center is wonderful with a lot of great services.
The pre-k and kindergarten opportunities have been invaluable to my children's development.
I have seen many great improvements in them.
Keep up the great work!
This is a very good program. My son is learning so much. Thank you.
My son and I love the Judy Center's programs and staff.
The Judy Center really is a wonderful program.
I think the Judy Center is great -- very helpful and informative.
Great job!
Everything has exceeded my expectations. Thanks.
Just a comment. My daughter really enjoys attending this program. I thank you.
Page 72
A.8 Spring Parent Survey Comments
Page 73
In what ways has the Judy Center helped your child?
The Judy Center has helped with her speech
Counting, letters.
He is talking. Didn't talk at all before.
In identifying possible ADHD
Writing her name and her manners.
Several ways: (1) Made her more assertive, (2) less shy, (3) more articulate, (4) more
social, (5) more interesting!
Has given my child a head start in learning.
Center has helped broaden his interest in science, culture, music, art and geography.
Judy Center has provided a positive atmosphere for social interaction.
Our child has become better able to communicate his needs and interact with others. He
understands what others are saying and can be understood by those he talks to.
Learning skills; ability to communicate teaching choices to make.
She looks forward to going to school and the day care everyday.
The learning tree program has made many improvements with my child such as speech,
OT, counting, and many more.
She has learned many values and many things that we would not be able to teach her at
home because of our jobs.
He now knows that learning can be fun.
Much more confident of herself and improvement in respect for others and property.
Highly recommended program.
The Judy Center has helped my child prepare for school.
[He] has come a long way and is doing great.
Page 75
1. toilet training. 2. talking a little more coherently. 3. routine schedule.
She has gotten to be more social with kids her own age. And she can go places without
me. Before I had to be with her all of the time.
She does things for herself.
My child has become more outgoing and willing to try new things.
Without the Judy Center, my child would be sitting in front of the TV without any
knowledge of anything else existing. My child would not be able to communicate with
me. She has progressed so much in the year and half she has attended. Thank you so
much for all your support and help.
It has helped out a lot because this is the only school with a program for early interven-
tion program.
Help her to adjust to being away from parents.
The Judy Center helped potty train my child. Is working with him because of speech
problems. They have helped him with his social skills as well as involving him in edu-
cation.
The Judy Center has helped teach my child respect among other things.
I have seen my child's social skills improve, interaction with other children, not shy or
fearful to try new things and visit new places.
Improved letter recognition. My child is interested in so many of the classroom activi-

ties. He is so excited each day to explain what they did in class.
He shares with other children and eats more solid foods.
Making friends, socialization, listening.
She can talk much better than before. She knows her alphabet and is even beginning to
spell words.
Word/letter/sound recognition.
Page 76
Writing his name, saying his ABC's, sharing with others, explaining things he does that
day at school, singing.
My child has done well with her learning skills, manners and learning to share, taking turns.
It got them very excited about reading the free books. I was quite [pleased] at how well
Mitchell can read by himself. He has a thorough knowledge about "Poison Center" and
"Fire/smoke emergencies."
Behavior
It has helped her to come out of her shell. The center has helped her to learn to share
and play with other kids.
Maturity, caring, intelligence, work habits and homework
Provided before and after school child care.
Child loves math and "math fun night" was a blast!!!
He is more verbal, knows more about animals, insects, etc.
Not sure yet.
To potty train.
In what ways has the Judy Center helped you and/or other members of your family?
With food
Supportive during stressful family issues.
They are very easy to call and share information for the benefit of the child.
Helped a lot. It made them realize she's not a baby anymore.
Judy Center helped my son with social skill, social interaction, which helped me
encourage his social development.
Page 77
By helping our son improve his communication skills the Judy Center has helped our
family.
WIC has helped us greatly and the activities that are available are great.
Help me with my grandson and better direction in doing best for him.
It has helped me to let her do things for herself instead of doing things for her.
Judy Center has given me new ideas on how to keep our family close and stay involved
with what my child is learning.
When I have a problem or concern I know I can call and get the help I need.
Help me with the stress of my children and has shown our family that my kids are just
kids not kids with disabilities.
Made it possible to have day care for our child.
The Judy Center has helped with many personal problems and offered support and
understanding. They have informed me of special programs and helped me to get back
on my feet.
Daycare assistance support.
Financially with my child's day care expense. I would not be able to handle the expense
if it were not for the Judy Center. Thank you!
Kid's Korner staff are just wonderful. We were so pleased with all of the many activities
they do with the kids. You can tell the staff members really care for the kids. Afternoon
pre-k awesome. Again, they really care and it shows.
Gives me support with my child.
I know my child is being taken care of by great individuals and that gives me peace of
mind!
They have helped with financing daycare and with supplies of food. They answer all of
our questions and are there when you need them. Thank you!
Playing with others.
Page 78
Made me feel good about sending my 4 year old to school. And helps make school a
good time for my son so he wants to be there.
We moved into the area just last year. Judy Center has helped us integrate into the com-
munity rapidly. Now, I'm greeting people on the street, and all of us have lots of friends
and acquaintances.
It gives my son an education and its free. So I don't have to worry about day care fees.
None
What activities would you like to see added at the Judy Center for your child and/or family?
I would say that you got it all covered.
(1) Assertiveness among shy children, (2) "culture" appreciation, (3) how to stand up to
school bullies, (4) how to withstand negative peer pressure.
Nothing comes to mind.
More field trips to closer locales (Idlewild was a bit too far away) and parent/student
activities at school.
Nothing at this time.
Computer--have things on mine that have helped him in learning.
A day when the parent can come and volunteer in their child's classroom for a day.
Autism support group. Maybe even some training on autism.
Things for computers. The school maybe get involved in the NARR program. More
info about and programs for autisms.
More parenting classes or support groups.
Mommy and me playgroup.
Note. They have been wonderful.
Page 79
None.
More family activities that all the family may enjoy.
Continue to have math fun night! Some kind of event highlighting career women in
math and science.
I think it's close to perfect.
More interactive activities involving parent, teacher, and student.
Page 80

Allegany County Judy Center Evaluation, 2004-2005

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Allegany County Judy Center Evaluation, 2004-2005

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Judy Center Evaluation,

July 2004-June 2005

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

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

• 2.0 Characteristics and Delivery of

• 3.0 Enrollment, Training, and Validation ................................11

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

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

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

• 7.0 Child Readiness....................................................................37

• 8.0 Special Research Questions ................................................50

• 9.0 Changes Introduced.............................................................51

• 10.0 Summary and Conclusions .................................................53

Curriculum and Programs

Goal Objective Strategy Activities Achievement

Continued on next page

Goal Objective Strategy Activities Achievement

Continued on next page

Goal Objective Strategy Activities Achievement

Continued on next page

Goal Objective Strategy Activities Achievement

Continued on next page

Goal Objective Strategy Activities Achievement

Table 2.2 Evaluation questions.

Alignment with Judy Center Goals Teacher survey, Parent survey

Special research questions Partner comments, other

Table 2.3 Special research questions

Table 3.1 Enrollment of children by age.

3-year old 44 120

Total 250 325

Figure 3.2 Child Daycare Attendance

Table 4.1 Activity levels of partners, percentage of partners.

Not very Active 0 0

I understand my roles and responsibilities as a member of this project 100 100

The Judy Center team has clear and effective decision

Table 4.3 Goal success, percentage of partners

The strategies of this grant have been implemented 100 100

Table 4.4 Partner satisfaction with Judy Center, percentage of partners.

Somewhat Satisfied 12.5 0

Not Satisfied at All 0 0

Table 5.1 Years teaching, percentage of teachers.

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

Quality of classroom equipment 86 14 0 0 0

Professional development opportunities 71 29 0 0 0

Collaboration with teachers 100 0 0 0 0

Collaboration with early childhood agencies 72 14 14 0 0

Level of parental involvement in children’s education 14 43 43 0 0

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

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

2002-03 2003-04 2004-05

Continued on next page

Own or rent home

2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05

Continued on next page

2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05

2002-032 2003-04 2004-05

Table 6.4 Activities with children, percentage of parents.

Frequently Sometimes Rarely Never NA

Played with toys or played games 73 24 3 0 0

Praised your child for doing well 100 0 0 0 0

Visited public library or museum 8 37 41 14 0

Visited a playground, park, or

Eat a meal together as a family 80 20 0 0 0

Attended an event hosted by a

=.10, =.05, =.01

=.10, =.05, =.01