richland library literacy 2030 richland county december 2014 library literacy 2030 richland county...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Richland Library
Literacy 2030 Richland County
December 2014
Leigh Kale D’Amico, EdD
Kassie Mae Miller, MPH
Glenn Prince, MDiv
3
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................... 3
Overview ................................................................................................................................... 4
Process ..................................................................................................................................... 5
Step 1: Identify Needs ............................................................................................................... 7
Pre-Survey Results................................................................................................................ 7
Attendance ............................................................................................................................ 8
Session 1 Summary .............................................................................................................. 8
Step 2: Define Goals ................................................................................................................. 9
Pre-Survey Results................................................................................................................ 9
Attendance .......................................................................................................................... 10
Session 2 Summary ............................................................................................................ 10
Step 3: Identify Evidence-Based Practices .............................................................................. 15
Pre-Survey Results.............................................................................................................. 15
Attendance .......................................................................................................................... 15
Session 3 Summary ............................................................................................................ 16
Step 4: Develop Outcomes ..................................................................................................... 17
Pre-Survey Results.............................................................................................................. 17
Attendance .......................................................................................................................... 18
Session 4 Summary ............................................................................................................ 19
Participant Reactions to Process ............................................................................................ 20
Conclusions ............................................................................................................................ 21
Recommendations .................................................................................................................. 22
Appendix A. Needs and Barriers/Conceptual Frameworks ...................................................... 23
Appendix B. Developing Outcomes ......................................................................................... 32
Appendix C. Literacy 2030 Participating Organizations ........................................................... 34
4
Overview
Literacy 2030 was initiated by a group of library and literacy service providers to improve
community collaboration and South Carolina’s efforts to address literacy. This initial group was
known as A Community of Readers. In 2010, Central Carolina Community Foundation
provided A Community of Readers with funding and the name was changed to Literacy 2030 to
reflect the goal of achieving 100% literacy in eleven counties in the Midlands by 2030. Literacy
2030 continued to grow with more community partners, focusing on alignment of services,
advocating for literacy, and building capacity during the first year.
By August 2011, almost 60 coalition members began building a Regional Literacy Plan for the
Midlands focusing on 1) early childhood/family literacy and 2) workforce readiness. In addition
to the Regional Literacy Plan, Literacy 2030 also created several key reports to inform the
community on the current state of literacy, including a needs and services assessment, as well
as a funding analysis. Coalition members also conducted an analysis on the economic impact
of low literacy in the community and disseminated this information widely throughout the
Midlands to engage businesses and community leaders.
In 2012, the Central Carolina Community Foundation furthered their support for the initiative by
investing $1 million into Midlands literacy work over the course of three years. While
continuing to support and advocate for Literacy 2030, the Community Foundation delegated
leadership of the initiative to the South Carolina State Library. Richland Library also provides
support in maintaining and growing the initiative, as well as and serving as model for other
county library systems.
To build on previous work and develop capacity for partnerships around this effort, Literacy
2030 Richland County established a process to move the initiative forward. This process
included quarterly meetings throughout the 2014 calendar year. The State Library plans to use
the work completed through Literacy 2030 Richland County to inform a statewide framework,
using the local public libraries as conveners and resources for future work.
5
Process
The Office of Program Evaluation (OPE) at the University of South Carolina collaborated with
Richland Library to provide support and facilitation for the quarterly meetings, as well as to
document the process. To encourage a systems-based approach, OPE and Richland Library
identified a process to engage participants at the community level and ensure pertinence to
their individual literacy work.
Each quarter, OPE staff developed and disseminated a pre-survey to gauge participants’
understanding of the topic(s) covered at upcoming meeting, as well as thoughts and strategies
based on their perceptions and experience in the field. The findings from these surveys were
used to guide the facilitation of the meetings, as well as prepare for the meetings’ content.
In collaboration with Richland Library, OPE employed the following four-step process to guide
the process and focus the Literacy 2030 sessions.
Step 1: Identify Needs
1. Identify literacy
needs and barriers
to meeting needs
2. Categorize needs
by areas of literacy
3. Prioritize needs within each area
Step 2: Define Goals
1. Define goal for
each literacy area
2. Develop
frameworks to
understand and
guide progress
Step 3: Evidence-Based Practices
1. Identify sources
and review
evidence for literacy
strategies
2. Consider
evidence and
evaluation results
when selecting or
implementing
literacy programs
Step 4: Develop Outcomes
1. Develop
community-based
outcomes aligned
with goals
2. Specify target
populations and
indicators to
measure outcomes
6
Representatives from approximately 45 organizations attended some or all of the sessions. A
list of participating agencies is provided in Appendix C. This report documents the four-
pronged approach and provides pre-survey results, attendance, and a session summary
related to each session. After the final session, a post-survey was administered to participants
to gain feedback about the process and inform next steps. Finally, recommendations for
continued work toward Literacy 2030 goals and outcomes are presented to build on the
foundation that has been established.
7
Step 1: Identify Needs
Identifying needs is often the initial step in developing a community plan to improve outcomes
for citizens. To better understand perceived community needs, activities in Session 1 involved
systematically identifying literacy-related conditions and needs in the Richland County area.
Richland Library staff members were the primary facilitators of Session 1 to build on the
capacity and trust that had been developed through previous Literacy 2030 efforts.
Pre-Survey Results
Prior to the first Literacy 2030 meeting, OPE staff developed a survey to assess participants’
perceived needs related to improving literacy. Approximately 20 people responded to the
survey representing various organizations and institutions in Richland County, from community
agencies, school districts, religious organizations, and businesses. Most of the respondents
indicated that they work with constituents throughout Richland County (70%) versus specific
locations or neighborhoods. The majority serve school-age children, including elementary
students (70%), middle grade students (70%), and high school students (55%). Almost half of
the respondents also indicated that they work with adults (45%). Responses do not add to
100% because many respondents reported working with multiple populations.
Participants indicated working with a variety of literacy programs, most frequently noting
programs for grade level literacy/reading (65%), workforce literacy (35%), and family literacy
(35%). A smaller proportion of respondents indicated that they work with programs supporting
financial literacy, high school/GED literacy, school readiness/pre-literacy, and health literacy.
Respondents listed common barriers faced by their clients in accessing and completing literacy
programs. Awareness and access emerged as the primary barriers. Respondents most
frequently commented that the populations they work with are not aware of the programs they
offer and that disseminating information is a challenge. Issues related to access include
transportation, child care, finances, and cultural barriers. Respondents also listed the top
barriers they face in meeting the needs of their target populations, involving funding, reaching
their target population, and recruiting and training volunteers and staff.
Furthermore, respondents shared that networking with colleagues (50%) and building a
community to address literacy needs (32%) were the most beneficial aspects of attending
8
Literacy 2030 sessions. For meetings, respondents most frequently made recommendations to
allow more time for networking (43%) and additional discussion about literacy needs (48%).
Attendance
Approximately 32 people attended Session 1. The participants represented a wide range of
organizations including South Carolina Afterschool Alliance, South Carolina Department of
Education, St. Lawrence Place, Turning Pages, Tutor Eau Claire, and United Way of the
Midlands.
Session 1 Summary
To orient participants, Session 1 began with a short history of Literacy 2030, including how and
why it was formed, previous efforts, and future plans. Introductions were made between
participants, including many of the original recipients of Literacy 2030 grants from Central
Carolina Community Foundation, and time was allowed for networking.
After a lunch break, participants worked in small groups to identify the literacy needs of
Richland County and the barriers for achieving literacy by 2030. Each group brainstormed
needs and barriers for all areas of literacy. Then, they worked together to create categories of
literacy and prioritize the needs and barriers within each area. A follow-up survey was
disseminated asking participants to rank the literacy areas identified in Session 1. The most
highly rated literacy need areas include: 1) School Readiness, 2) Grade-level Literacy, and
3) Family Literacy. Based on the work in Session 1 and the survey feedback, these three
areas were selected to guide the remainder of Literacy 2030 work.
Step 1: Identify Needs
Facilitating factors and barriers to address literacy in three areas of need were
identified based on consensus from surveys and discussion during Session 1.
These three need areas were related to:
1) School Readiness
2) Grade-level Literacy
3) Family Literacy
9
Step 2: Define Goals
After the community’s literacy needs were identified, priorities and goals were defined to allow
stakeholders to articulate joint responsibility toward a common framework. Stakeholders use
priorities and goals to determine programs, contexts, and situations that facilitate or inhibit
progress toward these goals. An effective format for this work is developing conceptual
frameworks that provide maps to display relationships among factors contributing to progress
toward goals.
Pre-Survey Results
Based on the needs, barriers, and priorities identified during Session 1, survey respondents
were asked to rank their top three priorities in each area of literacy. Appendix A provides a list
of the needs, barriers, and priorities developed during Session 1. The top priorities within each
area that emerged from the survey results were used to focus the development of conceptual
frameworks in Session 2. The top priorities identified by the survey are listed below.
School Readiness
1) Engaging parents in literacy issues/initiatives
2) A need to better prepare children for K-5 education
3) Improving parenting skills and support
Grade-Level Reading
1) Engaging parents in literacy issues/initiatives
2) Addressing low-level reading skill gaps
3) Preventing the “summer slide”
Family Literacy
1) Engaging parents in literacy issues/initiatives
2) Understanding how adult literacy impacts child literacy
3) Creating a print-rich environment in the home, Improving parenting skills and support,
and Preventing the “summer slide” (three-way tie)
10
In addition, respondents were asked to share their definitions of literacy. Participants provided
varying responses that were summarized into the following definition that was used as a
guiding goal across all three areas of literacy:
“Being able to read, write, communicate, and utilize what you have learned to
successfully function as a member of one's family, workplace and community,
and achieve personal goals.”
Attendance
Approximately 34 participants participated in the second meeting, with representatives from
organizations such as the Episcopal Diocese of Upper SC, Boys and Girls Club of the
Midlands, SC Arts Commission, and local school districts (Richland 1, Richland 2, and
Richland/Lexington 5).
Session 2 Summary
The focus of the second meeting was to use the identified priorities and guiding literacy
definition to develop communal definitions and goals for the three literacy areas. The presenter
shared the results from the survey and then asked participants to break into groups in the three
literacy areas to work on developing common definitions for each area.
The following definitions were developed:
School Readiness: A child has cognitive and language skills to be ready to
learn.
Grade-level Literacy: Being able to read (reading defined as the ability to
apply basic skills of phonological processing, decoding, and fluency in order to
comprehend), write, communicate, and utilize what they have learned in order
to succeed at grade level.
Family Literacy: All members of a family are equipped to navigate through the
systems of the community, resulting in increased family stability and
sustainability.
11
After lunch, the presenter introduced the use of conceptual frameworks. Conceptual
frameworks will be used by Literacy 2030 to guide the collaborative partners to address priority
areas in each literacy category. The participants broke into the three literacy groups again and
began developing drafts of their conceptual frameworks. The definition they created in the
morning was used as an end goal and the top three priority areas helped to guide the
contributing factors. By the end of the meeting, each group developed a draft using poster
board and sticky notes. The evaluators translated the paper conceptual frameworks into digital
versions, using previous experience and literature reviews to assist the revision process.
The conceptual frameworks developed through the participant work in Session 2 and revisions
by the evaluators are presented below. Full versions of the conceptual frameworks are shared
in Appendix A.
13
The following images show the progression of the conceptual framework process from the
initial development stage to the final product. In this example, participants used sticky notes to
identify needs and influential factors for Family Literacy during Session 2. The evaluators then
used their draft to develop a final version of the conceptual framework in a digital format.
14
Step 2: Define Goals
Participants developed the following common definitions to guide future Literacy
2030 work in each priority area:
School Readiness: A child has cognitive and language skills to be ready to learn.
Grade-Level Literacy: Being able to read (reading defined as the ability to apply
basic skills of phonological processing, decoding, and fluency in order to
comprehend), write, communicate, and utilize what they have learned in order to
succeed at grade level.
Family Literacy: All members of a family are equipped to navigate through the
systems of the community, resulting in increased family stability and
sustainability.
These definitions were then used as an end goal in the development of conceptual
frameworks for each area (Appendix A).
15
Step 3: Identify Evidence-Based Practices
Identifying and incorporating evidence-based or evidence-informed practices are important in
striving to meet programmatic, community-level, or state-level goals. Evidence-based
practices indicate whether minimal, moderate, or strong levels of evidence are related to the
practice’s efficacy in accomplishing certain goals. Evidence-informed practices are based on
the research literature, but often do not have empirical evidence to support their impact on
certain goals. Information on the effectiveness of programs or practices can be found through
initiatives such as the What Works Clearinghouse or reviewing research literature.
While evidence-based practices, when available, are important for stakeholders to consider,
collecting evidence at the program and community levels is critical for stakeholders to inform
progress toward their project’s goals. Many programs or strategies may work to make
progress toward a goal; the critical questions relate to “what works best” (Hattie, 2009).
Pre-Survey Results
All of the survey respondents reported some level of familiarity with evidence-based practices,
with most saying they are very familiar (77%). They also noted that the use of evidence-based
practices in their literacy programs is very important (79%); however, only half of the
respondents (53%) use evidence-based practices in most of their programs and one-third use
them sometimes (33%).
The majority of respondents shared that they are able to identify evidence-based practices in
specific areas related to literacy sometimes (60%) or often (33%). Most frequently,
respondents find evidence-based practices on the internet, from research articles, from the
school district or state, or a variety of organizations in their fields. Respondents listed
time (80%), knowledge of sources (73%), and access to sources (40%) as the most common
barriers in identifying more evidence-based practices related to literacy.
Attendance
Approximately 17 people attended Session 3. Examples of the range of organizations that
participants represented include: St. Lawrence Place, United Way of the Midlands, SC State
Library Foundation, and Goodwill Industries of the Upstate/Midlands.
16
Session 3 Summary
At the third meeting, the presenter reviewed the importance of conceptual frameworks and their
use in guiding collaborative efforts. Then the presenter shared the conceptual frameworks for
each of the three literacy areas developed during the previous meeting. Participants separated
into three groups to review the conceptual frameworks and definitions for each literacy area
and provide detailed feedback to edit the frameworks.
After the group activity, the presenter led a discussion on the use of evidence-based practices
in literacy programs, including information about where to find evidence-based practices and
considerations for their use. Staff from Richland Library concluded the meeting with a
discussion about managing data within organizations. Information was shared between the
participants about what types of data are collected, how they are utilized, and the best methods
for sharing data with other Literacy 2030 participants.
Step 3: Identify Evidence-Based Practices
Several sources were identified to review the quality and evidence of literacy
programs and practices. These sources include: 1) What Works Clearinghouse,
2) Google Scholar, 3) Promising Practices Network, 4) Centers of Excellency,
5) literacy foundations, 6) meta-analyses, and 7) other peer-reviewed sources.
Important considerations when using evidence to determine the effectiveness of
literacy-based programs relate to the quality of the source, context of the program,
goals of the program, cost of implementation, and size of the program impact.
17
Step 4: Develop Outcomes
Based on the literacy needs and goals related to each priority area identified in earlier
sessions, outcomes were developed to focus on community-level performance. Outcomes
indicate expected achievements as a result of community focus and programming related to
specific needs and goals. Outcomes are best used to learn about and continuously improve
programs. When developing outcomes, consideration should be made to ensure outcomes are
specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, and time specific.
Pre-Survey Results
Most of the survey respondents (83%) indicated that they always or sometimes use outcomes
to measure progress toward goals, and that these outcomes are useful in measuring progress
toward goals. One respondent (17%) shared that s/he rarely uses outcomes and, thus, that
they are rarely useful in measuring progress. Respondents related barriers they face with
developing outcomes; they predominately had issues obtaining data to measure their
outcomes (75%), identifying what to measure (50%), and making their outcomes
measurable (50%).
Survey respondents also shared outcomes they currently use or have used in the past to
measure literacy. Examples of outcomes varied widely by the three focus areas. Participants
working in school readiness measure vocabulary, alphabet knowledge, and social skills, among
others. Grade-level literacy respondents frequently use standardized test scores or other pre-
and post-assessments. Family literacy outcomes include parent engagement in children’s
learning, time spent reading, and amount of learning materials in the home.
18
Attendance
Approximately 26 people participated in Session 4 representing organizations such as the
Greater Columbia Literacy Council, SCETV, Girl Scouts Mountains to Midlands, and the SC
Department of Education.
19
Session 4 Summary
Session 4 began with an overview of the process used to guide this year’s Literacy 2030 work,
walking participants through the steps from identifying needs and barriers, developing goals,
creating conceptual frameworks, and identifying best practices. The presenter then introduced
the final topic, developing outcomes to measure literacy programs, covering their importance
and common uses. Participants split into their focus areas to discuss outcomes they are
currently measuring, as well as outcomes they would like to measure. Participants
brainstormed outcomes related to the goals identified in the conceptual frameworks.
Finally, staff from the South Carolina State Library discussed their role as leader and organizer
of the overall Literacy 2030 collaboration. The State Library is in the process of developing a
comprehensive website for Literacy 2030 to detail the work done up to this point. Additionally,
they will be providing trainings in the future, as well as alerting agencies to potential funding
sources.
Step 4: Develop Outcomes
Measuring outcomes allows practitioners to gain timely, targeted feedback and
develop criteria for improvement. The following are examples of outcomes developed
in each literacy area:
School Readiness
Outcome: Increase in number of 4-year-old students enrolled in 4K
Indicator: Enrollment data from 4K programs
Grade-level Literacy
Outcome: 90% of 3rd and 8th graders are scoring at or above proficient of grade-level
literacy by 2020
Indicator: National and state standardized assessments (e.g. PASS, end-of-course
and end-of-grade assessments)
Family Literacy
Outcome: Increased number of screenings to identify learning differences
Indicator: Number of adults screened with literacy assessment, number of adults
showing improvement on literacy screenings
20
Participant Reactions to Process
To better understand participants’ attitudes and beliefs about the Literacy 2030 Richland
County process, a brief survey was administered after the final session. This survey included
12 items to gauge participants’ satisfaction with the sessions and preferences for future
sessions. Eleven Literacy 2030 participants responded to the survey.
The majority of respondents attended three or four of the 2014 sessions (73%). Of the
respondents who were unable to attend more frequently, most cited scheduling conflicts (73%)
as their primary reason for missing sessions. All of the participants rated the sessions they
attended as very good or excellent, noting networking with other literacy service providers, the
structure of the sessions, and discussion about literacy issues as the most beneficial aspects of
their participation in Literacy 2030 Richland County. Most of the respondents (73%) indicated
that they formed new partnerships and collaborations with others who attended the meetings.
Respondents shared several suggestions to improve future meetings, with most related to
tailoring the experience to the three focus areas of literacy. Suggestions included: sharing
case studies about successful organizations, dedicating meetings to each of the three literacy
areas, and providing more specific programmatic suggestions to improve literacy.
Furthermore, participants made suggestions for additional partners to include in the coming
year, including healthcare professionals, public school officials with decision-making power, as
well as representatives from Allen University, Benedict College, churches, and local
businesses.
All of the respondents indicated that they plan to participate in Literacy 2030 in the coming
year. The preferred timeframe for future meetings is between two and two and half hours
(73%), with a slight preference for Mondays or Tuesdays.
21
Conclusions
The four-step process allowed participants to work together on a focused, systems-level
approach. At the beginning of the process, participants identified literacy focus areas based on
consensus related to needs. After literacy focus areas were developed, participants identified
overarching literacy goals within each area that were used to build frameworks. Frameworks
serve to demonstrate a map toward the goal, which includes understanding factors that
contribute to or inhibit progress toward goals. Evidence-based practices or strategies were
also highlighted to promote the use of best practices and an evaluative process in monitoring
progress toward the goals. Finally, community-level outcomes were developed to encourage
investment in the goals and metrics to understand progress.
While the four-step approach concentrated on community-level needs, goals, and outcomes, it
can also be used at the program level for planning, implementing, and evaluating strategies.
The process was designed to contribute toward systems-level, community-based work, as well
as allow participants to collaborate, gain resources, and better understand aspects to facilitate
success within their own organizations.
22
Recommendations
Literacy-related work encompasses a large realm of stakeholders, ranging from those working
with young children to encourage pre-literacy skills to those working with adults to build various
types of literacy skills such as financial literacy. Designing a process that encompasses the
broad nature of literacy work in combination with engaging stakeholders over a nine-month
process is challenging. This year’s process, beginning with identifying needs and ending with
developing community-level outcomes, was an important initial step in an on-going process to
develop relationships, encourage shared responsibility toward goals, and understand aspects
that contribute to community-level outcomes. The following recommendations are presented
based on work accomplished in Phase 1 to gain support for Phase 2 and move forward toward
further community-level buy-in and engagement.
Recommendations
Encourage active participation at each meeting from the same stakeholders
Hold individual meetings with each program or organization to understand their
perceived opportunities and challenges
Demonstrate the relevance of community-level strategies and outcomes on
each stakeholder’s individual program(s) or organization
Develop a shared plan and organizational commitments to achieve outcomes
Facilitate partnerships to accomplish goals and seek resources
23
Appendix A. Needs and Barriers/Conceptual Frameworks
Appendix A includes the list of needs, barriers, and priorities identified by participants in
Session 1 of the Literacy 2030 Richland County process. Sections I and II on the following
pages contain a list of brainstormed needs and barriers that participants then prioritized in
section III. Following Session 1, priorities from section III were listed in a survey for
participants to rank, resulting in the identification of three top priorities in each area that were
used to guide the development of the conceptual frameworks. The top priorities are below.
School Readiness
1) Engaging parents in literacy issues/initiatives
2) A need to better prepare children for K-5 education
3) Improving parenting skills and support
Grade-Level Reading
1) Engaging parents in literacy issues/initiatives
2) Addressing low-level reading skill gaps
3) Preventing the “summer slide”
Family Literacy
1) Engaging parents in literacy issues/initiatives
2) Understanding how adult literacy impacts child literacy
3) Creating a print-rich environment in the home, Improving parenting skills and support,
and Preventing the “summer slide” (three-way tie)
Conceptual frameworks were developed based on the top three priorities within each area
follow sections I, II, and III. These conceptual frameworks are provided after section III.
24
I. Literacy Needs Identified for Richland County
Better preparing/readying children for K-5 education (e.g., letter recognition,
books), especially in high-poverty areas
Preventing children from “falling further and further behind”
Preventing low-level readers from experiencing a negative “ripple effect” across
curricula / Addressing low-level reading skill gaps
Fostering positive experiences for parents at their children’s schools / Better
interactions between schools and parents
More books and reading materials in the home
Engaging parents in literacy issues/initiatives (i.e., parental involvement)
Engaging and reaching out to families who speak English as a second language
Addressing the “summer slide”
Recognizing the connection between adult literacy levels and child literacy levels
Meeting the child’s/family’s basic needs
Recruiting and retaining male volunteers
Public awareness/public campaigns about dyslexia
Early intervention for students with special needs
Addressing and preventing undiagnosed learning difficulties in early years
Family intervention to address adult literacy gaps
Including faith-based initiatives/organizations in the process
Increasing programs for Workplace Literacy
Cultural awareness
Increase in/connection to financial literacy (e.g., for unbanked citizens)
Higher rate of secondary school completion
Improved parenting skills and support
Access to affordable, quality childcare
Economic equity
Earlier, more consistent diagnoses of learning difficulties
Qualified, trained, and supported teachers across curricula
Additional home support for school-aged children and their single parents
25
II. Barriers to Achieving Literacy Identified
Lack of knowledge about literacy and literacy-related services
Lack of transportation / difficulty finding transportation
Lack of time (e.g., due to parents having multiple jobs, etc.)
Feelings of embarrassment about the lack of/level of literacy
Prior negative classroom experiences (for both children and their parents)
Continued cycles of poverty and illiteracy
Missing school/being out of school
Learning disabilities
Illnesses
Lack of funding to address adult literacy gaps
Reluctance to create/include faith-based collaborations
Lack of technology in poverty-ridden areas
Language barriers
Lack of parenting initiatives/education
Low parental expectations/goals (due to lack of parental exposure to literacy issues,
lack of opportunities for parents, lack of motivation/skills for parents, etc.)
Grade repetition/retention
Lack of year-round/after-school programs
High population of unbanked citizens
Lack of employment opportunities / Lack of knowledge about available jobs and job
training requirements
High number of high-school dropouts / Lack of high school diploma or G.E.D
Lack of home support for school-aged children and their single parents
Lack of access to quality, affordable, and available childcare
Lack of training and financial support for childcare workers
Additional teacher support and training
Lack of economic equity in the laws governing taxes
Lack of support for schools serving students with learning difficulties and
differences/Overwhelmed school systems
Lack of understanding about student needs
Unrealistic expectations of teachers and schools
26
III. Categorization and Prioritization of Identified Literacy Needs
A. Family Literacy Needs
1. First-priority needs
Engaging parents in literacy issues/initiatives (i.e. parental involvement)
Higher rate of secondary school completion
Meeting families’ basic needs (e.g., food and shelter)
2. Second-priority needs
Meeting families’ basic needs
Understanding/showing how adult literacy impacts child literacy
Increase in/connection to financial literacy
Creating a print-rich environment in the home
Understanding of learning systems within families
3. Third-priority needs
Creating a literacy-rich/print-rich environment in homes with few or no books
Improved parenting skills and support
Higher rate of secondary school completion
More technology and infrastructure
4. Family Literacy needs listed, but unrated in terms of priority
Overcoming parents’ previous negative experiences
Connecting schools to homes
Engaging and reaching out to families who speak English as a second
language
Addressing and preventing the “summer slide”
Recruiting and retaining more volunteers, especially males
Improved school readiness
Increase in/connection to financial literacy
B. Early Childhood/School Readiness Needs
1. First-priority needs
Meeting families’ basic needs
Systemic issues
Parenting skills and support (including family literacy)
Earlier interventions for students with special needs and students with
learning difficulties
2. Second-priority needs
Engaging parents in literacy issues/initiatives (i.e. parental involvement)
Improved parenting skills and support
Connecting schools to homes
Early intervention for special needs students
Quality, affordable childcare
27
3. Third-priority needs
Better preparing/readying children for K-5 education
Teacher training / Teacher preparation to address current trends
Early diagnosis of learning difficulties and differences
Meeting families’ basic needs
4. Early Childhood/School Readiness needs listed, but unrated in terms of priority
Engaging and reaching out to families who speak English as a second
language
Addressing and preventing the “summer slide”
Recruiting and retaining more volunteers, especially males
Tax structure
Quality, affordable childcare
Connecting schools to homes
Training and support for childcare providers
C. Workforce Literacy Needs
1. First-priority needs
Technological literacy and access to technology (e.g., software skills)
Addressing low-level reading skill gaps in adults
Increasing programs to address adult literacy
2. Second-priority needs
Addressing the cycle of illiteracy and poverty
3. Third-priority needs
Better preparing/readying children for K-5 education
4. Workforce Literacy needs listed, but unrated in terms of priority
Engaging and reaching out to families who speak English as a second
language
Meeting families’ basic needs
Recruiting and retaining more volunteers, especially males
D. Grade-level Reading Needs
1. First-priority needs
Preventing low-level readers from experiencing a negative “ripple effect”
across curricula / Addressing low-level reading skill gaps
Addressing and preventing the “summer slide”
Connecting schools to homes
Teacher training / Teacher preparation to address current trends
2. Second-priority needs
Addressing and preventing the “summer slide”
3. Third-priority needs
Training teachers
Connecting schools to homes
28
4. Grade-level Reading needs listed, but unrated in terms of priority
Better preparing/readying children for K-5 education
Preventing children from “falling further and further behind”
Engaging parents in literacy issues/initiatives (i.e. parental involvement)
Engaging and reaching out to families who speak English as a second
language
Meeting families’ basic needs
Recruiting and retaining more volunteers, especially males
E. Statewide Public Awareness Needs
1. First-priority needs
Awareness about the literacy rate in South Carolina
2. Second-priority needs
Faith-based initiatives
Awareness about dyslexia and other learning difficulties/differences
Cultural awareness
3. Third-priority needs
Cultural awareness
Awareness about dyslexia and other learning difficulties/differences
F. Educational System Support Needs
1. First-priority needs
Qualified, trained, and supported teachers across curriculums
2. Second-priority needs
Early diagnosis of learning difficulties and differences
G. Systemic Infrastructure and Educational System Support Needs
1. First-priority needs
Higher amount of tax revenue used to support public schools
Addressing the tax structure in South Carolina
2. Second-priority needs
Qualified, trained and supported teachers / Teacher training and preparation
to address current needs/trends
3. Third-priority needs
Early diagnosis of learning difficulties and differences
Technology and transportation infrastructure
32
Appendix B. Developing Outcomes
School Readiness
Population: 4-year-old children
Outcome: Increase in 4-year-old students enrolled in 4K in Richland County
Indicator: Enrollment data from 4K programs
Population: 4-year-old children
Outcome: 4K classrooms have the capacity to enroll all eligible children in Richland County
Indicator: All students signed up for 4K are enrolled
Population: 4K students
Outcome: 4K students score higher on 5K readiness test than children in 5K who did not
attend 4K
Indicator: Scores from standardized 5K readiness assessment
Grade-level Literacy
Population: 3rd and 8th graders
Outcome: 90% of 3rd and 8th graders are scoring at or above proficient of grade-level literacy
by 2020
Indicator: National and state standardized assessments (e.g. PASS, end-of-course and end-
of-grade assessments)
Population: Special education and elementary reading teachers
Outcome: 100% of special education and elementary reading teachers are trained in research-
based reading instruction by 2018
Indicator: Statewide Read to Succeed data, teacher evaluation data
33
Population: Schools and community organizations
Outcome: Increase in strategic and targeted community partnerships that contribute to
measureable progress of student achievement
Indicator: (No indicators identified during session), Number of partnerships formed between
schools and organizations, number of children recruited for community services
through schools, student assessment data for students participating in programs
offered by partnering community organizations
Family Literacy
Population: Families with identified literacy gaps
Outcome: Achieving increased proficiency in literacy skills
Indicator: Number of books read in the home per week, parental attendance at school
meetings, number of successfully employed families
Population: Underserved adults with literacy needs that have primary or secondary influence
on school-age children
Outcome: Increased number of individuals accessing literacy services
Indicator: Number of adults accessing services
Population: Underserved adults with literacy needs that have primary or secondary influence
on school-age children
Outcome: Increased connectivity between literacy services
Indicator: Number of partnerships formed between serving organizations, literacy coalition
data
Population: Underserved adults with literacy needs that have primary or secondary influence
on school-age children
Outcome: Increased number of screenings to identify learning differences
Indicator: Number of adults screened with literacy assessment, number of adults showing
improvement on literacy screenings
34
Appendix C. Literacy 2030 Participating Organizations
Big Brothers Big Sisters of Greater
Columbia
Boys & Girls Club of the Midlands
Central Carolina Community Foundation
Christ Central Ministries
City Year
Columbia College
Communities in Schools of the Midlands
Discovery Program of South Carolina
Episcopal Diocese of Upper South Carolina
Ginetta V. Hamilton Literacy Foundation
Girl Scouts of SC - Mountains to Midlands
Goodwill Industries of Upstate/Midlands
Greater Columbia Literacy Council
Holladay House Publishing
Junior Achievement
Lexington/Richland 5 Adult Education
Midlands Education and Business Alliance
Midlands Reading Consortium
Moore School of Business, USC
Office of Program Evaluation, USC
Palmetto Health
Richland County First Steps
Richland Library
Richland School District 1 (Board of School
Commissioners, Adult Education,
Volunteering and Mentoring Programs)
Richland School District 2 (Adult Education)
Richland/Lexington School District 5
South Carolina Afterschool Alliance
South Carolina Arts Commission
South Carolina Baptist Convention
South Carolina Book Festival
South Carolina Center for Children's Books
and Literacy
South Carolina Department of Education
(Adult Education)
South Carolina ETV
South Carolina Future Minds
South Carolina Humanities Council
South Carolina State Library
St. Lawrence Place
The Humanities Council
Turning Pages Adult Literacy
Tutor Eau Claire
United Way of the Midlands
USC School of Library and Information
Science
Vital Connections of the Midlands
W.R. Rogers Adult, Continuing, and
Technology Education Center
YMCA