summative evaluation report: seminole county public ......jul 28, 2016 · summative evaluation...

1

21st CCLC Community Learning Centers

Summative Evaluation Report:

Seminole County Public Schools – Middle (South)

July 28, 2016, 2016

Kaitlin Trippany

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

[590-2446B-6CCC6]

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 3 1.0 OVERVIEW AND HISTORY 4

2.0 STUDENT CHARATERISTICS 5 3.0 PROGRAM OPERATIONS 8 4.0 STAFF CHARACTERISTICS 8

5.0 OBJECTIVES AND OUTCOMES 10 6.0 PROGRESS TOWARD SUSTAINABILITY 13 7.0 LESSONS LEARNED AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14

3

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

Ms. Pattie Reda, Site Coordinator for the 21st Century Community Learning Centers – Led the implementation of the grants at three sites. Ms. Taucier Smalls-West, Coordinator of Special Projects/Title I (Instructional Support) and Project Director for all 21st CCLC programs in Seminole County Public Schools – Provided administrative oversight.

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

Site Principals:

Principals at the Greenwood Lakes, Milwee, and South Seminole 21st Century Community Learning Centers – Supported the implementation of the grant by providing on-going collaboration at each site.

4

1.0 OVERVIEW AND HISTORY

In response to demonstrated community need, Seminole County Public Schools (SCPS) operates three sites under the Middle (South) 21st Century Community Learning Centers (21st CCLC) Program. These sites are all school-based programs: Greenwood Lakes Middle School, Milwee Middle School and South Seminole Middle School. The purpose of these centers is to: (1) improve academic achievement among students; (2) promote youth development to reduce delinquency and school dropout rates, improve social behavior, and foster citizenship; and (3) increase the literacy skills of adult family members and their involvement in student learning. To achieve these goals, the centers will offer project-based academic enrichment activities; an array of personal enrichment services, programs and activities designed to reinforce and complement the academic program; and education for adult family members. During the third year of implementation, the program served more than 400 students from low income, high-need areas that struggle with crime, drugs, homelessness, and unemployment. The programs offered students the opportunity to receive academic enrichment through project-based learning, homework assistance, and tutoring. In addition, healthy snacks were provided as well as the chance to participate in health and fitness activities and other exciting personal enrichment activities, such as photography, character education, technology, art, and music. The evaluation is composed of six sections, which are briefly outlined below: Student Characteristics provides information about the students served, including demographics, enrollment, and daily attendance. Program Operations describes operations at the sites, including the typical and total time of operation for various reporting timeframes. Staff Characteristics provides information on the composition of staff at each site including staff demographics, ratio of staff to students, staff quality (training and certifications), and turnover. Objectives and Outcomes provides information on program objectives, how those objectives are measured, data analysis methods, progress toward objectives, and finding implications and recommendations. Progress towards Sustainability provides information on partner collaborations undertaken to ensure the sustainability of 21st CCLC program and enhance the quality of the services offered. Lessons Learned and Recommendations includes an overall assessment the 21st CCLC programs and program-wide recommendations to enhance program quality.

5

2.0 STUDENT CHARACTERISTICS 2.1 Total Student Enrollment and Attendance Greenwood Lakes had a total of 217 students enroll in the program and attend at least one day, with 94 (43%) students who became regular participants. Milwee had a total of 65 students attend at least one day, with 35 (54%) students who became regular participants. South Seminole had a total of 129 students attend at least one day, with 68 (53%) students who became regular participants.

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

Center Name

Total Enrolled Attending (at least one day)

Regularly Participating Enrollment (30 days or more)

Summer Only

School Year Only

Both Summer

AND School Year

Total Summer

Only

School Year Only

Both Summer

AND School Year

Total

Greenwood Lakes

34 166 17 217 3 77 14 94

Milwee 0 57 8 65 0 30 5 35

South Seminole 0 122 7 129 0 61 7 68

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

2.2 Student Demographics

Table 2: All sites had more male participants than female.

Table 3 & 4: o About nine percent of regularly participating student that attend Greenwood Lakes and

Milwee are English Language Learners (ELL), while six percent of students are noted as ELL at South Seminole.

o All of the Middle (South) sites have a significant percent of students with a disability, about 25 percent, when compared to the district average of about 12 percent.

o More than 80 percent of regularly participating students that attend the Middle (South) 21st CCLC programs qualify for free or reduced lunch.

Table 5: The majority of students that attend the Middle (South) 21st CCLC programs are African American, Hispanic, or White, with a small proportion of students representing other racial/ethnic groups.

Table 6 & 7: Grade six has the highest enrollment at all three sites. In the total participant table at Greenwood Lakes, there are five fifth grade students that participated in the summer program prior to entering Grade six but did not return to the Middle (South) program during the academic year.

6

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

Center Name

Total Participating Students Regularly Participating Students

Gender Age

Range

Gender Age

Range Male Female Data Not Provided

Male Female Data Not Provided

Greenwood Lakes

117 99 1 10-15 48 45 1 10-15

Milwee 40 25 NA 10-15 20 15 NA 10-15

South Seminole 72 57 NA 10-15 36 32 NA 10-15

Table 3. Population Specifics: Total Participating Students.

Center Name Limited English

Language Proficiency Identified with Special Needs

Free or Reduced-Price Lunch

Yes No DK* Yes No DK Yes No DK

Greenwood Lakes 19 197 1 51 165 1 187 29 1

Milwee 6 59 NA 19 46 NA 53 12 NA

South Seminole 12 117 NA 28 101 NA 108 21 NA

*DK = Don’t Know/Could Not Be Determined.

Table 4. Population Specifics: Regularly Participating Students.

Center Name Limited English

Language Proficiency Identified with Special Needs

Free or Reduced-Price Lunch

Yes No DK* Yes No DK Yes No DK

Greenwood Lakes 8 85 1 26 67 1 77 16 NA

Milwee 3 32 NA 9 26 NA 31 4 NA

South Seminole 4 64 NA 20 48 NA 55 13 NA

*DK = Don’t Know/Could Not Be Determined.

7

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

Center Name

Total Participating Students Regularly Participating Students

Am

eri

can

Ind

ian

or

Ala

ska

Nat

ive

Asi

an

Bla

ck o

r

Afr

ican

Am

eri

can

His

pan

ic o

r La

tin

o

Haw

aiia

n o

r P

acif

ic

Isla

nd

er

Wh

ite

Two

or

Mo

re R

aces

Dat

a N

ot

Pro

vid

ed

Am

eri

can

Ind

ian

or

Ala

ska

Nat

ive

Asi

an

Bla

ck o

r

Afr

ican

Am

eri

can

His

pan

ic o

r La

tin

o

Haw

aiia

n o

r P

acif

ic

Isla

nd

er

Wh

ite

Two

or

Mo

re R

aces

Dat

a N

ot

Pro

vid

ed

Greenwood Lakes

1 4 83 49 1 73 5 1 1 3 30 24 0 33 2 1

Milwee 0 1 21 21 0 19 3 NA 0 0 16 8 0 10 1 NA

South Seminole

0 6 27 50 0 37 9 NA 0 6 15 21 0 22 4 NA

Table 6. Student Grade for Total Participating Students.

Center Name Grade In School*

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

Greenwood Lakes 0 0 0 0 0 5 91 82 39 0 0 0 0 217

Milwee 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 21 16 0 0 0 0 65

South Seminole 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 33 53 0 0 0 0 129

* Grade levels are exclusive, as students can only be in one grade level. Students should be reported under the grade level they were in during the 2015-2016 Academic Year. Table 7. Student Grade for Regularly Participating Students.

Center Name Grade In School*

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

Greenwood Lakes 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 35 9 0 0 0 0 94

Milwee 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 13 8 0 0 0 0 35

South Seminole 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 11 26 0 0 0 0 68

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

8

3.0 PROGRAM OPERATIONS 3.1 Summer Operation Middle (South) was open for seven weeks for 40 hours a week during the summer of 2015.

Table 8. Summer 2015 Operation.

Center Name

Total number of weeks THIS center was

open

Typical number of days per

week THIS center was

open

Typical number of hours per week THIS center was open on

WEEKDAYS WEEKDAY EVENINGS

WEEKENDS

Greenwood Lakes 7 4 40 0 0

Milwee NA NA NA NA NA

South Seminole NA NA NA NA NA

3.2 School Year Operation

The Middle (South) sites offered programming five days a week for 174 days during the academic year.

Table 9. School Year 2015-2016 Operation.

Center Name

Total # weeks THIS

center was

open

Total # days THIS

center was

open

Typical # days

per week THIS

center was

open

Typical # hours per week THIS center

was open

Total # days THIS center operated

Bef

ore

Sch

oo

l

Du

rin

g Sc

ho

ol

Aft

er S

cho

ol

Wee

ken

ds

/ H

olid

ays

Bef

ore

Sch

oo

l

Du

rin

g Sc

ho

ol

Aft

er S

cho

ol

Wee

ken

ds/

H

olid

ays

Greenwood Lakes 33 174 5 0 0 2.15 0 0 0 174 0

Milwee 33 174 5 0 0 2.15 0 0 0 174 0

South Seminole 33 174 5 0 0 2.15 0 0 0 174 0

4.0 STAFF CHARACTERISTICS As shown on Table 10a Greenwood Lakes employed five school day teachers, one center administrator, and two non-school day staff members. In addition, Greenwood Lakes had 20 high school student volunteers. Milwee (Table 10b) employed four school day teachers, one center administrator, two non-school day staff members, and one high school student. South Seminole (Table 10c) employed five school day teachers, one center administrator, and two non-school day staff members.

9

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

Staff Type*

Greenwood Lakes

Summer of 2015 2015-2016

School Year

Paid Volunteer Paid Volunteer

School Day Teachers (former and substitute) 5 0 4 0

Center Administrators and Coordinators 1 0 1 0

Other Non-Teaching School Day Staff 3 0 2 0

Parents 0 0 0 0

College Students 0 0 0 0

High School Students 0 1 0 20

Community Members 0 0 0 0

Subcontracted Staff 0 0 0 0

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

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

Staff Type*

Milwee

Summer of 2015 2015-2016

School Year


School Day Teachers (former and substitute)

NA

4 0

Center Administrators and Coordinators 1 0

Other Non-Teaching School Day Staff 2 0

Parents 0 0

College Students 0 0

High School Students 0 1

Community Members 0 0

Subcontracted Staff 0 0

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

10

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

Staff Type*

South Seminole

Summer of 2015 2015-2016

School Year


School Day Teachers (former and substitute)

NA

5 0

Center Administrators and Coordinators 1 0

Other Non-Teaching School Day Staff 2 0

Parents 0 0

College Students 0 0

High School Students 0 0

Community Members 0 0

Subcontracted Staff 0 0

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

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

ratio for personal enrichment (non-academic). This ratio was consistent throughout the 2015-16

program year. Parents and community member volunteers were scheduled regularly to enhance the

student to staff ratios when possible.

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

5.0 OBJECTIVES and OUTCOMES 5.1 Objective Assessment Table 11 displays Middle (South) objectives and progress toward meeting the objectives.

11

Table 11: Objectives and Outcomes

Objective Standard of

Success Benchmark

Total Participants Measured

Total Number of

Participants Meeting

Standard of Success

Percent of Participants Meeting Standard

of Success Program Progress

70% of regularly participating students will improve to a satisfactory

English Language Arts grade or above, or maintain a high

grade across the program year.

Maintain an A/B grade or

improve from a grade of C to B or grade of D/F

to C

70% 183 111 61% Made

Significant Progress

80% of regularly participating students will improve to a satisfactory level or above on English language Arts/writing or

maintain an above satisfactory level.

Maintain satisfactory

achievement level (Level 3)

or improve achievement

level

80% 132 42 32% Made

Progress

70% regularly participating students will improve to a satisfactory mathematics

grade or above, or maintain a high grade across the

program year.



to C

70% 183 100 55% Made

Progress

80% of regularly participating students will improve to a satisfactory

level or above on mathematics or maintain an

above satisfactory level.

Maintain satisfactory


or improve achievement

level

80% 133 61 46% Made

Progress

70% regularly participating students will improve to a satisfactory science grade

or above, or maintain a high grade across the program

year.



to C

70% 183 91 50% Made

Progress

80% of regularly participating students will

improve to a proficient level on science or maintain an above proficiency level.

Achieve satisfactory


80% 39 6 15% Made little

to no progress

80% of participating students will improve their

physical fitness as measured by pre-post

assessment.

Decrease BMI or maintain healthy BMI

80% 55 50 91% Achieved Objective

12

Objective Standard of

Success Benchmark

Total Participants Measured

Total Number of

Participants Meeting

Standard of Success

Percent of Participants Meeting Standard

of Success Program Progress


disciplinary problems as measured by school/district

records

Decrease discipline

referrals from Q4 to Q2

50% 193 156 81% Achieved Objective


engagement in career exploration as measured by

surveys

Increase score on survey by 1

or maintain 100%

80% 39 21 54% Made

Progress

50% of participating family members will improve their

involvement in student education as measured by a

parent survey.

Increase score on survey by 1

or maintain 100%

50% 13 6 46% Made

Significant Progress

5.2 Other Findings Family members responded very favorably to the majority of questions on the end-of-year survey. Most family members (about 75 percent) were very satisfied or satisfied with all aspects of the programs. All family member respondents would sign their child up for the program in the future and recommend the program to others. However, there were only 12 family member respondents, so it may not be a representative sample. Students also felt that the Middle (South) 21st CCLC programs were beneficial socially. The majority, more 60 percent, of students also felt that adults at the program cared about them, felt the program helped them understand the importance of following rules and helped complete their homework.

The majority teachers that responded felt that the 21st CCLC program did not improve the student’s academic performance, classroom behavior, or motivation to learn. Teachers only responded about 19 specific students so it may not representative of all students attending the program. Nevertheless, it may be beneficial for the program to further explore the academic needs of the students.

5.3 Student Success Snapshot The student success snapshot is a seventh grader who entered the program at the beginning of the school year having the highest risk score of all students attending the school. She was habitually truant last year and missed over 100 days of school. She was placed at such a high risk due to attendance, standardized test scores, GPA, and the number of failed courses. This student was recruited into the program due to her high academic risk level. Due to the compassion of the staff, this student flourished this year. She worked very hard in all academic pursuits and had near

13

perfect attendance. She became a peer tutor for other students and ended the year with improved grades, 3.0 GPA of and a lower at risk score moving into eighth grade. In addition to academic support, this student received emotional support from the staff as she navigated her way through seventh grade after having such a disastrous sixth grade year. She was recognized as the November Student of the Month and received a standing ovation from her peers.

5.4 Overall Findings for Each Objective The overall progress for each objective is addressed in Table 11 under Section 5.1. Of the 10 objectives measured, Middle (South) either achieved or made significant progress on four objectives. There was little to no progress made on the statewide Science assessment with only 15 percent of students achieving proficiency. Some progress was made on the remaining objectives that measured student performance on the statewide assessments. The Florida Standards Assessment (FSA) in ELA and mathematics are new and more rigorous than previous assessments, it may take some time for students and teachers to adjust. However, the performance of Middle (South’s) students suggests that programing changes may be necessary to improve student outcomes.

6.0 PROGESS TOWARDS SUSTAINABILITY The site coordinator and lead teachers solicited, developed and managed new partnerships. This year, Middle (South) had a variety of partners, such as the Michelle Jewett- Safehouse that provided a series on healthy relationships for students. The Site Coordinator and the Lead Teachers communicated at least annually with partners to share the progress and success of the specific programs. More explicit and on-going partner development will be important for long term sustainability of this program.

Table 12: Partnerships and Sub-Contracts

Agency Name Type of

Organization Subcontractor

(Yes/No)

Estimated Value ($) of

Contributions

Estimated Value ($) of Subcontract

Type of Service

Provided

Sports for the Kids CBO No $100 Materials

ASL Honor Society from

Lake Mary High School SD No Volunteers

State of Florida Health

Department CBO No $1000

Programming/Activity Related Services

State of Florida Health

Department CBO No $2,860.68


Michelle Jewett-

Safehouse CBO No

$1,000


14

Agency Name Type of

Organization Subcontractor

(Yes/No)

Estimated Value ($) of

Contributions

Estimated Value ($) of Subcontract

Type of Service

Provided

Dr. Gul

Dadlani/Nemours

Hospital HBO No $1,250


UF/IFAS Extension,

Seminole County CBO No

$500


Boys Town/Justin

Colson CBO No $1,083


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

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

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

progress on many of the program objectives, including classroom grades, discipline, and physical fitness.

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

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

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

summative evaluation report: seminole county public ......jul 28, 2016 · summative evaluation...

Documents