Www.scps.k12.fl.us



21st Century Community Learning Centers Summative Evaluation Report: Seminole County Public SchoolsMiddle SouthAugust 10, 2017Kaitlin TrippanyThis work is funded through a contract with the Florida Department of Education [590-2447B-7CCC6]TABLE OF CONTENTSSection PageACKNOWLEDGEMENTS3STUDENT ENROLLMENT AND ATTENDANCE 4STUDENT AND FAMILY DEMOGRAPHICS 43.0 PROGRAM OPERATIONS74.0 STAFF CHARACTERISTICS85.0 OBJECTIVESAND OUTCOMES 96.0 PROGRESS TOWARD SUSTAINABILITY 147.0 LESSONS LEARNED AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSSpecial thanks should be given to the following individuals for helping implement this grant during the 2016-2017 school year.Project Administrators:Mr. Luis Alvarado, Site-Based Lead– Led the implementation of the grant at Milwee Middle School.Ms. Patricia Elkharchafi, Site-Based Lead – Led the implementation of the grant at South Seminole Middle School.Ms. Alexis Mcgill, Site-Based Lead – Led the implementation of the grant at Greenwood Lakes Middle School.Ms. Jamee Minnetto, Resource Development Coordinator– Supported the implementation of the grant through grant writing, budget planning, and compliance.Ms. Laura Joralemon, Project Specialist for Title I/Special Projects, supported the implementation of the grant by assisting with data collection, program operations, and deliverable collection.Site Principals:Principals at the Greenwood Lakes, Milwee, and South Seminole middle schools – Supported the implementation of the grant by providing on-going collaboration at each site.1.0 STUDENT ENROLLMENT AND ATTENDANCE Greenwood Lakes had a total of 99 students enroll in the program and attend at least one day, with 44 (44 percent) students who became regular participants. Milwee had a total of 85 students attend at least one day, with 43 (51 percent) students who became regular participants. South Seminole had a total of 66 students attend at least one day, with 49 (74 percent) students who became regular participants. Table 1. Student Enrollment: Total and Regularly Participating Students for Summer 2016 and School Year 2016-2017.Center NameTotal Enrolled Attending(at least one day)Regularly Participating Enrollment(30 days or more)Summer OnlySchool YearOnlyBoth Summer AND School YearTotalSummer OnlySchool YearOnlyBoth Summer AND School YearTotalGreenwood Lakes384714990321244Milwee077885038543South Seminole0561066040949Note. Unduplicated counts shown. Students attending/enrolled in both operation periods are only reported under Summer AND School Year. Only Summer + Only School Year + Summer AND School Year = Total.2.0 STUDENT AND FAMILY DEMOGRAPHICSTable 2: Greenwood and Milwee had more male participants while South Seminole had more female participants.Table 3 & 4: About 14 percent of regularly participating students that attend Greenwood Lakes are English language learners. Slightly less students, about 12 percent of at Milwee are English language learners while 16 percent of students at South Seminole.All of the Middle (South) sites have a significant percent of students with a disability, when compared to the district average of about 12 percent. About 41 percent of regularly participating students at Greenwood Lakes are students with disabilities.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.Table 8 & 9: More than 70 percent of regularly participating students that attend the Middle (South) 21st CCLC programs qualify for free or reduced lunch.Table 2. Student Demographics for Total Participating Students (All Students Served) and Regularly Participating Students. Center NameTotal Participating StudentsRegularly Participating StudentsGenderAge RangeGenderAge RangeMaleFemaleDK*MaleFemaleDKGreenwood Lakes5841012-152519012-15Milwee4341112-1527164312-15South Seminole2937012-151930012-15*DK = Don’t Know/Could Not Be Determined.Table 3. Students with Special Needs: Total Participating Students. Center NameLimited English ProficientIdentified with DisabilityYesNoDK*YesNoDKGreenwood Lakes1584032670Milwee777115691South Seminole1056013530*DK = Don’t Know/Could Not Be Determined.Table 4. Students with Special Needs: Regularly Participating Students. Center NameLimited English ProficientIdentified with DisabilityYesNoDK*YesNoDKGreenwood Lakes638018260Milwee53809340South Seminole841012370*DK = Don’t Know/Could Not Be Determined.Table 5. Student Race and Ethnicity*: Total and Regularly Participating Students. Center NameTotal Participating StudentsRegularly Participating StudentsAmerican Indian/Alaska NativeAsian/Pacific IslanderBlack or African AmericanHispanic or LatinoWhite or Caucasian AmericanUnknown**American Indian/ Alaska NativeAsian/Pacific IslanderBlack or African AmericanHispanic or LatinoWhite or Caucasian AmericanUnknownGreenwood Lakes122930370001114190Milwee023427271021514140South Seminole05193114003142670* Ethnicity categories are non-exclusive; students can be identified under multiple ethnicities.** Unknown = Racial/ethnic group is unknown or cannot be verified.Table 6. Student Grade for Total Participating Students.Grade In School*K123456789101112TotalGreenwood Lakes000000503910000099Milwee000000402619000085South Seminole000000292413000066* Grade levels are exclusive, as students can only be in one grade level. The total number of students where grade level is unknown are not indicated, but can be derived from this table.Table 7. Student Grade for Regularly Participating Students.Grade In School*K123456789101112TotalGreenwood Lakes00000016244000044Milwee00000024145000043South Seminole000000231610000049* Grade levels are exclusive, as students can only be in one grade level. The total number of students where grade level is unknown are not indicated, but can be derived from this table.Table 8. Free/Reduced Lunch Status of Total Participating Students.Center NameFree or Reduced-Price LunchYesNoDKGreenwood Lakes75240Milwee67171South Seminole55110*DK = Don’t Know/Could Not Be Determined.Table 9. Free/Reduced Lunch Status of Regularly Participating Students.Center NameFree or Reduced-Price LunchYesNoDKGreenwood Lakes31130Milwee31120South Seminole4180*DK = Don’t Know/Could Not Be Determined.3.0 PROGRAM OPERATIONSMiddle (South) was open for five weeks for 40 hours a week during the summer of 2016. The summer program is held at Greenwood Lakes Middle School.Table 10. Summer 2016 Operation.Center NameTotal 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:WEEKDAYSWEEKDAY EVENINGSWEEKENDSGreenwood Lakes5194000MilweeNANANANANASouth SeminoleNANANANANAThe Middle (South) sites offered programming five days a week for 174 days during the academic year.Table 11. School Year 2016-2017 Operation.Center NameTotal # 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:Before SchoolDuring SchoolAfter SchoolWeekends / HolidaysBefore SchoolDuring SchoolAfter SchoolWeekends/ HolidaysGreenwood Lakes17450012.30001740Milwee17450012.30001740South Seminole17450012.300017404.0 STAFF CHARACTERISTICS4.1 Staff DemographicsAs shown on Table 10a, Greenwood Lakes employed four school day teachers, one center administrator, and two non-school day staff members. The summer program was also at Greenwood Lakes. Milwee (Table 10b) employed ten school day teachers, two center administrator, and one non-school day staff members. South Seminole (Table 10c) employed five school day teachers, one center administrator, and one non-school day staff members.Table 12a. Greenwood Lakes Regular Staff by Paid and Volunteer Status. Staff Type*Summer of 20162016-2017School YearPaid1VolunteerPaid1VolunteerSchool Day Teachers (former and substitute)4040Center Administrators and Coordinators1000Other Non-teaching School Day Staff2020Parents0000College Students0000High School Students0500Community Members0000Sub-contracted Staff1000Other**00001For all staff categories except “Other”, report only staff paid with 21st CCLC funds. * 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 providedTable 12b. Milwee Regular Staff by Paid and Volunteer Status. Staff Type*Summer of 20162016-2017School YearPaid1VolunteerPaid1VolunteerSchool Day Teachers (former and substitute)NA100Center Administrators and Coordinators20Other Non-teaching School Day Staff10Parents00College Students00High School Students00Community Members00Sub-contracted Staff00Other**001For all staff categories except “Other”, report only staff paid with 21st CCLC funds. * 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 providedTable 12c. South Seminole Regular Staff by Paid and Volunteer Status. Staff Type*Summer of 20162016-2017School YearPaid1VolunteerPaid1VolunteerSchool Day Teachers (former and substitute)NA50Center Administrators and Coordinators10Other Non-teaching School Day Staff10Parents00College Students00High School Students00Community Members00Sub-contracted Staff10Other**001For all staff categories except “Other”, report only staff paid with 21st CCLC funds. * 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 provided4.2 Students-to-Staff RatioAll sites operated with 10:1 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 2016-2017 program year. Parents and community member volunteers were scheduled regularly to enhance the student to staff ratios when possible. 4.3 Staff TrainingAll 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. 5.0 OBJECTIVES and OUTCOMES5.1 Objective AssessmentTables 13a and 13b display the objective outcomes for Middle (South) as well as the programmatic and evaluation changes and rationale. The content area and benchmark information is included in the objective column.Table 13a. Objective AssessmentObjectiveMeasureStandard of SuccessData Collection TimeframeTotal StudentsNumber Met SuccessPercent Met SuccessObjective Status70% of regularly participating students will improve to a satisfactory English Language Arts grade or above, or main a high grade across the program yearClassroom GradesMaintain an A/B grade or improve from a grade of C to B or grade of D/F to C At the completion of Trimester 1, 2, and 31248065%4 Stars (Approaching Benchmark)80% of regularly participating students will achieve a satisfactory level or above on English language Arts/WritingFSA DataAttain an Achievement Level 3 or higherEnd of Year1313325%1 Star (Limited Progress)70% of regularly participating students will improve to satisfactory Math grade or above, or main a high grade across the program yearClassroom GradesMaintain an A/B grade or improve from a grade of C to B or grade of D/F to C At the completion of Trimester 1, 2, and 31248065%4 Stars (Approaching Benchmark)80% of regularly participating students will achieve a satisfactory level or above on mathematicsFSA DataAttain an Achievement Level 3 or higherEnd of Year - June1314031%1 Star (Limited Progress)70% of regularly participating students will improve to a satisfactory Science grade or above, or main a high grade across the program yearClassroom GradesMaintain an A/B grade or improve from a grade of C to B or grade of D/F to C At the completion of Trimester 1, 2, and 31236452%3 Stars (Meaningful Progress)80% of regularly participating students will achieve a satisfactory level or above on ScienceFSA DataAttain an Achievement Level 3 or higherEnd of Year - June22627%1 Star (Limited Progress)80% of regularly participating students will improve their physical fitness as measured by pre-post assessment.AssessmentStudent improves or meets standard for two physical assessmentsAugust, January, May503468%4 Stars (Approaching Benchmark50% of regularly participating students will improve their disciplinary problems as measured by school / district recordsDiscipline DataStudent decreases referrals or have 0 referralsAugust, January, May1149987%5 Stars (Meets or Exceeds Benchmark)80% of regularly participating students will improve their engagement in career exploration as measured by perceptual surveyAssessmentStudent improves or maintain 100%Baseline, Mid and Post533566%3 Stars (Meaningful Progress)50% of the adult family members of regularly participating students will increase their involvement in student education as measured by perceptual survey (parent),SurveyFamily member improve or maintain 100%August, January, May301033%2 Stars (Some Progress)Table 13b: Programmatic ChangesObjectiveProgrammatic Changes and RationaleData Collection/ Evaluation Changes and Rationale70% of regularly participating students will improve to a satisfactory English Language Arts grade or above, or main a high grade across the program yearProposed Changes: Continue with current curriculum and programmatic plan for iReady and track areas of weakness by profile reports. ELA/Writing activities have been created through PBLs and progress monitoring has occurred based on the data/results; however, new ones will be created to focus on small group sessions and additional extension activities. Rationale: Q1 to Q4 reports indicate that 65% of regularly participating student improved to a satisfactory English Language Arts grades compared with objective assessment benchmark of 70%. To ensure we increase this, the team will review new PBLs and the fidelity of using iReady to ensure students are doing it with a purpose.No changes needed: Continue collecting quarterly grades data from district80% of regularly participating students will achieve a satisfactory level or above on English language Arts/WritingProposed Changes: Continue with current curriculum and programmatic plan for iReady and track areas of weakness by profile reports. ELA/Writing activities have been created through PBLs and progress monitoring has occurred based on the data/results; however, new ones will be created to focus on small group sessions and additional extension activities. One of these activities will be creative writing. Rationale: Q1 to Q4 reports indicate that 25% of regularly participating students achieved a satisfactory English Language Arts/Writing as compared with objective assessment benchmark of 80%. To ensure we increase this, the team will review new PBLs and the fidelity of using iReady to ensure students are doing it with a purpose and focus on specific struggling standards more readily.No changes needed: Continue collecting state assessment data from district70% of regularly participating students will improve to satisfactory Math grade or above, or main a high grade across the program yearProposed Changes: Continue with current curriculum and programmatic plan for iReady Math and collaborate with iReady Math teachers. Track areas of weakness by profile reports. Math activities have been created through PBLs; however, additional ones will need to be created, and progress monitoring will occur based on the data/results with small group instruction and extension activities. Rationale: Q1 to Q4 reports indicate that 65% of regularly participating students achieved a satisfactory Math grade as compared with objective assessment benchmark of 70%. To ensure we increase this, the team will review new PBLs and the fidelity of using iReady to ensure students are doing it with a purpose and focus on specific struggling standards more readily.No changes needed: Continue collecting quarterly grades data from district80% of regularly participating students will achieve a satisfactory level or above on mathematicsProposed Changes: Continue with current curriculum and programmatic plan for iReady Math and collaborate with iReady Math teachers. Track areas of weakness by profile reports. Math activities have been created through PBLs; however, additional ones will need to be created, and progress monitoring will occur based on the data/results with small group instruction and extension activities. Rationale: Q1 to Q4 reports indicate that 31% of regularly participating students achieved a satisfactory Math level as compared with objective assessment benchmark of 80%. To ensure we increase this, the team will review new PBLs and the fidelity of using iReady to ensure students are doing it with a purpose and focus on specific struggling standards more readily.No changes needed: Continue collecting state assessment data from district70% of regularly participating students will improve to a satisfactory Science grade or above, or main a high grade across the program yearProposed Changes: Continue with current curriculum and NASA project, if approved. Science activities would be created. Progress monitoring and data tracking tools for mastery of science standards have been implemented. Blended learning model have also been added to the science curriculum. Rationale: Q1 to Q4 reports indicate that 52% of regularly participating students achieved a satisfactory Science grade as compared with objective assessment benchmark of 70%. To ensure we increase this, more focus on aligning the standards with the activity and complexity level should be done when working on the PBL.No changes needed: Continue collecting quarterly grades data from district80% of regularly participating students will achieve a satisfactory level or above on ScienceProposed Changes: Continue with current curriculum and NASA project, if approved. Science activities would be created. Progress monitoring and data tracking tools for mastery of science standards have been implemented. Blended learning model have also been added to the science curriculum. Rationale: Q1 to Q4 reports indicate that 27% of regularly participating students achieved a satisfactory Science level as compared with objective assessment benchmark of 80%. To ensure we increase this, more focus on aligning the standards with the activity and complexity level should be done when working on the PBL and collaborate with the Science teachers on standards students may be struggling with..No changes needed: Continue collecting state assessment data from district80% of regularly participating students will improve their physical fitness as measured by pre-post assessment.Proposed Changes: Continue with current curriculum. Multiple nutritional awareness and physical fitness activities have occurred. Some examples are yoga, running, soccer, and calisthenics, to name a few. Rationale: 68% of regularly participating students showed an increase in their physical fitness as measured by pre-post assessments as compared to the objective assessment benchmark of 80%. Consistency will be important to see changes in this goal.No changes needed: Continue collecting physical fitness data50% of regularly participating students will improve their disciplinary problems as measured by school / district records Our teachers infuse interpersonal and intrapersonal affective strategies into their discussions. One site will focus on recruiting foster grandparents and mentors. Rationale: According to the data, 87% of regularly participating students are maintaining behavioral benchmark of 50%. This suggests that the current programming curriculum is successful. No changes needed: Continue collecting discipline data from the district80% of regularly participating students will improve their engagement in career exploration as measured by perceptual surveyProposed Changes: Continue with current curriculum/areas of need based on survey results. Continue to share future ready activities with students and families. Rationale: According to the data, 66% of regularly participating students have engaged in career and college activities as compared to the objective assessment benchmark of 80%. Therefore, additional participation is needed. No changes needed: Continue collecting career exploration data from the district50% of the adult family members of regularly participating students will increase their involvement in student education as measured by perceptual survey (parent),Proposed Changes: Plan to have the meetings established at the start of the year. They will most likely focus on 7 habits because it can benefit the families at our school outside of the school setting. Rationale: According to the data, 33% of regularly participating students have engaged in family member activities as compared to the objective assessment benchmark of 50%. Therefore, additional participation is needed.No changes needed: Continue collecting family member data5.2 Other FindingsFamily members responded very favorably to the majority of questions on the end-of-year survey. The majority of family members (about 98 percent) were very satisfied or satisfied with all aspects of the programs. About 95 percent family member respondents would sign their child up for the program in the future. Students also felt that the Middle (South) 21st CCLC programs were beneficial academically and socially. About 40 percent, of students 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. Additionally, about 40% of teachers felt that the program helped students improve their academic performance.5.3 Student Success SnapshotThis year’s Middle (South) snapshot student has been a regular 21st CCLC student over the past three years. Through the program’s extensive academic support, the student has made exceptional gains in reading. With the station-rotation model, this student was able to get academic help with i-Ready, structured homework/skill-specific intervention time, and academic/personal enrichment with the project based learning and healthy lifestyle rotation. The program’s goal has always been to help support learning gains with our students. 5.4 Overall Findings for Each ObjectiveThe overall progress for each objective is addressed in Table 13a under Section 5.1. Of the ten objectives measured, Middle (South) either achieved or approached the benchmark on four objectives. Students in the Middle (South) program are making exceptional improvements in their classroom grades, discipline, and personal enrichment. This progress in the reduction of discipline incidents and the improvement in classroom grades indicates that students are having more positive school experiences and improving academically.However, students are still struggling to meet the benchmark on the statewide assessments, suggesting students are still in need of additional academic support.6.0 PROGRESS TOWARD SUSTAINABILITY The site-based lead and lead teachers solicited, developed and managed new partnerships; as well as 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 14: Partnerships and Sub-ContractsAgency NameType of OrganizationSub-Contractor (Yes/No)Estimated Value ($) of ContributionsEstimated Value ($) of Sub-contractType of Service ProvidedSteinwayFor-profitNo$900NAMaterialsNote: 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. 7.0 LESSONS LEARNED AND RECOMMENDATIONSThe 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 progress on the many of the program objectives, including discipline, attendance, and student performance. There a few key recommendations that may help enhance the program quality: As a result of the increased rigor of statewide assessments, it may be necessary to re-evaluate some of the programming, or add additional academic support to ensure that students are learning and mastering the new standards.A continued effort to encourage more parent participation in the program is recommended. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download