Allegany County Judy Center Evaluation, 2002-2003

Judy Center Evaluation
July 2002-June 2003
eQuotient, Inc.
803 Trost Avenue
Cumberland, MD 21502
http://www.equotient.net
e-mail: equinfo@equotient.net
June 30, 2003
i
Page
Table of Contents ...................................................................................... i
List of tables, figures, and appendices ........................................... ii & iii
1.0 Review of Last Year’s Results ...................................................... 1
2.0 Characteristics and Delivery of This Year’s Training ............... 3
3.0 Enrollment, Training, and Validation ....................................... 14
4.0 Partner Surveys.......................................................................... 18
5.0 Teacher Surveys ......................................................................... 24
6.0 Parent Surveys ........................................................................... 29
7.0 Child Readiness ........................................................................... 44
8.0 Judy Center Component Standards Self Assessments ........... 50
9.0 Special Research Questions ...................................................... 51
10.0 Changes Introduced .................................................................. 54
11.0 Summary and Conclusions ........................................................ 56
Appendices .............................................................................................. 59
ii
List of Tables
Table 2.1 Judy Center partners, 2002-03 ............................................ 4
Table 2.2 Implementation plan....................................................... 6-10
Table 2.3 Evaluation questions ........................................................... 11
Table 2.4 Special research questions ................................................. 12
Table 3.1 Enrollment of children by age ........................................... 14
Table 3.2 Enrollment in before/after school
childcare programs ............................................................. 15
Table 4.1 Activity levels of partners ................................................... 18
Table 4.2 Collaboration success .......................................................... 19
Table 4.3 Goals success ........................................................................ 20
Table 4.4 Performance area ratings ............................................ 22-23
Table 4.5 Partner satisfaction with Judy Center ............................... 24
Table 5.1 Years teaching ..................................................................... 24
Table 5.2 Teacher satisfaction ............................................................ 25
Table 5.3 Performance area ratings ............................................ 26-27
Table 5.4 Feeling of families served by Judy Center ........................ 28
Table 6.1 Respondent characteristics .......................................... 30-31
Table 6.2 Programs used ............................................................... 32-33
Table 6.3 Learning/reading materials at home ............................... 34
Table 6.4 Activities with children ....................................................... 35
Table 6.5 Program interest ................................................................. 36
Table 6.6 Satisfaction with Judy Center services ............................. 37
Table 6.7 Satisfaction with Judy Center in
performance areas ........................................................ 39-41
Table 6.8 Family participation in Judy Center activities............ 39-41
Table 6.9 Improvement in child learning .......................................... 42
and habits because of the Judy Center ............................. 43
List of Figures
Figure 3.1 Enrollment by race .............................................................. 15
Figure 3.2 Attendance rate ................................................................... 16
Figure 4.1 Partner satisfaction with
Judy Center, 2002 and 2003. ............................................... 21
Figure 6.1 Parent satisfaction with Judy Center
services, fall 2001, spring 2002, Spring 2003. ................... 37
Figure 6.2 Top 10 performance areas .................................................. 38
Figure 6.3 Bottom 10 performance areas ........................................... 38
Figure 7.1 Kindergarten readiness by
domain, 2002 and 2003 ........................................................ 45
Figure 7.2 Kindergarten readiness by period .................................... 46
Figure 7.3 Kindergarten readiness,
Judy Center, County, and State .......................................... 46
iii
Figure 7.4 Kindergarten readiness by domain,

Judy Center, County, and State .......................................... 47
Figure 7.5 Pre-Kindergarten Readiness .............................................. 48
Figure 7.6 Head Start observation study results ................................. 48
Figure 7.7 CTBS national percentile ...................................................... 49
Figure 8.1 Judy Center component standards,
2001-02 and 2002-03. .......................................................... 50
Appendices
A.1 Monthly Calendar ................................................................ 59
A.2 Newspaper Articles .............................................................. 60
A.3 Judy Center Webpage and .................................................. 61
Beall Elementary Webpage
A.4 Partner Survey Instrument ................................................ 62
A.5 Partner Comments ............................................................... 63
A.6 Pre-K/Kindergarten Staff Survey ...................................... 64
A.7 First-Grade Staff Survey ..................................................... 65
A.8 Fall Parent Survey ................................................................ 66
A.9 Spring Parent Survey .......................................................... 67
A.10 Fall Parent Survey Comments ............................................ 68
A.11 Spring Parent Survey Comments ....................................... 69
A.12 HRDC Head Start Early Childhood
Observation Record ............................................................. 70
1
1.0 Review of First Year of Program

Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) funding for the Beall Elementary
Judy Center began in January 2001. During the first year and a half of operation,
the Center developed staffing, programs, operating procedures, partnerships,
and an evaluation plan that reflected goals, objectives, and management plan
outlined in its first proposal (Allegany County Board of Education 2000). These
characteristics are described further in the first evaluation report (eQuotient,
Inc. 2002). The following findings are notable:
• The Judy Center exceeded its goals in terms of program enrollment.

A highly visible outreach program that spanned print media,
mailings, word-of-mouth, the Internet, and broadcast media
played an important role in this achievement.
• The Judy Center successfully implemented the partnership model

described in its grant proposal. Through effective case
management with these partners, the Center was able to share
resources and information in a way that increased the overall
effectiveness of the Center and its partners. In addition, the
addition of complementary services by partners provided a “one
stop shop” for the families served by the center. These services
included child-care services (i.e., HRDC), parenting education (e.g.,
Family Junction), nutrition services (e.g., WIC) and health services.
• Parties involved with the Judy Center expressed satisfaction with

the Judy Center during its first eighteen months of operation.
Eighty-nine percent of partner agencies and ninety-eight percent
of parents indicated that they were “very satisfied” or “satisfied”
with the Judy Center.
• School readiness as measured by the MMSR (Maryland Model for

School Readiness) indicators that are embedded in kindergarten
and pre-kindergarten student progress reports indicate that the
Judy Center had largely met its goals in achieving benchmarks and
milestones identified in the grant application before the last
progress report. Child performance for both groups exceeded
county (and for Kindergarten, the State) progress levels. The only
MMSR area where kindergarten students lagged their peers was
“scientific reasoning.”
2
2.0 Characteristics and Delivery

of the Second Year
In year two as a result of internal and external evaluation (including on-site
accreditation visits by MSDE) and program funding factors, the Judy Center
established new program targets, partnerships, and program delivery methods
that would further enhance the effectiveness of the Center into its second year of
operation. These changes included the following:
• Because of increasing enrollment, the Board of Education

expanded the number of kindergarten classes at Beall Elementary
by one (from two to three classes).
• The Center introduced new personnel and facilities. A school

nurse provided by the Allegany County Health Department was
available on site during the school year. Also, staff established a
dedicated sensory integration room to assist children in the area
of gross motor development. This area also provided
opportunities for physical activity and/or sensory stimulation to
prevent behavior problems.
• The Center introduced a new partner, the Cooperative Extension

Service, to provide training and learning activities for staff, parents,
and children. New partnerships were also formed with APPLES for
Children (to provide staff training), Allegany County Circuit Court
(to provide co-parenting seminars and a “kidshare” program), the
Health Department’s Fresh Start Program (to provide a mental
health program for 3-5 year olds), the Mass Communications
Department at Frostburg State University (to continue producing
video/broadcast outreach materials), and the Allegany County
Library (to provide reading activities for children and parents).
Also, parenting services currently offered by YMCA were to be
expanded.
3
• Results for the Kindergarten WSS (Work Sampling System) indicated

that during 2001 - 02 Beall Elementary children lagged their peers
in this area. Therefore, the Center introduced new instructional
materials and learning modules in the area of science in order to
strengthen the science curriculum.
• The evaluation was to be revamped to solicit more detailed

stakeholder feedback. The parent surveys were to be re-designed
to examine more closely the impact of the Judy Center on families
and identify specific Judy Center activities that were most effective.
New partner and staff surveys were to be designed that would align
more closely with the Judy Center component standards.
The Judy Center’s second year program activities were a continuation of the
successful model constructed during the start-up year with added enrollment,
curriculum, partners, training, validation, and evaluation goals. These planned
improvements were aligned with Judy Center component standards.
Enrollment was to be expanded by adding a new Kindergarten section and
upgrading the summer program. Peripheral support services in the areas of
health, nutrition, and family education were to be created. The continuation
grant proposal also described an effort to increase overall learning outcomes
for children and a new emphasis on science learning. Partners (listed in table
2.1) were increased to include three new organizations (italicized in the table).
Training and validation were to be expanded in order to improve the quality
of child education and care services.
4
Table 2.1 Judy Center Partners, 2002-03

Organization Role
Family Literacy, GED program for

parents, Family Case Management,
Pre-Kindergarten program,
Kindergarten program, Multi-age
Preschool, Preschool special
Allegany County Board of Education
education, Infants and Toddlers
program, Diagnostic screening,
Breakfast and lunch, Parent
Resource Center, Family Support
Network
Co-parenting seminars; "kidshare"

Allegany County Circuit Court
program
Allegany County Department of
Family Preservation Services
Social Services
Dental health services, Nursing

Allegany County Health Department services, WIC, Mental Health
Services, Fresh Start
Allegany County Library, Frostburg Reading activities for children and

Branch parents
APPLES for Children Staff training
Nutrition training and workshops for
Cooperative Extension Service
staff and parents
Video/broadcast outreach materials,
Frostburg State University (FSU)
child screenings and tutoring
Human Resources Development Head Start, Childcare (Full Day, Full
Commission (HRDC) Year)
Office of Children, Youth, and

Building community support
Families (Local Management Board)
Technical Support, Child Care Staff,

Maryland Childcare Administration
Training, Quality Assurance
Family Support Center, Parent

YMCA
Power
5
Some features of the program remained basically the same as the first year.
For instance, reporting and internal evaluation were carried out in much the
same manner as the first year with a designated Steering Committee that met
on a quarterly basis and monthly meetings of state-wide Judy Center staff. Also,
marketing of the program continued along the same lines, by using broadcast,
newspaper announcements, website, and print materials. Staff introduced a
new calendar (see Appendix A.1) to keep parents abreast of special activities.
Also, local newspapers were used more often for public announcements (see
Appendix A.2). On the other hand, the Judy Center webpage (see Appendix A.3)
was not updated since it was introduced in 2001 and includes program and
contact information that is quite dated. Given the relatively low levels of
webpage usage and the characteristics of Judy Center clients (only half reported
having Internet access), emphasizing more widely accessible print and broadcast
marketing materials makes sense.
The parameters for evaluation were spelled out in the proposal and are listed
in table 2.2. 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 achievement
of each goal, objective, strategy, and activity. To summarize this table, every
goal, objective, and strategy proposed in the grant was realized. A handful of
activities described were not fully implemented because of problems in
scheduling or practical difficulties encountered.
6
Table 2.2 Implementation Plan
Goal Objective Strategy Activities Achievement
By June 30, By June 30, Continue to Enroll 20 Goal and

2003, 2003, 36% of offer a half- children in the objective
exiting exiting day multi-age half-day multi- achieved.
kindergarten kindergarten class for age class. The Strategy and
students at students at twenty 3-, 4-, target group activities
the Judy the Judy and 5-year- will be children implemented.
Center will Center will olds that who exhibit
improve reach full focuses on language
the full readiness language and delays, speech
readiness level for the literacy or articulation
level for all WSS domain development. problems,
WSS of Language and/or limited
domains by and Literacy literacy
10% above (an increase experiences.
the 2001 from the
readiness 2001
baseline readiness
(an baseline of
increase 29% to
from 54% 35%).
to 64%).
7
Table 2.2 Implementation Plan continued

Increase (1) Provide Goal and
number of summer objective
children who program that achieved.
participate in includes Strategy and
extended day children who activities
and extended were enrolled implemented
year services. in the Judy as follows:
Center's (1) Summer
Pre-Kindergarten program
program. provided that
(2) Increase was thematic-
number of based, cross-
children in curricular,
before- and heavier on
after-school science; and
child care (2) Totals in
program. before and
after school
child care
program
increased
from 28 to 42.
8

Involve (1) Help Goal and
parents in families to objective
their child's create a achieved.
literacy personal home Strategy and
development library for activities
by children by implemented
encouraging providing book as follows: (1)
literacy boxes and Free book
experiences paperback shelves and
in the home. books, (2) book
Provide story distribution
time for also to WIC
children and and Infant and
workshops for Toddler
parents on the families;
importance of (2) Family
reading, and literacy night
(3) Collaborate in February at
— — with Frostburg Frostburg
State library with
University's free books
annual and weekly
Children's family literacy
Literature nights over
Festival. summer with
Frost Library;
3) Child's
author visited;
and a
Kindergarten
teacher
presented a
workshop
entitled
"Reading
Strategies"
for Parents.
9

By June 30, Increase and (1) Utilize the Goal and
2003, 16% of enhance MSDE objective
exiting children's document achieved.
kindergarten experiences which provides Strategy and
students at in the area of representative activities
the Judy science. examples for implemented
Center will Pre-Kindergarten as follows: (1)
reach full and Content
readiness Kindergarten standards
level for the in the Maryland more specific;
WSS domain Content (2) New
of Scientific Standards in materials
Thinking (an Science, (2) used and
increase Utilize new specific
from the science science time
2001 materials established
readiness (purchase with during day;
baseline of Judy Center (3)
6% to 16%). funds), Kindergarten
particularly to teacher
enrich attended
— children's MMSR
experiences at Summer
learning Science
centers, (3) Institute,
Arrange for curriculum
one of Judy enhancement
Center Primary
Kindergarten Talent
teachers to Development
attend the 2002 Checklist
MMSR Summer included
Institute on math and
Science, and science items;
(4) Utilize and (4) Did
resources at not occur.
FSU by taking
field trips
and/or having
guest
speakers/
presenters on
science-related
topics.
10

By June 30, Increase the (1) Monitor Goal and
2003, 55% of average daily children's daily objective
kindergarten attendance attendance. achieved.
students at rate of Make Strategy and
the Judy Kindergarten telephone calls, activities
Center will students from hold implemented
reach full 93.6% to 95% conferences, as follows: (1)
readiness and conduct Daily
level for the attendance attendance in
WSS domain meetings with Pre-K and
of Social and parents to Kindergarten
Personal stress the were
Skills (an importance of monitored
increase the child's and nurse
from the regular school follow-up
2001 attendance, occurred.
—
readiness and Rates were
baseline of (2) Utilize a substantially
49% to buddy system higher than
55%). whereby previous year
kindergarten and
students are approached
paired with a 95% (=94.9%);
mentor student and (2) Buddy
from the system was
intermediate discontinued
grades. because of
problems
scheduling
and providing
adult
supervision.
11
In this report, a broader spectrum of measures (see table 2.3) is used to measure
program effectiveness. This includes the following elements: (1) program
enrollment and attendance (Were enrollment and attendance expectations for
children and parents achieved?), (2) staff training, curriculum resources, and
validation (Were necessary staff training, program validation, and curriculum
materials available as planned?), (3) partner satisfaction (How did partners view
the Judy Center?), (4) teacher survey (How did teachers in Pre-K, Kindergarten,
and 1st grade view the Judy Center?), (5) parent surveys (How did parents view
the Judy Center?), (6) child learning (How much did children learn according to
information from pupil progress reports and other evaluations?), (7) Judy Center
component standard ratings (How did partners and other stakeholders—i.e.,
parents and staff-rate effectiveness of the program), and (8) answers to special
research questions about the availability of community resources posed in the
continuation grant proposal (see table 2.4).
Table 2.3 Evaluation questions
Issues Measurement
# children enrolled in Judy Center

Children enrolled
programs by area
Child attendance Attendance rates
Parent involvement # and type of parent workshops
# and type training workshops

Staff professional development
attended
Program accreditation # programs validated
Partner satisfaction Partner Survey
Teacher satisfaction Teacher Survey
Parent satisfaction Parent Survey
Child readiness Pupil Progress Reports, Test results
Self-evaluation, partner survey,

Alignment with Judy Center Goals
teacher survey, and parent survey
Special research questions

# student referrals, partner
regarding effects on child behavior,
comments, other
cost effectiveness
12
Table 2.4 Special research questions
Question
Are children with the greatest educational need being adequately

(1) recruited, identified and enrolled in appropriate early childhood
programs to increase their readiness for kindergarten?
How many children in the target area are being served by private
(2)
providers of early childhood services?
If participants are receiving full-day services are they performing at

(3)
a higher level than those with no services or part-time services?
Does the Judy Center experience impact positively on special

(4)
education referrals and placement?
Has the use of technology increased awareness of resources which

(5)
support early childhood programming?
Has involvement by the partners provided a cost effective program

(6)
for all participants?
Has the Case Management Team process reduced the duplication of

(7)
services being offered to parents?
Is the Judy Center "model" being adopted and replicated in other

(8)
settings in Allegany County?
How can the Judy Center be maintained when the funding cycle
(9)
ends?
As a result of program interventions and collaborations, has there

(10) been a decrease in the number of referrals to the principals office
for discipline?
What specific requests for services have been received from parents
(11)
beyond the target area?
13
The remainder of the report is divided into seven sections. The next section
(3.0) addresses pupil enrollment, family service, training, and validation
strategies of the program. Section 4.0 describes the results of an end-of-year
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 asked mainly questions about parenting practices and family
resources for use in designing Judy Center activities during the remainder of
the year while the spring survey was designed to provide summative information
about the perceived effectiveness of the Judy Center and overall parent
satisfaction. Section 7.0 provides information on children’s learning and
achievement as revealed by performance on various pupil progress reports and
tests using benchmark comparisons. Section 8.0 describes partner evaluations of
Judy Center performance using the Judy Center component standards. Section 9.0
answers special research questions (see table 2.4) introduced in last year’s
continuation grant application. Section 10.0 describes changes that are anticipated
for next year’s Judy Center. The report ends with a summary and conclusions.
14
3.0 Enrollment, training, and validation

An unduplicated headcount of three hundred and fifty-one (351) students was
served by programs housed at the Judy Center. This figure is not comparable to
a figure provided for last year’s report because that number included county-
wide totals for WIC/Infant and Toddlers whereas this year’s figure included Judy
Center children only. FY 2003 Judy Center funding leveraged programming that
allowed 25 additional children to enroll (primarily by adding a Kindergarten
class) in addition to the capacity added by Pre-K programming introduced in FY
2001 and FY 2002. The distribution of these 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 were comparable to the service area-7.5% of children were minority
versus 8.4% reported in the 2000 U.S. Census for Frostburg.
Table 3.1 Enrollment of children by age
Birth to 3 78
3-year olds 75
4-year olds 110
5-year olds 88
Total 351
15
Figure 3.1 Enrollment by race
1% 3%
3%
American Indian
Asian
Black
White
92%
One declared strategy of the FY 2003 grant was to expand the number of children
in before/after school child care programs. Table 3.2 shows an age breakdown of
enrollment in these programs. Total enrollment increased from twenty-eight
(28) children to forty-two (42).
Table 3.2 Enrollment in before/after school child care programs
2001-02 2002-03
2-5 year olds
Multi-age 1 2
Pre-K 13 10
Head Start 2 3
K 2 11
6+ (1st grade+) 10 16
Total 28
28 42
42
16
Another strategy to improve child readiness was to monitor and follow-up on

child absences to boost the attendance rate over last year. In addition, the
Judy Center began to tabulate attendance rates for Pre-K children as well.
Figure 3.2 shows that Kindergarten attendance rates improved for every month
except for January and February, which saw heavy snow precipitation in Western
Maryland. The yearly average monthly attendance (94.9%) approached the
milestone of 95% established in the grant application. The lower monthly
average for Pre-K provides an appropriate baseline for establishing future Pre-
K attendance benchmarks.
17
Another goal of this year was to increase the level of family involvement,
particularly in after-school activities and parent workshops/trainings. Family
training was arranged around the themes of parenting, computer training,
reading, tobacco cessation, and child development. Thirteen separate workshops/
activities were held, and a duplicated number of 118 families participated. These
activities were announced in Judy Center flyers, newspaper articles, radio
announcements and/or calendars distributed to children and parents. It is difficult
to ascertain, however, if the level of participation increased or decreased over
last year’s figures because comparable figures are not available.
Staff development goals outlined in the grant application were largely attained.
A duplicated number of fifteen staff trainings occurred, an increase over the
previous year. Staff development sessions were held on MMSR, nutrition issues,
childcare behavior management, family involvement, special education, and
other curriculum issues.
Validation/accreditation for the Judy Center Pre-K, kindergarten and childcare

programs was obtained in 2003 for a three-year period from MSDE. However,
due to a backlog of requests for validation Head Start failed to obtain site
accreditation from the National Association for the Education of Young Children
(NAEYC) as per its original stated goal.
18
4.0 Partner Surveys

Partner surveys were administered to the eight Judy Center partners in spring
2003. The survey instrument was a revised version of the survey given during
the 2001-02 school year and included questions about partners’ level of
participation in the Judy Center, collaboration success, grant achievement,
Center performance on a number of features that align with the Judy Center
component standards, and satisfaction with the Judy Center. The survey
instrument is included in Appendix A.4. Among the Judy Center component
standards, component #1 (full day/full year services) was represented by 4.a,
component #2 (provision for breakfast/lunch) by 4.c, component #3 (service
coordination/case management) by 4.d, components #4 (integration of early
education services) and #5 (family support services) by 4.e and 4.f, component
#6 (early identification/intervention) by 4.g, component #7 (pre-school special
education) by 4.h, component #8 (health related services) by 4.i, component
#9 (staff development is aligned with the MMMSR) by 4.j-4.t, component #10
(family involvement) by 4.u-y, and component #11 by all of the above and 4.z-
4.cc. Teacher and parent surveys (described later) include the same Judy Center
component standard questions for comparison purposes.
The first two tables indicate that the Judy Center partners have developed solid
working relationships that have resulted in good levels of participation. Table
4.1 shows that two of the partners characterized themselves as being very active
in the Judy Center while the remaining six partners were “somewhat active.”
All eight of the partners also rated collaboration success highly (see table 4.2),
although one partner indicated that cooperation is not as thorough as it might
be. 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
Very Active 25
Somewhat active 75
Not very Active 0
Inactive 0
19
Table 4.2 Collaboration Success, percentage of partners

Agree Disagree
The composition of this

0
team was "right" for 100
this program.
The Judy Center team

communicated openly 0
100
and clearly during
meetings.

communicated openly 12.5
87.5
and clearly between
meetings.
Members of the Judy

Center established
0
informal 100
communication
networks.
Members of the Judy

Center team have
12.5
relationships built on 87.5
trust and mutual
respect.
I understood the goals

0
and objectives of the 100
Judy Center project.
I understood my roles
0
and responsibilities as a 100
member of this project.

has clear and effective 12.5
87.5
decision making
procedures.
20
Table 4.3 Goals Success, percentage of partners.

Agree Disagree
Community awareness
of the Judy Center has 0
100
increased in the past
year.
Resources for this

0
project were adequate 100
to meet objectives.
The strategies of this

0
grant have been 100
implemented.
The strategies of this

grant are 0
100
demonstrating positive
outcomes.
Table 4.4 shows partner assessment of various features of the Judy Center. The
ratings for most characteristics were high. Only two features were given a low
grade by any partner. One partner gave “case management” a “minimal” rating
and two partners gave “space sufficiency” the same “minimal” rating.
Thehighest ratings were in the areas of auxiliary services for children (such as
health care, mental health, etc.). Most partners indicated that they were not
familiar with how the Center was performing in presenting various elements of
the curriculum (e.g., activities for art, music, physical education, language/
reading/writing, math, science).
21
Figure 4.1 shows partner satisfaction with the Judy Center this year in comparison
with the previous year. All of the partners expressed at least some level of
satisfaction with the Center and the proportion indicating that they were “very
satisfied” doubled over last year. In written comments (see Appendix A.5) ,
partners described how the Judy Center “one stop shop” service coordination
model resulted in benefits for both children and families. The only problems
that the partners identified were space limitations and the possibility of
increasing community awareness above current levels.
Figure 4.1 Partner Satisfaction
Very Satisfied
Satisfied
Somewhat Satisfied May-2002
Somewhat Dissatisfied
Apr-2003
Not Satisfied at All
Don't Know
0 20 40 60 80
Percentage
22
Table 4.4 Performance Area ratings, percentage of partners

(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 75 25 0 0 0
b. Child care before or after day 25 62.5 0 0 12.5
Quality of School meals (lunch,

c. 12.5 37.5 0 0 12.5
breakfast)
d. Family case management 62.5 25 12.5 0 0
Array of child and family

e. 75 25 0 0 0
support services on site
Array of child services for all

f. ages (e.g., infants and toddlers, 75 25 0 0 0
Pre-K, Kindergarten)
g. Screening for disabilities 62.5 25 0 0 12.5
Provision of services for

h. 62.5 25 0 0 12.5
children with disabilities
Health services (e.g.,

immunizations, dental
i. 62.5 37.5 0 0 0
assessment, vision/hearing
screening)
Friendliness/helpfulness of staff
j. 62.5 37.5 0 0 0
and teachers
Supervision of
k. 12.5 50 0 0 37.5
children/discipline
l. Materials for learning and play 25 37.5 0 0 37.5
m. Play activities 12.5 25 0 0 62.5
n. Activities for learning art 12.5 12.5 0 0 75

23
Table 4.4 Performance Area ratings, percentage of partners

(4=Excellent, 3=Good, 2=Minimal, 1=Inadequate,
0=NA/Don’t Know)
continued
(4) (3) (2) (1) (0)
o. Activities for learning music 12.5 12.5 0 0 75
Activities for learning physical

p. 12.5 12.5 0 0 75
education
Activities for learning

q. 37.5 12.5 0 0 50
language/reading/writing

r. 12.5 12.5 0 0 75
nature/science
s. Activities for learning math 12.5 12.5 0 0 75

t. 12.5 25 0 0 62.5
computers
Progress reports and follow-up

u. 50 25 0 0 25
conferences
Activities for parents and

v. families (e.g., field trips, 50 37.5 0 0 12.5
picnics)
Education programs for families

w. (e.g., parenting workshops, GED 50 50 0 0 0
classes)
Information provided by Judy

x. Center about upcoming 75 25 0 0 0
activities
y. Judy Center webpage 12.5 12.5 0 0 75
Food and nutrition assistance

z. 62.5 25 0 0 12.5
(e.g., WIC)
Cleanliness and safety of Judy

aa. 50 50 0 0 0
Center
bb. Sufficiency of space 12.5 75 25 0 0

24
Table 4.5 Partner satisfaction with Judy Center,

percentage of partners
May 2002 April 2003
Very Satisfied 33 75
Satisfied 56 12.5
Somewhat Satisfied 11 12.5
Somewhat Dissatisfied 0 0
Not Satisfied at All 0 0
5.0 Teacher Surveys

A teacher survey was introduced this year to obtain feedback from staff in
Kindergarten/Pre-K and first-grade teachers. The two surveys (included in
Appendix A.6 and A.7) are broadly similar and ask about teacher background,
satisfaction with school resources and staff and parent involvement, Center
performance on Judy Center component standards, and overall satisfaction with
the Center. Six teachers in total were surveyed, including three Pre-K/
Kindergarten teachers and three first grade teachers. As table 5.1 indicates
four of the six teachers are relatively new to teaching.
Table 5.1 Years teaching, percentage of teachers
1-2 33.3
3-5 33.3
5-10 0
11-15 0
16 or more 33.3
25
Table 5.2 shows that teachers are generally satisfied with the amount of
resources and cooperation at Beall Elementary. However, three teachers were
only “somewhat satisfied” with the quality of the Beall Elementary facilities and
half indicate some degree of concern about parental involvement. Ratings of
features in Table 5.3 show that only three categories (i.e., activities for learning
computers, activities for parents and families, information provided about
upcoming activities, sufficiency of space) received minimal ratings from one or
more teachers. A few teachers indicated that they were not familiar with some
of the auxiliary services (e.g., screening and services for disabilities).
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 83.3 16.7 0 0 0
Quality of facilities 50 0 50 0 0
Size of classes 66.7 16.7 16.7 0 0
Administrative support 100 0 0 0 0
Professional development opportunities 83.3 16.7 0 0 0
Collaboration with teachers 66.7 16.7 16.7 0 0
Collaboration with early childhood

66.7 33.3 0 0 0
agencies
Level of parental involvement in children's

16.7 33.3 33.3 0 16.7
education
26
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 83.3 16.7 0 0 0
b. Child care before or after day 83.3 16.7 0 0 0
Quality of School meals (lunch,

c. 50 50 0 0 0
breakfast)
d. Family case management 50 33.3 0 0 16.7
Array of child and family

e. 83.3 16.7 0 0 0
support services on site

f. ages (e.g., infants and toddlers, 100 0 0 0 0
Pre-K, Kindergarten)
g. Screening for disabilities 33.3 33.3 0 0 33.3
Provision of services for

h. 50 33.3 0 0 16.7
children with disabilities

immunizations, dental
i. 100 0 0 0 0
assessment, vision/hearing
screening)
j. 66.7 33.3 0 0 0
and teachers
Supervision of
k. 66.7 33.3 0 0 0
children/discipline
l. Materials for learning and play 66.7 33.3 0 0 0
m. Play activities 50 33.3 0 0 16.7
n. Activities for learning art 83.3 16.7 0 0 0

27
Table 5.3 Performance area ratings, percentage of teachers

(4=Excellent, 3=Good, 2=Minimal,
1=Inadequate, 0=NA/Don’t Know)
continued
(4) (3) (2) (1) (0)
o. Activities for learning music 83.3 16.7 0 0 0

p. 83.3 16.7 0 0 0
education

q. 83.3 16.7 0 0 0

r. 83.3 16.7 0 0 0
nature/science
s. Activities for learning math 83.3 16.7 0 0 0

t. 50 16.7 33.3 0 0
computers

u. 83.3 16.7 0 0 0
conferences
Activities for parents and

v. families (e.g., field trips, 83.3 0 16.7 0 0
picnics)

w. (e.g., parenting workshops, GED 83.3 16.7 0 0 0
classes)
Information provided by Judy

x. Center about upcoming 66.7 16.7 16.7 0 0
activities
y. Judy Center webpage 50 16.7 0 0 33.3

z. 83.3 0 0 0 16.7
(e.g., WIC)
Cleanliness and safety of Judy

aa. 83.3 0 0 0 16.7
Center
bb. Sufficiency of space 50 16.7 16.7 0 16.7

28
All of the staff felt that families served by the Judy Center were either “very
satisfied” or “satisfied” with the Judy Center (see table 5.4). In addition, all three
1st grade teachers indicated that they were satisfied with the Center. One
teacher indicated that he/she was “very satisfied” with the readiness of Judy
Center students and two were “satisfied.” The teachers offered no additional
written comments about the Center.
Table 5.4 Feeling of families served by Judy Center,

percentage of teachers
Very Satisfied 50
Satisfied 50
Somewhat Satisfied 0
Somewhat Dissatisfied 0
Not Satisfied at All 0
Don't Know 0
29
6.0 Parent Surveys

Two parent surveys were administered during the school year. The survey
instruments used last year’s parent surveys with supplemental content drawing
on information contained in Harms, et al (1998), Epstein, et al. (1997), the Head
Start Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES), and University of Maryland
School of Public Affairs (2003). The first survey (see Appendix A.8) collected
information on family resources and activities for use in designing curriculum
improvements and outside activities for the school year. The second survey (see
Appendix A.9) collected information on parent satisfaction with various features
of the Judy Center and parental assessments of child development during the
school year. The original plan was to collect more extensive baseline and post-
test information on positive reinforcing behaviors by the family. However, survey
fatigue was an important consideration. In addition, to these two surveys, parents
were asked to complete a lengthy survey for the statewide program external
evaluator MGT of America. Response rates dropped off considerably between
spring and fall (from 87 collected in the fall to 61 in the spring) and this more
extensive set of questions planned for the spring was never posed.
Table 6.1 shows the characteristics of Judy Center parent respondents to the
first survey. Eighty-seven responses were received. Over half of the parents
are thirty years or older and ninety percent are female. Three out of four work
(either full or part-time) and are married. Nearly two-thirds has at least some
college and over three-fifths is a homeowner. Therefore, the profile of a Judy
Center parent respondent indicates a higher socio-economic level than the
average Frostburg city resident as indicated by 2000 U.S. Census data (for
Frostburg, 53.3% of residents 25 years and older have some college, 46.2% over
the age of 15 are married, and 47.2% of housing units are owner-occupied),
even considering the relatively high proportion of college-aged adults in the
population because of the presence of Frostburg State University. Also, these
indicators are higher than the average county resident in all areas but owner
occupied housing (at the county level, 37.5% have at least some college, 58.3%
are married, and 70.2% housing units is owner occupied).
The overwhelming proportion (88%) of Judy Center parents has only one child
enrolled in the Center with the majority of children being four years old.
Approximately one in five of these children has special needs. Among the special
needs cited by parents, ten (10) children had speech difficulties, three (3) had
hearing problems, one had diabetes, one had asthma, and three (3) had emotional
or other behavioral problems.
30
Table 6.1 Respondent Demographics, percentage of parents

Age %
15-19 0
20-24 17
25-29 27
30-34 30
35-39 19
40+ 7
Total 100
Gender %
Male 10
Female 90
Employment Staus %
Employed full-time 46
Employed part-time 28
Not Employed and seeking job 6
Not Employed and not seeking job 1
Homemaker 12
Other 8
Marital Status
Married 77
Single 17
Divorced 6
Widowed/Widower 0
31
continued
Table 6.1 Respondent Demographics, percentage of parents
Educational level %
Some high school 4
High school diploma 30
GED 2
Some College 28
Associates Degree 14
Bachelor's degree or higher 22
Own or rent home %
Own 62
Rent 35
Other 3
Number of children
One 88
Two 9
Three 3
Ages of children %
1 1
2 2
3 13
4 51
5 28
Over 5 5
Percentage with
%
special needs
Yes 18
No 81
Don't know 1
32
Table 6.2 shows that most parent respondents have children enrolled in
Kindergarten (42%), Pre-K (31%), or multi-age programs. Food programs such
as lunch (29%) and breakfast (26%) were also popular. Twenty-eight percent
of parents responded that they participate in the WIC program. Ten percent of
parents utilize after-school day care and five percent use before school day
care. These percentages are slightly different than last year with proportionally
more parents reporting children enrolled in Kindergarten, Pre-K, and multi-
age programs, and proportionally fewer children enrolled in programs like
Infant and Toddler, Head Start, and other associated programs.
Table 6.2 Programs used, percentage of parents
Fall 2001 Fall 2002
Kindergarten 28 42
4-year old Pre-K 20 32
2-3 year old Pre-K 7 11
3-4-5 year old Pre-K 12 10
Head Start 20 3
Before school childcare 6 5
After school childcare 3 10
During school childcare 5 5
School closing childcare 7 4
Case Management 0 1
Preschool Special Education 1 1
Infant and Toddler 13 2

33
Table 6.2 Programs used, percentage of parents continued
Fall 2001 Fall 2002
Dental Services 3 2
Partners for Success 1 1
Preschool Partners 2 1
Family Literacy (GED) 0 0
Family Preservation (DSS) 3 0
Fresh Start * 0
WIC 30 28
Healthy Start (Health Dept) 4 3
Nurturing Program 2 2
Family Junction 0 1
YMCA-Family Center 3 0
YMCA class @ Judy Center 0 0
English as Second Language 0 1
Mental Health (Health Dept) 1 0
Breakfast 22 26
Lunch 26 29
Other ("Nurse") 1
*Not offered in fall 2001.

34
The survey asked parents about the availability of learning support materials in
the household and parental participation in learning activities (see tables 6.3
and 6.4). A large majority of parents (84%) reported that children’s books were
available. As many as that indicated that they had televisions (83%) and parents
reported that their children watched a median of 2.75 hours of television each
day. Also, sixty-one percent of households had computers and 54% had Internet
access. These figures are somewhat lower than the averages reported in a 2001
technology survey of all Allegany County public school children (there 73% of
children reported having home computers and 62% overall had Internet access-
see Rephann 2001). Three quarters of parents reported reading and playing
with their children “frequently” though more than half “rarely” or “never” went
to a library or museum with their children (see table 6.4). Other responses
include: “Go for walks and go swimming,” “nature walks,” “pray,” “church,”
“visits the fire station,” “fishing trips, walks in the woods, camping, and misc.
outdoor activities,” “talk a lot ... and travel,” “phonetics, piano lessons, religious
education,” “parades and other events,” and “play video games with them.”
Table 6.3 Learning/reading materials at home,

percentage of parents
Children's books 84
Magazines for children 41
Adult books 63
Newspapers 60
Television 83
Home computer 61
Computer with Internet access 54
Other 9
35
Table 6.4 Activities with children, percentage of parents
Frequently Sometimes Rarely Never NA

NA
Read a story 74 21 4 0 1
Played with toys or

78 21 1 0 0
played games
Praised your child for

97 3 0 0 0
doing well
Visited public library

11 38 37 14 0
or museum
Visited a playground,
park, or went on a 33 34 22 11 0
picnic
Attended an event
hosted by a
33 34 22 11 0
community or
religious group
When parents were asked about programs that they might be interested in
during the upcoming year, parent-oriented activities were most popular (see
table 6.5). Eight respondents picked “parenting classes,” four “family
preservation,” and three “G.E.D.” Open-ended comments (see Appendix A.10)
offered were mostly positive.
36
Table 6.5 Program interest

#
Parenting classes 8
Childcare 4
Family Preservation 4
Head Start 3
GED 3
MCHIP 1
WIC 1
Fresh Start 1
Dental 1
Computer 1
The spring survey received sixty-one 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 remained high, albeit somewhat lower than the levels achieved at
the conclusion of its first full year in 2002. Possibly, the newness of the Center
last year contributed to the higher ratings and some of the novelty has “worn
off” with greater time and familiarity. Still, the ninety-seven percent (97%)
satisfaction rating (combining “very satisfied” and “satisfied”) is much higher
than the eighty-nine percent (89%) state-wide average satisfaction reported
for all Maryland Judy Centers (MGT of America, Inc. 2003).
37
Figure 6.1 Parent Satisfaction
Very Satisfied
Satisfied
Somewhat Satisfied Spring-02
Somewhat Dissatisfied
Spring-03
Not Satisfied at All
Don't Know
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Table 6.6 Satisfaction with Judy Center services,

Very satisfied 60.7
Satisfied 36.1
Somewhat satisfied 3.3
Somewhat dissatisfied 0
Not satisfied at All 0
Don't know/Confused or uninformed

0
about the services provided
Don't know/No feeling about the

0
center
38
Table 6.7 shows parent satisfaction with the various features of the Judy Center
and Figure 6.2 displays the top 10 rated 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). It is important to note that all
of the features were rated above 3 (good).
Figure 6.2 Top Ten Performance Areas
Activities for learning language
Activities for learning math
Activities for learning nature/science
Materials for learning and play
Activities for learning physical education
Array of child and family support
Supervision of children/discipline
Array of child services
3.52 3.54 3.56 3.58 3.6 3.62 3.64
Figure 6.3 Bottom Ten Performance Areas
Sufficiency of space
Quality of School meals
Hours and days of JC operation
Screening for disabilities
Progress reports and follow-up conferences
Activities for parents and families
Activities for learning computers
Cleanliness and safety of Judy Center
Activities for learning music
Health services
3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6

39
The top rated feature was “friendliness/availability of staff.” Several learning/

pedagogical categories were also ranked near the top, including activities for
learning language, activities for learning math, activities for learning nature/
science, and activities for learning physical education. The array of services for
both children and families also received high ratings.
The bottom rated feature of the Judy Center was “sufficiency of space” followed
by “quality of meals.” Other areas rated lower included hours of operation,
screening for disabilities, progress reports for parents, activities for learning
computers and music, cleanliness and safety, and health services. In open-ended
comments, several parents also identified a desire for additional child care hours
of operation (see Appendix A.11). As will be described in section 10, several
changes will be introduced next year that target some of these areas: a greater
focus will be placed on children with special needs, activities for parents will be
improved, and more computer activities will be introduced.
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) (A)
Hours and days of Judy Center operation 37.7 45.9 0 0 16.4
Child care before or after day 26.2 14.8 0 0 59
Quality of school meals (lunch,

27.9 55.7 3.3 0 13.2
breakfast)
Family case management 29.5 26.2 0 0 44.3
Array of child and family support

44.3 32.8 0 0 23
services on site

ages (e.g., infants and toddlers, 49.2 32.8 1.6 0 16.4
pre-k, kindergarten)
Screening for disabilities 32.8 23 4.9 0 39.3
Provision of services for children

29.5 19.7 1.6 0 49.2
with disabilities
40
continued

with disabilities (E) (G) (M) (I) (A)

immunizations, dental assessment, 49.2 36.1 3.3 0 11.5
vision/hearing screening)
62.3 31.1 1.6 0 4.9
and teachers
Supervision of children/discipline 55.7 37.7 1.6 0 4.9
Materials for learning and play 57.4 37.7 0 0 4.9
Play activities 52.5 41 1.6 0 4.9
Activities for learning art 54.1 37.7 1.6 0 6.6
Activities for learning music 50.8 37.7 3.3 0 8.2

52.5 34.4 1.6 0 11.5
education

59 29.5 1.6 0 9.8

54.1 31.1 1.6 0 13.1
nature/science
Activities for learning math 54.1 31.1 1.6 0 13.1
Activities for learning computers 42.6 36.1 0 1.6 19.7

50.8 36.1 6.6 0 6.6
conferences
41
continued

(E) (G) (M) (I) (A)

50.8 36.1 6.6 0 6.6
conferences
Activities for parents and families

47.5 31.1 6.6 0 14.8
(e.g., field trips, picnics)

(e.g., parenting workshops, GED 42.6 32.8 1.6 0 23
classes)
Information provided by Judy Center

50.8 41 0 0 8.2
about upcoming activities
Judy Center webpage 18 16.4 0 0 65.6
Food and nutrition assistance (e.g.,

34.4 23 0 0 42.6
WIC)
Cleanliness and safety of Judy Center 44.3 42.6 0 0 13.1
Sufficiency of space 32.8 44.3 3.3 6.6 13.1
Table 6.8 shows that parents are likely to read flyers and newsletters but fewer
than half report that they “frequently” attend parent-teacher conference. Much
lower levels are indicated for participation in other parent after-school activities,
both involving children and parent education. On special days like “Shadowing
Day” parent attendance is high, as parents follow their child’s schedule for the
day. Aside from such designated days, parents may not feel encouraged to
volunteer or observe children’s behavior during the day because of the potentially
disruptive effect it may have on the class setting and child learning. Therefore,
the lower figures for the other categories are expected.
42
Table 6.8 Family participation in Judy Center activities,

Frequently Sometimes Rarely Never NA

NA
Volunteered at the
8.2 4.9 4.9 77 4.9
Judy Center
Observed child's
classroom during 8.2 36.1 37.7 14.8 3.3
the day
Attended Judy
Center after-school
3.3 27.9 14.8 49.2 4.9
special events or
field trips
Attended parent
education meetings
or workshops about 3.3 9.8 6.6 73.8 6.6
job skills or
parenting?
Attended a parent-
24.6 52.5 4.9 11.5 6.6
teacher conference
Read a Judy Center

60.7 31.1 1.6 1.6 3.3
flyer/newsletter
43
Table 6.9 indicates that parents recognize a big improvement in most child
learning and development as a result of their enrollment in the Judy Center.
Three in four parents report “much” improvement in counting numbers and
recognizing letters of the alphabet. A large majority has observed much
improvement in speaking and articulation, vocabulary, drawing, and writing.
About half of the parents saw large improvements in child hygiene, including
brushing teeth and washing hands. Additional written comments from the spring
survey are included in Appendix A.11.
Table 6.9 Improvement in child learning and habits

because of the Judy Center
Not at
Much A little NA
NA
All
Counting numbers 75.4 16.4 0 8.2
Recognizing letters of the alphabet 73.8 11.5 6.6 8.2
Writing 63.9 18 6.6 11.5
Drawing 65.6 23 3.3 8.2
Speaking and articulation 68.9 18 1.6 11.5
Vocabulary 67.2 23 3.3 9.8
Eating nutritious and healthy meals 37.7 41 11.5 3.3
Exercising 32.8 42.6 8.2 16.4
Washing hands before meals and

49.2 29.5 8.2 13.1
after using toilet
Brushing teeth 50.8 26.2 6.6 16.4

44
7.0 Child Readiness
The ACBOE 2002-03 Judy Center Continuation Grant proposal outlined several
child development objectives and milestones for FY 2003. These are as follows:
Goal
By June 30, 2003, exiting kindergarten students at the Judy Center will improve
the full readiness level for all WSS domains by 10% above the 2001 readiness
baseline (an increase from 54% to 64%).
Objectives
By June 30, 2003, 36% of exiting kindergarten students at the Judy Center will
reach full readiness level for the WSS domain of Language and Literacy (an
increase from the 2001 readiness baseline of 29% to 35%).
By June 30, 2003, 16% of exiting kindergarten students at the Judy Center will
reach full readiness level for the WSS domain of Scientific Thinking (an increase
from the 2001 readiness baseline of 6% to 16%).
By June 30, 2003, 55% of kindergarten students at the Judy Center will reach full
readiness level for the WSS domain of Social and Personal Skills (an increase
from the 2001 readiness baseline of 49% to 55%).
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
45
readiness with three levels of progress: (3) “Proficient,” (2) “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.
Figure 7.1 shows that the Beall Elementary Judy Center had exceeded the
readiness goal and objectives by the first grading period. Overall readiness as
measured by the composite score was 86% at the end of the first marking period.
Also, the individual domains of Language and Literacy (64%), Scientific Thinking
(76%), and Social and Personal Skills (78%) exceeded their respective milestones
after the first period. The figures also show this year’s Kindergarten performance
compared to last year’s class. A higher percentage of pupils were ready after the
first period using the composite measure as well as in five of the seven individual
domain areas: language and literacy, mathematical thinking, scientific thinking,
social studies, and the arts. Figure 7.2 indicates, however, that pupils made steady
progress throughout the year and that ninety-six percent were fully ready by
the end of the year.
Figure 7.1 Kindergarten Readiness by

Domain, 2002 and 2003
Composite
Physical Development
The Arts
2002
Social Studies
Scientific Thinking 2003
Mathematical Thinking
Language and Literacy
Social and Personal
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
46
Figure 7.2 Kindergarten Readiness by Marking Period

100
90
80
70
Percentage
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Period 4
Still, figures 7.3 and 7.4 indicate that Judy Center pupils outperformed their peers
in the County and State. After the first progress report (see Figure 7.3) period,
eighty-six percent (86%) of children was fully prepared compared to sixty-one
percent (61%) for Allegany County and fifty-two percent (52%) for the State. Just
as important, no students were categorized as “developing” whereas six percent
(6%) of the County and seven percent (7%) for the State were so designated.
Figure 7.3 Kindergarten Readiness,

Judy Center, County, and State
Beall Elem.
Developing
Allegany Approaching
Full
Maryland
0 20 40 60 80 100
47
Among individual domains, Beall Elementary Judy Center pupil readiness levels
exceed the State and County in every area. Whereas Beall Elementary lagged
the State and County last year in the science domain, significant improvements in
the science curriculum and materials resulted in a huge boost to child readiness
in this domain.
Figure 7.4 Kindergarten Readiness by

Domain - Judy Center, County, and State
Composite
Physical Development
The Arts Md
Social Studies
Allegany
Scientific Thinking
Beall Elem.
Mathematical Thinking
Language and Literacy
Social and Personal
0 20 40 60 80 100
Figure 7.5 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 indicators, the 2nd on 28 indicators, and the
3rd and 4th 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) compared to a County average that includes all six schools that have 4-
year pre-kindergarten programs (i.e., Beall Elementary 4-Year old Pre-K, Cash
Valley, George’s Creek, John Humbird, South Penn, and West Side). The percentage
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 county peers for all four periods.
48
Figure 7.5 Prekindergarten Readiness

90
80
70
60
Judy Center
50
40 Other Allegany Co.
30
20
10
0
Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Period 4
Figure 7.6 shows the performance of children enrolled in the Head Start Pre-
School program during the 2002-03 school years according to the eight
development dimensions (see Appendix A.12 for the HRDC Head Start Early
Childhood Observation Record). These dimensions include: (1) Language-
Listening and Understanding/Speaking and Communicating, (2) Literacy, (3)
Mathematics, (4) Science, (5) Creative Arts, (6) Social and Emotional
Figure 7.6 Head Start Observation Study Results
Physical/Health Development
Approach to Learning
Social/Emotional
"Consistently"
Final
Percentage
Creative Art
Base
Science
Math
Literacy
Language
0 20 40 60 80 100
49
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 18%
in category “C” versus a final average of 51%. No additional State or national
benchmark information was available for these assessments.
Additional indirect evidence of the effectiveness of the Judy Center is revealed

in data on student testing data from the California Test of Basic Skills (CTBS).
Figure 7.7 shows that second graders (many of whom were enrolled
Kindergarten during 2000-01) improved their relative scores in most of the
tested areas. Second graders who were tested in 2001-02 did not have the
benefit of the Judy Center program. Many of the second graders who were
tested in 2002-03 were part of the Judy Center as Kindergartners in 2000-01.
Figure 7.7 CTBS National Percentile
Total Score
Social Studies
Science
Math Composite
2001-02
Mathematics Computation
Mathematics 2002-03
Language Composite
Language Mechanics
Language
Reading
0 20 40 60 80
Percentile
50
8.0 Judy Center Component Standards

Self Assessments
At the conclusion of the 2002-03 school year, Judy Center partners conducted a
self-assessment using the Judy Center component standards. These ratings were
compared to the self-assessments made at the end of the 2001-02 year. Both sets
of ratings are shown in figure 8.1 with the 2002-03 indicated by an “A” and 2001-02
indicated by a “B.” The most recent assessment places each of the components
above “4” (though one sub-component: standard IV (b)-program accreditation is
aligned and coordinated among all early child care and education programs-is
below 4 in part because of the failure of Head Start to gain accreditation at the site
during the year). Improvement ratings were evident in six of the eleven (full day/
full year services, family support services, early identification, health related
services, staff development aligned with MMSR, and parent involvement) areas.
One area (provision for breakfast and lunch) was the same, and four declined (family
case management, integration of early education services, preschool special
education, and accreditation/validation). The average component standard
increased slightly from 4.55 in 2001-02 to 4.59 in 2002-03.
Figure 8.1 Judy Center Component Standards

Self Evaluation, 2001-02 and 2002-03
Full day/full year services

Provision for breakfast/lunch
Family case management
Integration of early education services
Family support services
Early indentification 2001-02
Preschool Special Education 2002-03
Health related services
Staff development aligned with MMSR
Parent involvement
Accreditation/Validation
0 1 2 3 4 5
51
9.0 Special Research Questions
As part of the 2002-03 Judy Center continuation grant application, the Allegany
County Board of Education posed 12 questions about the procedures and
effectiveness of the Center. The questions and answers are arranged as follows:
• Are children with the greatest educational need being adequately recruited,
identified and enrolled in appropriate early childhood programs to increase
their readiness for kindergarten?
Yes. In the multi-age class, all students have suspected special needs such as
speech, language, etc. For Pre-K, three selection criteria are used in the
enrollment of 4-year olds: (a) automatic enrollment (highest need), (b) priority
enrollment (need), and (c) open enrollment. According to this year’s figures,
twenty students are enrolled from the automatic category, ten from the priority
category, and nineteen from the open category. Therefore, over 60% of children
enrolled in Pre-K have considerable educational need.
• How many children in the target area are being served by private providers
of early childhood services?
According to data from the Maryland Child Care Resource Network, there are
six certified family child care providers within the area of the Beall Elementary
district. These centers have a combined capacity of eighty-six children.
• If participants are receiving full-day services are they performing at a higher

level than those with no services or part time services?
School readiness data from the MSDE indicate that Kindergarten students who
received home/informal care performed at a slightly higher level than those
who received Pre-K care during the previous year. Whereas eighty-six percent
(86%) of Pre-K/Judy Center students was at full readiness for Kindergarten,
ninety-one percent (91%) of home/informal care children was at full readiness.
• Does the Judy Center experience impact positively on special education

referrals and placement?
Special education referrals have decreased during the past year. There were
six special education referrals during the 2001-2002 school year - 4 in
Kindergarten and 2 in 1st grade. During the 2002-2003 school year, the total
dropped to two - 1 in Kindergarten and 1 in 1st grade.
52
• Has the use of technology increased awareness of resources which support

early childhood programming?
The testimony of Judy Center staff suggests that the Frostburg State University
produced videos that are aired on the local public access channel are increasing
the awareness of the Judy Center. There is little evidence, however, that the Judy
Center website is supporting marketing efforts. The website contains no current
information. Evidence of website use as revealed by the number of website hits
has decreased over the past year, and the percentage of parents that are unaware
of the site (sixty-six percent according to the parent survey) is high.
• Has involvement by the partners provided a cost effective program for all
participants?
The involvement of partners and adoption of a Case Management approach with

partner participation has reduced the duplication of services and cost of delivery
in a manner described in the answer to the next question.
• Has the Case Management Team process reduced the duplication of services
being offered to parents?
The Case Management process has reduced duplication of services by: (a)
decreasing the time, cost, and inconvenience of collecting information from
parents, (b) receiving better information for targeting services from experiences
of partners with particular families, (c) identifying the right provider to provide a
particular service, and (d) creating a comprehensive service delivery plan which
is coordinated with other partners, including coordinated home visits.
• Is the Judy Center “model” being adopted and replicated in other settings in
Allegany County?
No, not in pure form. There have been some expansion activities (e.g., flyer
distribution, after-school trainings/workshops) for George’s Creek and Frost
Elementary school district parents during the school year. In addition, during
the summer of 2003, the Judy Center will co-sponsor an MMSR math workshop
for all Pre-K, and Kindergarten in the County, including special educators, to begin
to disseminate some of the methods (but not the model) used by the Judy Center.
• How can the Judy Center be maintained when the funding cycle ends?
The answer to this question is uncertain. Continuation grants are expected to

be available until 2005. After that period, it will depend on the strength of
partnerships developed during the program whether the program is continued.
53
Each agency would be expected to dedicate funding to maintain the program.

A Memorandum of Understanding for retention of programming activities by
each partner would be drafted. The Allegany County Board of Education would
have to fund the coordinator and service coordinator positions. The Multi-age
Pre-K class is the only one in the State and would have to be funded by the
Board of Education also. With the passage of the Bridge to Excellence Act, the
County will be required to provide Pre-K services for eligible children of which
there are 370 in the County. Currently 220 of these children are receiving
services and an additional 150 children would need to be provided for. The
Allegany County has deferred the decision on how to fund this requirement until
later, but a decision must be made by the mandated fiscal year 2007.
• As a result of program interventions and collaborations, has there been a

decrease in the number of referrals to the principal’s office for discipline?
Referrals to the principals office for discipline have not decreased. However, it
should be noted, that there were approximately 20-22 more Kindergarten
children in 2002-03 than the previous year. During the 2001-2002 school year,
there were eighteen total referrals from Kindergarten and nine from 1st grade.
During the 2002-03 year, there have been twenty-four referrals for
Kindergarten and twenty-one from 1st grade. Unduplicated referrals have also
increased. In 2001-02 one student was referred to the office from Kindergarten
and three from 1st grade. In 2002-03, five Kindergarten students were referred
and five from 1st grade.
Staff, however, report individual situations where intervention has led to clear
behavioral improvements. For instance, one behaviorally challenging 3-year old
male child was provided with one-on-one assistance through the Judy Center.
This intervention has reportedly resulted in enormous behavioral changes.
• What specific request for services have been received from parents beyond
the target area?
There have been few requests from parents beyond the target area this year. The
requests received fall into three general areas: (1) requests for information about
the Allegany County Health Department parenting program, (2) requests for
information about enrolling in the summer program, and (3) a specific request
from a parent from Garrett County who was seeking information about services
for an autistic child. Fourteen of the Pre-K children enrolled at the Judy Center
are from out-of-district. However, out-of-district interest is expected by Judy
Center staff to increase as “word-of-mouth” about the Center increases.
54
10.0 Changes Introduced
Information collected through external evaluation, self-evaluation, and

stakeholder surveys was used to develop a new agenda for improvements to
introduce during the next school year. The major focus of next year’s
improvements (detailed in Allegany County Board of Education 2003) are focused
on pupils who received Free and Reduced Meals (FARMS) and children with
special needs. Action steps are arranged into the categories: Curriculum and
Programs, Professional Development, Family Activities, and Partnerships. These
categories are described further below.
Curriculum and Programs
Core Reading Program in Pre-K and Kindergarten. The Judy Center

is planning to implement a core reading program in Pre-
Kindergarten and Kindergarten that is based on Scientific Based
Reading Research (SBRR) as defined by Early Reading First (ERF)
and Reading First. The Allegany County Board of Education
submitted a pre-proposal application for ERF but was not invited
to submit a full application.
Fresh Start Program. The Judy Center will increase the number of
Fresh Start weekly sessions from the current level of one to two
for eligible children during the summer of 2003 and provide free
transportation.
Second Step Violence Prevention Curriculum. The Judy Center staff

will introduce this curriculum, which teaches social and emotional
skills to prevent violence, into the summer program.
Multi-age Linkages. An effort will be made to connect children

from the multi-age class to other educational programs available
at the Judy Center to provide a full-day of education.
Curriculum Software. The Boardmaker software program for

language and literacy learning will be introduced into all learning
programs at the Center.
55
Professional Development
Staff training . Judy Center staff and partners will receive

professional development in working with children from low-
income families by participating in a Ruby Payne workshop on
“Understanding Poverty.”
Teaching Models. The Special Education teacher and the Pre-K

teacher collaborate in an inclusive Pre-K instructional setting.
Family Activities
Reading Night. The Judy Center will continue the Family Reading
Night program, conducted in conjunction with the Allegany County
Library System throughout the summer.
Free Reading Resources. The Judy Center will expand the reading
resources available to families and children at their homes by: (1)
holding Family Fun Nights with free book distribution, (2) applying
for a First Books grant to provide free books to 20 low-income
families, and (3) distributing free bookshelves to families who
participate in Judy Center reading activities.
Parent training. The Judy Center will host a parent training and
education program, in conjunction with the Allegany County Health
Department, that focuses on the 40 developmental assets that are
important for child growth and development.
Partnerships
Expanded Activities. The Judy Center will introduce three new

initiatives through existing partners during the next year. The
Allegany County Health Department will provide parent training
and education on developmental assets. The YMCA will provide
family support services such as “Parent Power” through a newly
funded grant, The Adolescent Family Life Demonstration Project
(AFL). The Allegany County Public Library System will expand the
availability of parent education materials.
Daytime Child Care. In an effort to increase the children and reduce

costs, enrolled in the HRDC daytime Child Care program during the
year, the Judy Center will contract with a private child care provider
to offer child care services on site during 2003-04. The Judy Center
will use grant funds to provide individual “scholarships” to eligible
children who are enrolled in the child care.
56
11.0 Summary and Conclusions
The second funding cycle (FY 2003) for the Beall Elementary Judy Center
expanded and refined the model built during the initial year of operation which
included a multi-age Pre-K class, 4-year-old Pre-K class, two kindergarten
classes, and the affiliated services of partners such as HRDC (e.g., Head Start,
Childcare) and Allegany County Health Department (e.g., WIC, Dental Screening,
Fresh Start). In addition, a number of new programs and initiatives were
introduced. These improvements were aligned with Judy Center component
standards and were designed to help child development in targeted areas. New
initiatives included an additional Kindergarten class, expanded before and after
day care slots, a center nurse, new staff training efforts, several new partners
(e.g., APPLES for Children, Cooperative Extension Service, Allegany County
Library System), and new curriculum modules and materials. The goal and
objectives established in the grant continuation application were met and each
strategy was realized. A few activities were not carried out in the manner
described in the grant application for a number of reasons, but the absence of
these activities had no effect on attaining the objectives of the grant.
Partner, staff, and parent surveys indicate a high and sometimes rising level of
satisfaction with the Beall Elementary Judy Center. Survey data suggests that
the partners have a high and rising level of satisfaction with the Judy Center,
have developed good working, cooperative relationships, have realized
satisfactory levels of participation, and perceive that the Judy Center has become
more visible in the community, has adequate resources for its goals, was
implementing strategies described in the grant, and was realizing positive
results. A staff survey conducted for the first time this year shows that teachers
are generally satisfied with the amount of resources and cooperation available
at Beall Elementary, are satisfied with the Judy Center, and feel that families
served by the Judy Center were satisfied with the Judy Center. Parents indicated
in surveys that their levels of satisfaction remained high and well above state
Judy Center statewide averages; however, the levels were lower than last year
57
possibly because some of the novelty of the Center had worn off during the past
year. Also, parents recognized a big improvement in child learning and
development during the year. A few common areas of concern were identified
by partners, staff and parents-they include facilities and space, levels of parent
involvement or parent notification, and the limited number of activities for
children involving computers.
Results from Allegany County Board of Education and HRDC assessment data show
that the Beall Elementary Judy Center contributed to child learning and
development. For Kindergarten students, school readiness improved for all of
the individual domains and exceeded the selected benchmarks. Pre-K students
enrolled in both Judy Center Pre-K programs as well as HRDC Head Start also
showed improvement. Additional indirect evidence of the effectiveness of the
Judy Center is provided by 2nd grade CTBS test score data. Second graders
improved their relative scores on this test over the previous year.
At the conclusion of the 2002-03 year, Judy Center partners evaluated the Center
using the Judy Center Component Standards. Results indicate a slight overall
improvement in Center performance with regression in a few areas. One
continuing area of concern is the lack of validation for the HRDC Head Start
program. Although originally establishing a goal for accreditation in 2002, this
goal has never been realized and has affected the ability of the Center to offer a
complete package of accredited programs.
Other results of the study show that the Judy Center is accomplishing many State
mandated goals but wider dissemination of the model is limited and its
sustainability is uncertain. It is providing services to targeted children and
administering care to a relatively large percentage of area children. Program
data suggests that it may be having a salutary impact on special education
referrals but little impact on referrals for discipline. There has been some
outreach to adjoining school districts and some degree of parent interest in the
Judy Center outside the district. However, the ability of the County to fund the
Judy Center at Beall Elementary and replicate it elsewhere in the County when
State funding is discontinued remains an open question.
58
REFERENCES
eQuotient, Inc. 2002. Allegany County Judy Center Evaluation: January 2001-
June 2002. Cumberland, MD: eQuotient, Inc.
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)
Allegany County Board of Education. 2003. Continuation Grant Application for

Judith P. Hoyer Early Child Care and Education Center Grants (Judy Centers). (May
25, 2003)
Epstein, Joyce L., Lucretia Coates, Karen Clark Salinas, Mavis G. Sanders, and Beth
S. Simon. 1997. School, Family, and Community Partnerships: Your Handbook
for Action. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
Harms, Thelma, Richard M. Clifford, Debby Cryer. 1998. Early Childhood

Environment Rating Scale. New York: Teachers College Press.
Maryland State Department of Education. 2003. Children Entering School Ready

to Learn: School Readiness Information. Baltimore: MSDE.
MGT of America, Inc. 2003. Judith P. Hoyer Early Child Care and Education
Enhancement Program Evaluation 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.
59
A.1
Monthly Calendar
60
A.2
Newspaper articles
61
A.3
Judy Center Webpage and
Beall Elementary Webpage
62
A.4
Partner Survey Instrument
63
A.5
Partner Comments
Is there anything that should have been done differently regarding the education
of children 0-5, and family services?
Not that I can think of.
No. Keep abreast of new research studies regarding evidence

based practice for future evolution.
I see no major problems.
Can not think of anything at this time.
Community awareness-still needs work.
Space-room where we work is crowded. More free space would

be helpful.
Some of the above areas were difficult for me to rate, but I hear all
positive comments and my experience with the management staff
has been a good one.
How do you think children have benefited from the Judy Center grant?
The Multi-age classroom has helped those children who are 3-4
increase their language and social skills to ready them for Pre-K
or Kindergarten. Having WIC on site has also been beneficial in
connecting families with resources they may not have been aware
of otherwise. Children with mental health needs have been able
to participate in a program geared towards their needs. The group
is here on site. So parents do not have to worry about
transportation issues to another facility
I think it is possible that children and families have benefited from

the coordination of services in one location, but I have also
witnessed that some agencies feel excluded from the process.
Improved language skills, improved behavior, early identification/

intervention of speech, language, learning, behavior problems so that
children are ready to learn by kindergarten. Increased social/
interpersonal skills. On site access to therapeutic mental health
services, school nurse, etc. Staff are doing a fantastic job. Keep it up!
Families have benefited from the Judy Center due to the
collaboration of services and multiple services offered the
Frostburg area. It has made it easier for families to participate
and utilize services offered in Allegany County. Early identification
for speech and language with children has been wonderful and I
have seen improvements with many children.
The programs being offered, the many different staff members

showing interest and support to young families, the networking has
been very informative and positive leadership seems to be excellent.
The Judy Center Program has helped parents identify and utilize
numerous community resources. Judy Center Program provides a
sound support system towards the move to self-sufficiency by families.
Children are receiving services they may not have access to

elsewhere. Multi-age program has been a wonderful asset in
helping children be more prepared for the classroom. Kids can be
plugged into many resources at one time such as multi-age Pre-K
or Pre-K and Head Start, etc. Families have access to resources to
help their children be more successful.
64
A.6
Pre-K/Kindergarten Staff Survey
65
A.7
First-Grade Staff Survey
66
A.8
Fall Parent Survey
67
A.9
Spring Parent Survey
68
A.10
Fall Parent Survey Comments
I feel the staff at Judy Center is very competent. I never worry
about leaving my children there for childcare.
Judy Center is a great program, very helpful, and the information

offered is great.
I think this program is wonderful. I see great improvement with

Logan in speech and social development. Thank you!
Kamryn loves school. Both of the programs she is involved with

are wonderful. Everyone keep up the great work!
It is a great resource lining parents/children and opportunities in

a case managed environment to avoid duplication of services.
I feel the Judy Center is a wonderful program and am grateful my

daughter is part of it.
Very accommodating and friendly atmosphere. Progressive!
I am very concerned about the practice of “mainstreaming” and

how it affects the other children in class. Rachel was very scared
when she witnessed an autistic child throwing a “fit” in class. How
often does this happen? How disruptive is it in class? Do autistic
children become violent, thereby posing a safety hazard to other
children.
No. I’m very impressed with the Judy Center programs and
especially the staff.
Great program.
Will I be called if my daughter has any problems during school?
Kellen loves school and daycare and comments on how nice his
teachers are. I appreciate having the childcare facilities on site
for after school hours.
I appreciate the programs that the center has made available. I

will participate in any family program you offer (YMCA, Parenting
classes, etc.). So monthly schedules are a great help!
The Judy Center programs—Head Start, have really helped Jamey. I
think he enjoyed it, learned, and felt good about himself. Thank you.
Judy Center is doing a good job. Keep it up.
The Judy Center has been very helpful in finding resources for
myself and my family.
The Pre-K program is a great program. My son really enjoys going.

I will help out in every way I can. Just let me know.
I think it looks like a very good place for children.
I am very pleased with the way the Judy Center is run. My daughter
is very happy to come to the center and she has very good things
to say about her caretakers.
69
A.11
Spring Parent Survey
In what ways has the Judy Center helped your child?
They took excellent care of Jeremy while in a wheel chair. They

stepped in and got him back to school when the Board of Education
did nothing.
In academic areas of the school setting. Playing and getting along

with child and adult outside of family members.
Many (see above).
Jacob and Joey enjoy the Judy Center. It has greatly helped their
social skills and learning.
Independence-example-using the toilet alone, pulling up own

underwear and pants.
She is becoming not afraid to try and learn new activities.
When I moved here and started working they took care of both
boys while I worked. There were no openings in the school for
Pre-K and Headstart. Thank you.
My child has somewhat of a speech problem. She’s had some one-

on-one treatment and materials and is improving.
Helped my child interact with other kids.
The Judy Center has given my child a chance to meet and play with
new friends. My child has also learned more of her colors,
numbers, and letters.
It has helped her open up a lot.
My Chai is much more advanced, educationally, than my oldest child

who did not have the advantages of the Judy Center.
Social skills, reading, manners.
The Judy Center has not only helped with my son’s education. It
has helped him socially.
My child is in Beall Elementary kindergarten which is staffed by
BOE teachers. He has a one-on-one aide who is also a county
employee. The Judy Center does provide his emergency nursing
care. She provided forms for his teachers to indicate his behavior
change once on medication.
Kindergarten has really improved over the past years. Kids are
learning much more at a younger age.
Kindergarten has been a great experience for my child. While she

had many skills prior to entering the program, I believe she is more
sure of herself and less likely to become frustrated with new or
difficult tasks.
I feel my son will have an easier transition into Kindergarten

because of his Pre-K school experience as well as his much
improved attention and letter/sound-recognition.
The Judy Center has helped him in many ways (meeting other
children, going to school, was not away from us at all until Pre-K)
Self confidence, fine motor skills, interaction with other children.
Staff has been wonderful! Love the workshops.
Structured environment, interaction with peers, staff familiar with

kids who have developmental disabilities.
Interacting with other children. Respecting adults (teachers).
Mrs. Kurtz and Mrs. Robinson are wonderful role models and their
enthusiasm shows through. The children love them. Nurse Jackie-
very helpful. Children better prepared for kindergarten.
I feel that she is better prepared for kindergarten.
My son has come a long way since he started attending the Judy
Center. Much improvement. Very satisfied.
To do better with writing and recognize letter/numbers.
Countless ways.
It has taught her to interact with other children. She is starting

learn more colors. She has been able to understand her words a
little more.
The Judy Center has helped Isaac learn to conform and behave in
the right ways in different situations. We are very happy with the
program and all that Isaac has learned. You have shown him such
love and creatively worked with him in every difficulty. Thanks
you!
Kamryn is prepared for kindergarten. He loves school, and is

excited to learn!
My child has learned a lot from the Judy Center by counting, singing,
sharing, [and] her manners.
Social skills and speech has greatly improved.
He has come along way with his speech and every day he seems to
enjoy school more.
My child has learned much much more in the Pre-K program than
my oldest son did in a Pre-K program at Frostburg State University
that I had to pay for (1995). We are very pleased with how much
she knows.
His speaking and evaluating.
Taught her to be curious to others and how to take care of herself.
Since starting kindergarten, my son has learned to do things on

his own (without mommy) and to get along with other children
and to also be his own person.
It has helped him focus on being kind and courteous and respectful.
Both my kids have improved both academically and socially.
The Judy Center has helped my children to feel comfortable and

confident in social settings away from me, and it has helped them
to enjoy learning.
In what ways has the Judy Center helped you and/or other members of your
family?
Knowing that the Judy Center is always there for help or to answer
questions.
Being a single parent is difficult. The Judy Center staff is very helpful
with whatever I’ve needed them for.
Gives me peace of mind to go to work and know my kids are in a
good place where they are treated well.
N/A to date-Logan is new to the center and no info received.
I don’t have to worry about her safety because I know she is well
taken care of and that relieves a lot of stress for me.
Enabled me to work.
I’ve learned how to handle the mornings when my child doesn’t

want to go to school.
My child has tried to come home and teach her siblings what she
has learned in school.
The Judy Center has helped us by providing us with a day-time

babysitter.
I have received a lot of very good information on many different

subjects regarding children, their behaviors, families, etc.
WIC.
The Judy Center has provided my child with a great start in his
education. Also, with me volunteering it made me realize that I
am in the wrong profession. I went back to school so that I can
one day get employment in working with children.
The Judy Center provides personnel to attend my son’s IEP

meetings.
Starting my new job. The Judy Center took my children right in for
daycare.
The after school care has helped me work my schedule with my

son’s schedule.
Countless! I have never come to the Judy Center with any problem
that someone has not helped in some way.
Screening and medical, record keeping suggestions for services.
How to continue programs in school to home for continuity of kids

learning/education; teachers are great!
WIC convenient.
Has made my son very enthusiastic about school and learning.
My child has taught her brother some numbers and letters.
Helped us to cope with our child’s speech and hearing problems.
I have received a lot of good info regarding children, behaviors,

families, disabilities, etc.
We are involved with WIC and it has been a very big help with food
and also food and nutrition education.
I feel confident that my children are in a positive environment when

I cannot be with them.
Both my kids have improved both academically and socially.
It has helped him focus on being kind and courteous and respectful.
What activities would you like to see added at the Judy Center for your child
and/or family?
More family activities on a more frequent than just special

occasions maybe one a month.
Additional daycare hours to accommodate more single working

parents. This is the most stressful problem I’ve had over the last
few years.
Any that would help to better all the children and their families.
Counseling for single parent issues help explaining things in positive

manner.
Not really any but I would like for the hours to be extended in the
evenings so that I could work some overtime.
Earlier opening time for parents who parents who have to work at
7am.
Activities like dancing or maybe field trips.

Infant (under age 3 day care).
I believe the Judy Center covers all areas of activities for children
and families.
I would like to see more attention given to higher ability children.

More opportunities to be a part of her school activities. When I
expressed an interest in being involved in the classroom, I was told
there just isn’t enough room. Also more inclusion of siblings. I
think it is a real issue when you are invited to come, but not bring
your other children. I think parents may not participate because
they cannot find a sitter.
This has been an excellent program! My son has really benefited

from your services. Thank you.
Child Care under two years.
More learning materials/bigger space/offer personalized program

after regular hours (e.g., weekends) for kids with certain disabilities
for a fee.
Open at 6:30 AM.
Longer hours of day care.
I am not sure. I think that the center covers a lot already.
I think the Judy Center is fine with what it already offers.
More field trips and family activities.
Later hours of operation because I am a student and will have some

hours later into the evening.
Later hours of operation.

70
A.12
HRDC Head Start Early Childhood
Observation Record

Allegany County Judy Center Evaluation, 2002-2003

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Allegany County Judy Center Evaluation, 2002-2003

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Judy Center Evaluation

July 2002-June 2003

Table of Contents ...................................................................................... i

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

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

2.0 Characteristics and Delivery of This Year’s Training ............... 3

3.0 Enrollment, Training, and Validation ....................................... 14

4.0 Partner Surveys.......................................................................... 18

5.0 Teacher Surveys ......................................................................... 24

6.0 Parent Surveys ........................................................................... 29

7.0 Child Readiness ........................................................................... 44

8.0 Judy Center Component Standards Self Assessments ........... 50

9.0 Special Research Questions ...................................................... 51

10.0 Changes Introduced .................................................................. 54

11.0 Summary and Conclusions ........................................................ 56

Figure 7.4 Kindergarten readiness by domain,

1.0 Review of First Year of Program

• The Judy Center exceeded its goals in terms of program enrollment.

• The Judy Center successfully implemented the partnership model

• Parties involved with the Judy Center expressed satisfaction with

• School readiness as measured by the MMSR (Maryland Model for

2.0 Characteristics and Delivery

• Because of increasing enrollment, the Board of Education

• The Center introduced new personnel and facilities. A school

• The Center introduced a new partner, the Cooperative Extension

• Results for the Kindergarten WSS (Work Sampling System) indicated

• The evaluation was to be revamped to solicit more detailed

Table 2.1 Judy Center Partners, 2002-03

Family Literacy, GED program for

Co-parenting seminars; "kidshare"

Dental health services, Nursing

Allegany County Library, Frostburg Reading activities for children and

Office of Children, Youth, and

Technical Support, Child Care Staff,

Family Support Center, Parent

Table 2.2 Implementation Plan

Goal Objective Strategy Activities Achievement

By June 30, By June 30, Continue to Enroll 20 Goal and

Table 2.2 Implementation Plan continued

Goal Objective Strategy Activities Achievement

Table 2.2 Implementation Plan continued

Goal Objective Strategy Activities Achievement

Table 2.2 Implementation Plan continued

Goal Objective Strategy Activities Achievement

Table 2.2 Implementation Plan continued

Goal Objective Strategy Activities Achievement

Table 2.3 Evaluation questions

# children enrolled in Judy Center

Child attendance Attendance rates

Parent involvement # and type of parent workshops

# and type training workshops

Program accreditation # programs validated

Partner satisfaction Partner Survey

Teacher satisfaction Teacher Survey

Parent satisfaction Parent Survey

Child readiness Pupil Progress Reports, Test results

Self-evaluation, partner survey,

Special research questions

Table 2.4 Special research questions

Are children with the greatest educational need being adequately

If participants are receiving full-day services are they performing at

Does the Judy Center experience impact positively on special

Has the use of technology increased awareness of resources which

Has involvement by the partners provided a cost effective program