Center Community Learning Eagle View · Eagle View Community Learning Center 21st Century Afterschool Program Year 1 Evaluation Report (2017-2018 School Year) funding supports the

21st Century Community Learning Centers Program

Year 1 Evaluation

Eagle View Community Learning

Center

Prepared by: James M. Coughenour, MBA, PMP, PMI-ACP Certified DISC Practitioner

Somerset Area School District 645 South Columbia Avenue

Somerset, PA 15501 814.443.2831

August 2018

Somerset Area School District 2 Eagle View Community Learning Center 21st Century Afterschool Program

Year 1 Evaluation Report (2017-2018 School Year)

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 3

Background ..................................................................................................................................... 3

Evaluation ....................................................................................................................................... 3

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 3

Program Overview .......................................................................................................................... 4

Evaluation Activity ......................................................................................................................... 5

Data Sets ......................................................................................................................................... 6

Results ............................................................................................................................................. 6

Demographics and Attendance ....................................................................................................... 6

Academic Performance (Report Cards, PSSA tests, and Composite DIBELS scores) .................. 8

Kindergarten Academic Performance Results ............................................................................ 9

First Grade Academic Performance Results ............................................................................. 10

Second Grade Academic Performance Results ......................................................................... 11

Third Grade Academic Performance Results ............................................................................ 12

Fourth Grade Academic Performance Results .......................................................................... 13

Fifth Grade Academic Performance Results ............................................................................. 14

Academic Performance (In-depth Review of the DIBELS’ Scores) ............................................ 15

Kindergarten Results ................................................................................................................. 16

First Grade Results .................................................................................................................... 17

Second Grade Results ................................................................................................................ 19

Third Grade Results .................................................................................................................. 20

Fourth Grade Results ................................................................................................................. 23

Fifth Grade Results .................................................................................................................... 25

Parent Survey Data ....................................................................................................................... 27

Teacher Survey Data ..................................................................................................................... 29

Student Success Stories................................................................................................................. 32

News Articles About the Eagle View Community Learning Center ............................................ 33

Conclusions and Future Directions ............................................................................................... 34

Contact Information ...................................................................................................................... 36

Appendix ....................................................................................................................................... 37

Kindergarten Student Academic Data ....................................................................................... 37

First Grade Student Academic Data .......................................................................................... 37

Second Grade Student Academic Data ..................................................................................... 38

Third Grade Student Academic Data ........................................................................................ 39

Fourth Grade Student Academic Data ...................................................................................... 39

Fifth Grade Student Academic Data ......................................................................................... 40



Executive Summary

Background The Somerset Area School District has established an afterschool program in partnership with

the Boys and Girls Club of Somerset County (the Club) and the Somerset Single County

Authority for Drug and Alcohol (SCA) through the 21st Century Community Learning Centers

(21st CCLC) grant. Funding in the first year will serve students from two of its schools: Maple

Ridge Elementary and Eagle View Elementary. The program meets after school Monday through

Friday for three and half hours at Eagle View Elementary School. The program provides high-

quality academic support, including: STEM-based programming, research-based tutoring and

homework help, a consistent behavioral intervention program, utilization of coding specialists

from UPJ to deepen STEM/STEAM learning in a maker-space style with Dash and Dot and

Sphero robotics as well as Lego coding.

In addition to the program’s academic support, nutritional support is provided through a daily

snack. Recreational time is provided to ensure students have the opportunity for daily exercise.

Transportation is provided to students when necessary, and parent activities are scheduled

throughout the year to facilitate parent involvement with the program.

Evaluation Somerset Area School District contracted with Knowledge Certified to conduct an outside

evaluation of the program to determine efficacy. To this end Knowledge Certified surveyed

teachers and parents of the afterschool programs, utilized anecdotal information and examined

academic and attendance data provided by Somerset Area School District.

Introduction Somerset is the county seat of Somerset County, and perhaps, for this reason, is considered an

urban area in a mostly agricultural landscape. With declining enrollment, increasing poverty,

growing English Language Learners population, and perhaps most alarmingly, increased drug

abuse, the needs of our students and families are many. As the hub of the community, the school

district along with non-profit organizations and churches work diligently to bridge the gaps for

children and their families. The school district has three buildings which lie within one mile of

each other. Somerset Junior-Senior High School is home to grades 6th through 12th and currently

houses 1232 students, with an economically disadvantaged population of 39.46%. Eagle View

Elementary School serves 400 students, grades 3, 4, and 5, and has an economically

disadvantaged population of 56%. The primary building, Maple Ridge Elementary, houses 471

students grade Pre-K, 1, and 2, with an economically disadvantaged population of 55.63%. The

Somerset Area School District’s application for the 21st CCLC grant provided the details of this

section.

A need for an afterschool program became the reason Somerset Area School District sought

funding from the 21st Century Community Learning Centers (21st CCLC) grant. 21st CCLC



funding supports the creation of a community learning center, providing academic enrichment

opportunities during non-school hours for children, particularly students who attend high-poverty

and low performing schools. The 21st CCLC program is authorized under Title IV, Part B, of the

Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.

Grants are awarded for out of school activities that advance student academic achievement.

These opportunities are designed to help students meet state and local standards in core academic

subjects, such as reading and math. Furthermore, the program funds a wide range of enrichment

activities that complement students’ regular academic programs and support improved

attendance and behavior. Another key element within the 21st CCLC grant framework is to not

only promote family participation in the out of school programming but also to increase overall

parental engagement in their child’s learning. In addition, 21st CCLC funded sites are

encouraged to develop partnerships with community organizations to help provide enrichment

activities that enhance learning. In 2017-2018 Somerset Area School District received

$148,569.00 in 21st CCLC grant funding to offer a comprehensive and sustainable afterschool

programming.

The goals of the program are:

• to increase the number of students reading on grade level

• increase positive behaviors in students

• increase critical thinking by concentrating on maker-space style STEM/STEAM

activities.

Program Overview The program’s location is at the Eagle View Community Learning Center, and there were three

schools that students attended during the day who came to the program after school. The feeder

schools are Maple Ridge, Eagle View, and St. Peter’s. The program was approved to serve 100

elementary students, Kindergarten through 5th grade during the school year and 24 elementary

students during the summer program. The program actively recruited the following at-risk

students: academically at-risk, ELL, and low income to attend the 21st Century afterschool

program. The program offers academic assistance and enrichment to students who are identified

by their teachers as not meeting expected learning targets within the core classroom curriculum.

The staff of the program works closely with guidance counselors from the school district to

identify and recruit students who are at risk of academic failure. The program has partnered with

ELL teachers and Spanish teachers from the school district to reach out to families for whom

English is a second language to assist with translation and additional academic support. The

2017-2018 school year was year one of a three-year grant.

Eagle View Community Learning Center participated in a “Lights On” afterschool event. The

focus of this event was on creating bright futures for kids to coincide with the Boys and Girls

Club mission. Students displayed artwork that reflected their career goals. They also displayed

STEAM-related projects completed throughout the first quarter. All after-school program

attendees performed in a flashlight dance to go along with the bright futures theme, which



provided some kids with their first experience of being on a stage. Local businesses sponsored

the event by donating materials, supplies, decorations, and refreshments.

In January the program hosted an event entitled “The Talk” which taught parents strategies to

discuss drugs and alcohol with their children. Somerset Single County Authority for Drug and

Alcohol provided prevention-based programming to deliver skills instruction to parents in

addressing drug and alcohol issues with their children. In February, representatives were on hand

from Tableland to provide opportunities for parents to learn budgeting skills and to access home-

heating cost abatement information. Additionally, staff from the Learning Lamp brought

imagination Playground and Discovery Dome resources for kids' and their families to experience

principles related to outer space and physics/engineering. Also, in February, a representative

from the University of Pittsburgh - Johnstown provided families access to Sphero Robotics

resources.

The Eagle View Learning Center continues to bring together community partners to provide

beneficial and interesting programming for the children who attend the after-school program and

their families. Each event is generally built around a centerpiece that showcases the

accomplishments of the children and is enhanced with programming that will enrich the parents

and families in some way. In April an event provided parents and families a window into the

STEM opportunities their children are engaging in by allowing families to see and try out Sphero

materials. At the same time that these STEM activities were being offered, staff from our Single

County Authority for Drugs and Alcohol were on hand to present MADD Power of Parenting to

address drug and alcohol issues that rise significantly at the end of the school year. In May the

parents were treated to a play that was prepared by the drama club running within the Boys and

Girls Club. This piece has had a positive impact on the engagement of many members who enjoy

this unique opportunity to be on stage and work on public speaking skills with their peers.

The Eagle View Learning Center created an Advisory Focus Group, and the group has conducted

planning sessions between partners working together to provide programming through the Eagle

View Community Center. The group has spent the year working on ways to increase parent

engagement at events happening outside of the after-school programming time. Additionally, the

group has begun to engage in some very basic long-range planning for the Community Center so

that it continues to grow in scope and influence within the community.

Evaluation Activity A key element in Somerset Area School District’s 21st CCLC grant request was a yearly

evaluation of the program by an outside evaluator to help gauge program outcomes. Knowledge

Certified, Inc. was contracted as this evaluator.

The following student data was collected for 21st CCLC monitoring and Knowledge Certified,

Inc.’s external evaluation:

• Core subject grades (reading and math)

• Current and previous year’s state standardized assessment (PSSA) performance levels

• Current DIBELS assessment data



• Eagle View Learning Center program attendance

• Characteristics

• School Attendance

Additionally, Knowledge Certified, Inc. collected data from the following sources:

• Teacher Surveys

• Parent Surveys

• News Articles

• Observations

Data Sets Data sets from the academic year include both the 2017 and 2018 Pennsylvania System of

School Assessment (PSSA) scoring, report card grades, school attendance, Eagle View Learning

Center attendance, and parent and teacher surveys. DIBELS data was provided, as well as

qualitative data that was observed during site visits by the external evaluator.

Results

Demographics and Attendance The following section provides general information about student demographics and attendance

in the program. The information was derived from the master attendance sheet, which had 112

unique students participating in the program from Kindergarten through Fifth Grade.

Number of Days a Student Attended

The program had 76 students (68%) attend more than 30 days, and only 36 students (32%)

attended less than 30 days. Additionally, 17 students (15%) attended 31-60 days, 13 students

(12%) attended 61-90 days, 46 students (42%) attended more than 90 days.



Number of Students Attending by Month

This chart shows the number of students attending in each month. The number of students

attending in a single month ranged from 69 students to 109 students. Note, this includes the

student if the attended at least 1 day in that month and June only consisted of 1 school day.

Number of New Students by Month

The program had 65 students start in October and added 3 new students in November, 10 in

December, 14 in January, 16 in February, and 2 in March and April. No new students joined the

program in May.

69 70

8392

107 109 105

85

48

October November December January February March April May June

Number of Students Per Month

2

2

16

14

10

3

65

Apr

Mar

Feb

Jan

Dec

Nov

Oct

Number of New Students by Month



Student Gender

The program consisted of 54% (60) male students and 46% (52) female students.

Student Race

The program had 101 White students, 9 Hispanic students, 8 Multi-Racial students, 2 Asian

students, and 1 Latino student.

Limited English / Special Needs

The program had 6 students with limited English speaking and comprehension abilities and two

students with special needs.

Academic Performance (Report Cards, PSSA tests, and Composite

DIBELS scores) The evaluation of the regularly attending students’ academic achievement was based off their

reading and math report card grades, their PSSA scores in grades in which they were tested and

their DIBELS Composite score. When available, PSSA scores from the previous year (2017)

were compared to this year’s score.

46%54%

Student Gender

Female Male

101

9 8 2 1

White Hispanic Multi-Racial Asian Latino

Student Race



In all grades except 5th, the report cards are standards based and use a letter scale to evaluate the

student’s progress. The letters were converted into numbers in the following manner: A –

Advanced was scored as a 4, P – Proficient was scored as 3, B – Basic was scored as a 2, BB –

Below Basic was scored as a 1 and N/A – was also scored as a 1 if all other students received a

grade for that standard. All scores for ELA (which included Reading, Writing and English

Language) and Math were added together and divided by the total possible points to obtain a

score for the subject area. For example: 3rd grade, 4th grading period, the total possible points

were 60, a student’s earned points were calculated as stated above and divided by 60, i.e., 48/60

would equal a .80. Once this number was obtained, an additional interpretation was made, a .80

to 1 was given a Proficient Level, .70 to .79 was given a Basic Level, and any score .69 and

below was given a Below Basic Level description. These labels were used to evaluate any

correlation between the student’s PSSA score, their 4th grading period grades and their

Composite DIBELS score. In 5th grade, the percentage shown on the report card was used, and

the same determination of level was completed. All tables associated with this data can be found

in Appendix A of this report.

Kindergarten Academic Performance Results The evaluation of Kindergarten was completed using data from 13 students. The overall average

for ELA grades based on report cards at the end of the first nine weeks was a .80. An individual

analysis revealed that 7 students scored at or above .80 which could be interpreted as scoring

proficient. At the end of the year, all Kindergarten students’ ELA grades average increased to .97

which is a 17% increase. No student scored lower than a .83 at the end of the year. The grade

results are consistent with the DIBELS Composite scores which showed all but 1 student either

Strategic or Core Instructional Support. The 1 student who had a DIBELS Composite score of

Intensive Support also had the lowest ELA grade for the 4th nine weeks.

At the end of Kindergarten, the Guided Reading goal is level D according to the SASD report

card, and 6 students (46.15%) reached the goal. The report cards for the end of the second nine

weeks showed: 3 students were at Level A, 7 students were at Level B, 2 students were at Level

C, 0 students were at Level D and 1 student was at Level E. At the end of the school year the

report cards showed: 2 students were at Level B, 5 students were at Level C, 3 students were at

Level D, 1 student each were at Levels E, F, and G. All students with the exception of one

student, improved their Guided Reading level. The increases were: 4 students improved by 1

level, 6 students improved by 2 levels, 1 student improved by 3 levels and 1 student improved by

4 levels.

The overall average for Math grades based on report cards at the end of the first nine weeks was

.88. An individual analysis revealed that 10 students (76.92%) scored at or above .80 which is

interpreted as scoring proficient. At the end of the year, the average decreased to .85. The

number of students above .80 decreased to 8 students (61.53%), and the number of students

below .80 increased to 5 students (38.47%).



The average number of days the students were absent from school was 11.42 days. There was no

relationship between DIBELS Composite scores and attendance.

First Grade Academic Performance Results The evaluation of first-grade students was completed using data from 15 students for the first

nine weeks and 19 students for the fourth nine weeks. The overall average for ELA grades based

on report cards at the end of the first nine weeks was a .61. An individual analysis revealed that 4

students (26.6%) scored at or above .80 which is interpreted as scoring proficient, 2 students

(13.3%) scored between .70 and .79 which is interpreted as Basic, and the remaining 9 students

(60%) scored in a range that would be considered Below Basic. At the end of the year, the ELA

report card average increased to .74 which is a 13% increase. Eight students (42.1%) at the end

of the year are considered Proficient, 4 students (21.05%) are Basic and 7 students (36.84%)

were Below Basic. The report card grade results are consistent with the DIBELS Composite

scores which showed 7 of the 8 students whose report card grades showed as proficient were

Core Support Level on the DIBELS Composite score, the remaining 1 student was Strategic. The

7 students that would be considered Below Basic on their report card were either Strategic or

Intensive on the DIBELS Composite score, with one student being an outlier with a Core

Support level.

At the end of first grade, the Guided Reading proficiency Level as determined by the school

district was “I” and 9 students (47.37%) reached the goal. The report cards for the end of the

fourth nine weeks showed: 1 student was at Level N, 3 students were at Level L, 1 student was at

Level K, 1 student was at Level J, and 3 students were at Level I. The remaining 10 students

(52.63%) were below the district determined proficiency level.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Average Math Grades Average ELA Grades

Cal

cula

ted

Ove

rall

Ave

rage

Kindergarten Average Report Card Grades

1st Nine Weeks 4th Nine Weeks



The overall average for Math grades based on report cards at the end of the first nine weeks was

.68. An individual analysis revealed that 6 students (40%) scored at or above .80 which is

interpreted as scoring proficient. At the end of the year, the average increased to .71, which

showed a 3% increase. The number of students above .80 increased to 8 students (42.11%), and

the number of students below .80 increased to 11 students (57.89%). There were 4 additional

students evaluated for the 4th grading period.



Second Grade Academic Performance Results The evaluation of second grade was completed using data from 26 students for the first nine

weeks and 29 students for the fourth nine weeks. The overall average for ELA grades based on

report cards at the end of the first nine weeks was a .78. An individual analysis revealed that 13

students (50%) scored at or above .80 which is interpreted as scoring proficient. At the end of the

year, the average for all second-grade students decreased their ELA grades to an average of .77

which is a 1% decrease. The individual analysis showed an increase in the number of students

who are considered proficient to 16 students (55.17%).

At the end of second grade, the Guided Reading goal is level M, however, at the end of the first

nine weeks, the expected Guided Reading goal is level J as stated on the report card. At the end

of the first nine weeks, 8 students reached the goal. The report cards for the end of the first nine

weeks showed: 2 students were at Level M, 1 student was at Level L, 1 student was at Level K, 4

students were at Level J, and the remaining 18 did not reach the goal. At the end of the school

year, the report cards showed the 12 students had reached the level of M. However 17 students

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


Cal

cula

ted

Ove

rall

Ave

rage

First Grade Average Report Card Grades




did not reach the expected level. In a comparison between the first nine weeks and the fourth

nine weeks, all students increased except 2 students who decreased and 1 student who remained

the same.

The number of students in the Math evaluation is consistent with the number of students used in

the ELA evaluation. The overall average for Math grades based on report cards at the end of the

first nine weeks was a .63. Individual analysis revealed that 13 students (50%) scored at or above

.80 which is interpreted as scoring proficient. At the end of the year, the average for all second

grade students increased the overall average to .80. The number of second graders scoring above

.80 also increased to 17 students (58.62%).

The average number of days the second-grade students were absent from school was 7.79 days.

Third Grade Academic Performance Results The evaluation of third grade was completed using data from 19 students. The overall average

for ELA grades based on report cards at the end of the fourth nine weeks was .69. An individual

analysis revealed that five students (26.31%) scored at or above .80 which is interpreted as

scoring proficient, 7 students (36.84%) scored between .70 and .79 which is the Basic range, and

the remaining 7 students (36.84%) scored below .69 in the Below Basic range.

The 3rd grade 2018 PSSA ELA scores were as follows for the participants: 1 student scored

Advanced, 12 students scored Proficient, 4 students scored Basic, and 1 student scored Below

Basic. In a comparison between the Composite DIBELS scores and the PSSA, no correlation

could be found. A second comparison was completed between the 4th nine weeks’ grades and the

2018 PSSA ELA score. All students who had a .67 or higher on the calculated report card grade

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90


Cal

cula

ted

Ove

rall

Ave

rage

Second Grade Average Report Card Grades




scored either Proficient or Advanced on the PSSA. All students who scored .66 and below on the

calculated report card grade scored Basic or Below Basic.

The overall average for Math grades on the report card at the end of the fourth nine weeks was


interpreted as scoring proficient, 2 students (10.5%) scored between .70 and .79 which is the

Basic range, and the remaining 6 students (31.58%) scored below .69 in the Below Basic range.

A comparison between the 4th grading period report grades and the 2018 PSSA Math scores

revealed that all students except 1 student who obtained a calculated report card grade of .77 or

higher received a Proficient or Advanced PSSA score. All students except 1 student who

received .76 or lower on their fourth grading period calculated report card grade scored either

Basic or Below Basic on the PSSA.

The average number of days the third-grade students were absent from school was 7 days. There

was no relationship between DIBELS Composite scores and attendance.

Fourth Grade Academic Performance Results The evaluation of fourth grade was completed using data from 12 students. The overall average

for ELA grades based on report cards at the end of the fourth nine weeks was .79. An individual

analysis revealed that 6 students (50%) scored at or above .80 which is interpreted as scoring

proficient, 3 students (25%) scored between .70 and .79 which is the Basic range, and the

remaining 3 students (25%) scored between .59 and .69 in the Below Basic range.

The first comparison is between the students’ performance on their 3rd grade 2017 PSSA ELA

test and their 4th grade 2018 PSSA ELA test. On the 3rd-grade PSSA test, 3 students scored

Advanced, 6 students scored Proficient and 3 students scored Basic. On the 4th-grade PSSA test,

4 students scored Advanced, 4 students scored Proficient and 4 students scored Basic. On neither

test did any child score Below Basic. On an individual comparison, all students who were

Proficient or Advanced on the 4th grade PSSA test were also Proficient or Advanced on the 3rd

grade PSSA test. There was one student who scored Basic on the 4th grade PSSA test that was

Proficient on the 3rd grade PSSA test.

A second comparison is between the 4th nine weeks’ grades and the 2018 PSSA ELA score. No

correlation could be made between the calculated report card grades and the PSSA scores. A

final comparison was done between the DIBELS Composite scores and the PSSA scores, and no

correlation could be made.



interpreted as scoring proficient, and the remaining 5 students (41.6%) scored below .69 in the

Below Basic range.

The first comparison is between the students’ performance on their 3rd grade 2017 PSSA Math

test and their 4th grade 2018 PSSA Math test. On the 3rd-grade PSSA test, 4 students scored

Advanced, 6 students scored Proficient, and 2 students scored Basic. On the 4th-grade PSSA test,



3 students scored Advanced, 5 students scored Proficient, 3 students scored Basic, and 1 student

scored Below Basic. An individual comparison, all students who were Proficient or Advanced on

the 4th-grade PSSA test were also Proficient or Advanced on the 3rd-grade PSSA test. Two

students scored Proficient in 3rd grade who scored Basic in 4th grade, 1 student who scored Basic

both years and 1 student who scored Basic in 3rd grade and scored Below Basic in 4th grade.


correlation could be made between the calculated report card grades and the PSSA scores.



Fifth Grade Academic Performance Results The evaluation of fifth grade was completed using data from 12 students. The overall average for

ELA grades based on a 100 percent scale from the report cards as determined by the Somerset

Area School District. At the end of the fourth nine weeks, the average was 82.50. An individual

analysis revealed that 9 students (.75%) scored at or above 80% which is interpreted as scoring

proficient, 2 students (16.66%) scored between .70 and .79 which is the Basic range, and 1

student (8%) scored between .60 and .69 in the Below Basic range.

The first comparison is between the students’ performance on their 4th grade 2017 PSSA ELA

test and their 5th grade 2018 PSSA ELA test. On the 4th-grade PSSA test, 2 students scored

Advanced, 6 students scored Proficient, and 4 students scored Basic. On the 5th-grade PSSA test,

1 student scored Advanced, 8 students scored Proficient, and 3 students scored Basic. On neither

test did any child score Below Basic. On an individual comparison, all students who were

Proficient or Advanced on the 5th grade PSSA were also Proficient or Advanced on the 4th-grade

PSSA. There was one student who scored Basic on the 4th-grade PSSA and increased their score

to Proficient on the 5th-grade PSSA. The three other students who were Basic on their 4th-grade

PSSA remained Basic on their 5th-grade PSSA test.


correlation could be made between the report card grades and the PSSA scores. As a note, the

child with the highest ELA grade on their report card, scored Basic on the PSSA test. This child

also scored Intensive on the DIBELS Composite Score. A final comparison was done between

the DIBELS Composite scores and the PSSA scores. No correlation could be made for all

students; some students did show a correlation.


87.92. An individual analysis revealed that 10 students (.83%) scored at or above 80% which is

interpreted as scoring Proficient, and 1 student (8%) scored between 70% and 79% which is

interpreted as Basic.

The first comparison is between the students’ performance on their 4th grade 2017 PSSA Math

test and their 5th grade 2018 PSSA Math test. On the 4th-grade PSSA test, 2 students scored

Advanced, 7 students scored Proficient, and 2 students scored Basic, and 1 student scored Below



Basic. On the 5th-grade PSSA test, 4 students scored Advanced, 2 students scored Proficient, 5

students scored Basic, and 1 student scored Below Basic. On an individual comparison, all

students who were Proficient or Advanced on the 5th grade PSSA were also Proficient or

Advanced on the 4th-grade PSSA. Three students scored Proficient on the 4th-grade PSSA and

decreased to Basic on the 5th-grade PSSA. Two students remained Basic on both tests, and one

student remained Below Basic on both tests.



Academic Performance (In-depth Review of the DIBELS’ Scores) DIBELS stands for Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills consists of six

components that function as indicators of the essential skills that every child must master to

become a proficient reader. The DIBELS components take very little time to administer and are

used to regularly to monitor the development of early literacy and early reading skills. DIBELS

was designed for use in identifying children experiencing difficulty in the acquisition of basic

early literacy skills, in order to provide support early and prevent the occurrence of later reading

difficulties.

The purposes of DIBELS are:

• to identify students who may be at risk for reading difficulties (universal screening)

• to help teachers identify areas to target instructional support

• to monitor at-risk students while they receive additional, targeted instruction

• to examine the effectiveness of the school’s system of instructional supports

The advantages of DIBELS are:

• specifically designed to be used within a problem-solving, outcomes-driven model of

decision-making and response to intervention

• measures are reliable and valid

• research-based benchmark goals are available which define a level at which the odds are

in the student’s favor of meeting later reading outcome goals

DIBELS results are shown in three categories; intensive, strategic and core instructional support.

Intensive support can be defined as “well below benchmark,” this is the lowest level that a

student can score. A child scoring in the intensive support range, should be receiving

interventions that incorporate something more or something different from the core curriculum

or supplemental support. Intensive support might entail; delivering instruction in a smaller group,

providing more instructional time or more practice, presenting smaller skill steps in the

instructional hierarchy, providing more explicit modeling and instruction, and providing greater

scaffolding and practice. The next level is Strategic. Students in the strategic level are “below

benchmark” and should receive carefully targeted additional support in the skill areas where they

are having difficulty, be regularly monitored to ensure that they are making adequate progress,

and receive increased or modified support if necessary to achieve subsequent reading goals. The



final level is Core and students at that level are “at or above benchmark,” and thus core

instruction and monitoring should continue to ensure that the student continues on a path to

achieve their literacy goals.

The Somerset Area School District utilizes DIBELS as one measure to determine the success of

their afterschool program for students in Kindergarten through 5th grade. This report will

evaluate the students by grade level in the various DIBELS components.

Kindergarten Results An examination of the Kindergarten DIBELS scores for the students who attended the

afterschool program yield the following results. The number of Kindergarten students who

attended the program and were tested at the beginning, middle and end of the year was 13

students. All data regarding Kindergartens will be related to these 13 students.

The first component is the DIBELS Letter Naming Fluency (LNF). Students are presented

with a page of upper- and lower-case letters arranged in a random order and are asked to name as

many letters as they can. If they do not know a letter, the examiner provides the name of the

letter. The student is allowed 1 minute to produce as many letter names as he/she can, and the

score is the number of letters named correctly in 1 minute. At the beginning of the year, the

Kindergarten students named an average of 13.8 letters. In the middle of the year the students’

average increased to 36.3, and by the end of the year, the students’ average was 52.8. All

students showed an increase throughout the year.

A second component PSF: Phoneme Segmentation Fluency was administered at the middle

and the end of the year. PSF is a measure that assesses a student's ability to segment three- and

four-phoneme words into their individual phonemes fluently. The PSF task is administered by

the examiner orally presenting words of three to four phonemes. At the middle of the year, the

Kindergarten students had an average score of 41.6; one student (7.69%) was at Intensive

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Student1

Student2

Student3

Student4

Student5

Student6

Student7

Student8

Student9

Student10

Student11

Student12

Student13

Sco

re

Letter Naming Fluency (LNF)

Beginning of the Year End of the Year



Support, 1 student (7.69%) was at Strategic Support, and 11 students (84.62%) were at Core

Support. At the end of the year, the average had increased to a score of 52.3 and no students were

at Intensive Support, 4 students (30.77%) were at Strategic Support, and 9 students (69.23%)

were at Core Support.

A third component NWF-CLS: Nonsense Word Fluency - Correct Letter Sounds is a

standardized, individually administered test of the alphabetic principle including letter-sound

correspondence in which letters represent their most common sounds and of the ability to blend

letters into words in which letters represent their most common sounds. At the middle of the

year, 1 student (7.69%) was at Intensive Support, zero students were at Strategic Support, and 12

students (92.31%) were at Core Support. The student's average score was 31.1. At the end of the

year, zero students were at Intensive Support, 3 students (23.08%) were at Strategic Support, and

10 students (76.92%) were at Core Support, and the average score had increased to 45.7.

The Overall Composite Score is a combination of multiple DIBELS scores, and provides the

best overall estimate of the student's early literacy skills and reading proficiency. For the Overall

Composite Score, 1 Kindergarten student (7.69%) was in Intensive Support, 3 Kindergarten

students (23.08%) were at Strategic Support, and 9 students (69.23%) were at or above

benchmark at Core Support.

First Grade Results An examination of the first grade DIBELS scores for the students who attended the afterschool

program yield the following results. The number of first graders who attended the program and

were tested at the beginning, middle and end of the year was 20 students. All data regarding first

graders will be related to these 20 students.

PSF: Phoneme Segmentation Fluency was administered at the beginning of the year. PSF is a

measure that assesses a student's ability to segment three- and four-phoneme words into their

individual phonemes fluently. At the beginning of 1st grade, the benchmark is 40. An evaluation

of the students in the program showed that 10 students (50%) were at or above benchmark and

10 students (50%) were below benchmark.

Nonsense Word Fluency - NWF is a standardized, individually administered test of the

alphabetic principle including letter-sound correspondence in which letters represent their most

common sounds and of the ability to blend letters into words in which letters represent their most

common sounds. For NWF – Correct Letter Sounds. The goal is 58 by the end of first grade. At

the end of the school year, 11 students (55%) were at or above benchmark, and 9 students (45%)

were below the benchmark. However, all students showed an increase from the beginning of the

year to the end of the year.

NWF – Whole Words Read (WWR) is the number of make-believe words read correctly as a

whole word without first being sounded out. If the student reads the correct sounds in the make-

believe word all blended together without first being sounded out, they get an extra point for the

whole word read. The goal for the end of first grade is 13. At the end of the school year, 16

students (80%) scored at or above benchmark and 4 students (20%) did not meet the benchmark

goal.



DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency (DORF) is a measure that assesses the number of words read

correctly in the text and the accuracy in which the text was read. DORF is measuring the

student’s ability to effortlessly translate letters to sounds and sounds to words. The fluent reader

is one whose decoding processes are automatic, requiring no conscious attention. For DORF-

Words Correct, 6 students (30%) were at Intensive Support, 3 students (15%) were at Strategic

Support, and 11 students (55%) were at or above benchmark at Core Support at the end of the

2017-2018 school year.

For DORF-Accuracy which is a measure of advanced phonics and word attack skills, accurate

and fluent reading of connected text, and reading comprehension. At the end of the school year,

5 students (25%) were at Intensive Support, 1 student (5%) were at Strategic Support, and 14

students (70%) were at or above benchmark at Core Support.

The Overall Composite Score is a combination of multiple DIBELS scores and provides the

best overall estimate of the student's early literacy skills and reading proficiency. For the

Overall Composite Score, five first grade students (25%) were at Intensive Support, three first

grade students (15%) were at Strategic Support, and 12 students (60%) were at or above

benchmark at Core Support.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency (DORF)Words Correct

DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency (DORF)Accuracy

Nu

mb

er o

f St

ud

ents

End of 2017-2018 School Year

Intensive Strategic Core

0

5

10

15

Composite Score

Nu

mb

er o

f St

ud

ents

End of 2017-2018 School Year




Second Grade Results An examination of the second grade DIBELS scores for the students who attended the

afterschool program yielded the following results. The number of second graders who attended

the program and were tested at the beginning, middle and end of the year was 30 students. All

data regarding second graders will be related to these 30 students.

In second grade students were measured at the beginning, middle and end of the year using the

DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency (DORF) section of the DIBELS Assessment. All students in

the group were tested with the DORF and received an overall score. At the beginning of the year,

17-second graders (56.6%) needed Intensive Support, 5 students (16.6%) needed Strategic

Support, and 8 students (26.6%) needed Core Support. At the middle of the year, the Intensive

Support remained at 17 students (56.6%), the Strategic Support decreased to 4 students (13.3%),

and the Core Support increased to 9 students (30%). An individual analysis of the data revealed

that 2 students that were Intensive at the beginning of the year, became Strategic at the mid-

point. However, 2 other students were Strategic at the beginning of the year and became

Intensive at the mid-point. The remaining 15 students were Intensive at both the beginning and

mid-point of the school year. At the end of the 2017-2018 school year, 11 students (36.6%) were

at Intensive Support, 8 students (26.6%) were at Strategic Support, and 11 students (36.6%) were

at Core Support. Individual analysis revealed that no students from the beginning of the year to

the end of the year went down to a lower instructional level, and 7 students’ (23.3%)

instructional level changed in a positive direction.

For DORF-Accuracy, 11 students (36.6%) were in Intensive Support, 8 students (26.6%) were

at Strategic Support, and 11 students (36.6%) were at or above benchmark at Core Support at the

beginning of the school year. At the mid-point of the school year, the 15 students (50%) were

now at Intensive Support, the Strategic Support had decreased to 5 students (16.6%), and the

Core Support had decreased to 10 students (33%). At the end of the year, 11 students (36.6%)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18


Nu

mb

er o

f St

ud

ents

DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency (DORF) Overall Score

Beginning of Year Middle of Year End of Year



remained at Intensive Support, 7 students (23.3%) were at Strategic Support, and 12 (40%) were

at Core Support. An individual analysis of these results showed that 23 students (76.6%) showed

no change in their support level from the beginning of the year to the end of the year, however 5

students (16.6%) increased their instructional support level from the beginning of the year to the

end of the year, and 2 students (6%) decreased their instructional support level during the school

year.

For DORF-Words Correct, all students (100%) improved from the beginning of the year to the

end of the school year. Eleven (11) second-graders (36.6%) ended the school year at Core

Support in the subtest of DORF-Words Correct.

The second grade Composite Score was not available for all second-grade students who

participated in the program, and thus scores are not shown in this report.

Third Grade Results An examination of the third grade DIBELS scores for the students who attended the afterschool

program yielded the following results. The number of third graders who attended the program

and were tested at the beginning, middle and end of the year was 22 students. All data regarding

third graders will be related to these 22 students.

This report examines 4 components of the DIBELS test and an overall composite score for the

end of the year. The first subtest, DORF Score: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency - Words

Correct, revealed that 6 students (27.2%) were at Intensive Support, 2 students (9%) were at

Strategic Support, and 14 students (63.6%) were at Core Support at the beginning of the year. At

the mid-point of the year, 5 students (22.7%) were at Intensive Support, which was a 1 student

decrease, 3 students (13.6%) were at Strategic Support, and 14 students (63.6%) were at Core

Support. An individual student examination showed that 4 students remained Intensive Support

from the beginning to the middle of the year. Two of the students from the Intensive Support

group at the beginning of the year moved to Strategic Support at mid-point. However one student

went from Core Support at the beginning of the year to Intensive Support, and one student went

from Core Support to Strategic Support at the mid-point. Additionally, 2 students went from

Strategic Support to Core Support, and 12 students continued to move in a positive direction and

remained in Core Support. Results at the end of the year showed, 4 students (18%) remained in

Intensive Support. However, their number of words correct did increase throughout the year.

Three students (13.6%) ended the year in Strategic Support, and 13 students (59%) ended the

year in Core Support. As a note, 2 students (9%) did not take the assessment at the end of the

year.



The second subtest, DORF Accuracy: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency - Accuracy, showed

that 2 students (9%) were at Intensive Support, 6 students (27.2%) were at Strategic Support and

14 students (63.6%) were at Core Support at the beginning of the year. At the mid-point of the

year, 2 students (9%) were at Intensive Support, 1 student (4.5%) was at Strategic Support, and

19 students (86.4%) were at Core Support. Results at the end of the year showed, 1 student

(4.5%) (same student from the beginning of the year) remained in Intensive Support. Six students

(27.2%) ended the year at Strategic Support, which was a 5-student increase from the mid-point

of the year. Twelve students (60%) ended the year in Core Support. As a note, 2 students did not

take the assessment at the end of the year.

The third subtest, DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency – Retell is a one-minute test to measure how

much the student can retell of the passage they just read aloud. The retell portion is given when

students have read at least 40 words correct per minute. The Retell component is necessary to

determine a final Composite score. At the beginning of the 2017-2018 school year, only 1

student (4.5%) was Intensive Support, 6 students (27.2%) were Strategic Support, and 15

students (68.1%) were Core Support. At the mid-point of the year, 2 students (9%) were

Intensive Support, 5 students (22.7%) were Strategic Support, and 15 students (68.1%) were

Core Support. Further evaluation of the 2 students that were Intensive Support at mid-point it

was determined that they were Core Support at the beginning of the year. The one student who

was Intensive Support at the beginning of the year, at mid-point had moved to Strategic Support.

At the end of the year, 3 students (13.6%) were Intensive Support, 3 students (13.6%) were

Strategic Support, and 14 students (63.6%) were Core Support. Two students did not take the

final DIBELS assessment. Ten (10) students remained Core Support for all three assessments.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16


Nu

mb

er o

f St

ud

ents

DORF Score: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency - Words Correct




The fourth component given to all third graders was the Daze - Adjusted Score which is the

DIBELS maze comprehension task, a group-administered measure of reading comprehension.

Students are asked to read a passage silently. In the passage, every seventh word (approximately)

is blank, with a maze of options (i.e., three possible word choices for the blank). One of the

words in the maze is always correct, and the other two are incorrect. Daze requires students to

choose the correct word as they read the passage. Students are given three minutes to work on

this task. The score is the number of correct words circled minus half of the number of incorrect

words circled. At the beginning of the year, 7 students (31.8%) were at Intensive Support, 5

students (22.7%) were at Strategic Support, and 10 students (45.5%) were at Core Support. At

the mid-point 4 students (18%) were at Intensive Support, 3 students were the same from the

beginning of the year, but 1 of the 4 students was Core Support at the beginning of the year and

was now Intensive Support. One student had moved from Intensive Support to Strategic Support.

Five students (22.7%) were at Strategic Support, and 13 students (59%) were at Core Support. At

the end of the year, 3 students (13.6%) were at Intensive Support. Those 3 students had been at

Intensive Support for the entire year. Five students were at Strategic Support, and 12 students

(60%) were at Core Support. Two students did not take the final DIBELS assessment.

The final component to evaluate was the third grade Composite Score. The DIBELS Composite

Score is a combination of multiple DIBELS scores and provides the best overall estimate of the

student's early literacy skills and reading proficiency. At the end of the year, 20 third graders in

the afterschool program had a composite score. Three students (15%) were at Intensive Support,

4 students (20%) were at Strategic Support, and 13 students (65%) were at Core Support. As a

final note, the DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency -Retell Quality score for students was not

evaluated because the evaluator subjectively bases the score.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14


Nu

mb

er o

f St

ud

ents

Daze - Adjusted Score




Fourth Grade Results An examination of the fourth grade DIBELS scores for students who attended the after-school

program yielded the following results. The number of fourth graders who attended the program

and were tested at the beginning middle and in the end of the year was 11 students. All data

regarding the fourth graders will be related to these 11 students. The report examines 4

components of the DIBELS test and an overall composite score for the end of the year. The same

4 components and the overall composite score was evaluated in the third-grade section; thus,

definitions of the tests can be found in the third-grade section of this report.

The first subtest, DORF Score: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency - Words Correct revealed

that 4 students (36.36%) were at Intensive Support, 2 students (18.18%) were at Strategic

Support and 5 students (45.45%) were at Core Support at the beginning of the year. At the

midpoint of the year, 2 students (18.18%) were at Intensive support, 4 students (36.36%) were at

Strategic Support, and 5 students (45.45%) were at Core Support. Further evaluation revealed

that 2 students at Intensive Support remained at Intensive Support. However, the other 2 students

moved to Strategic Support. At the end of the year, 3 students (27.27%) were at Intensive

support, 3 students (27.27%) were at Strategic Support, and 5 students (45.45%) were at Core

support. A review of the year, shows that only one student went from Intensive Support to

Strategic Support, the other 10 students showed no change in their support level from the

beginning of the year to the end of the year testing.


that 2 students (18.18%) were at Intensive Support, 1 student (9.09%) were at Strategic Support,

and 8 students (72.73%) were at Core Support at the beginning of the year. At the mid-point of

the year, 2 students (18.18%) were at Intensive Support, 1 student (9.09%) were at Strategic

Support, and 8 students (72.73%) were at Core Support. An individual student examination

showed, of the 4 students at Intensive Support at the beginning of the year, 2 remained at

Intensive Support. However, the other 2 students moved to Core Support. Three students

(27.27%) ended the year at Strategic Support, and 8 students (72.73%) ended the year in Core

Support. All students were moved from Intensive Support.



The third subtest, DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency – Retell revealed that 4 students (36.36%)

were at Intensive Support, 2 students (18.18%) were at Strategic Support, and 5 students

(45.45%) were at Core Support at the beginning of the year. At the midpoint of the year, 2

students (18.18%) were at Intensive Support, 4 students (36.36%) were at Strategic Support, and

5 students (45.45%) were at Core Support. Further evaluation revealed that 2 of the students at

Intensive Support at the beginning of the year remained at Intensive Support at the midpoint of

the year, however one student at Intensive Support at the beginning of the year moved to Core

Support at the middle of the year. All remaining students did not change their support level from

the beginning of the year to the end of the year. At the end of the year, 2 students (18.18%) were

at Intensive support, 3 students (27.27%) were at Strategic Support, and 6 students (54.55%)

were at Core Support. Final analysis showed that only 1 student did not make progress.

However, 10 students showed an increase from the beginning of the year to the end of the year.

The fourth component given to all fourth graders was the Daze - Adjusted Score. Three students

(27.27%) were at Intensive Support, 1 student (9.09%) was at Strategic Support, and 7 students

(63.64%) were at Core Support at the beginning of the year. At the middle of the year, 2 students

(18.18%) remained at Intensive Support, 3 students (27.27%) were at Strategic Support (at the

beginning of the year, 1 of these students were at Strategic Support, 1 student was at Intensive

Support, and 1 student was a Core Support) and 6 students (54.55%) were at Core Support. All

of the students at Core Support at mid-point were at Core Support at the beginning of the year.

At the end of the year, 3 students (27.27%) were at Intensive Support, 3 students (27.27%) were

at Strategic Support, and 5 students (45.45%) were at Core Support. At the end of the year, all 11

students showed an improvement in their Daze-Adjusted Score.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9


Nu

mb

er o

f St

ud

ents

DORF Accuracy: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency - Accuracy

Beginning of the Year Middle of the Year End of the Year



The final component to evaluate was the fourth grade Composite Score. The DIBELS

Composite Score is a combination of multiple DIBELS scores and provides the best overall

estimate of the student's early literacy skills and reading proficiency. Four students (36.36%)

were at Intensive Support, 1 student (9.09%) were at Strategic Support, and 6 students (54.55%)

were at Core Support. As a final note, the DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency -Retell Quality score

for students was not evaluated because the score is subjective based on the evaluator.

Fifth Grade Results An examination of the fifth grade DIBELS scores for students who attended the after-school

program yielded the following results. There were 13 fifth graders who attended the program that

was tested at the beginning, middle, and the end of the year. All data regarding the fifth graders

will be related to these 13 students. The report examines 4 components of the DIBELS test and

an overall composite score for the end of the year. The same 4 components and the overall

composite score was evaluated in the third-grade section; thus, definitions of the tests can be

found in the third-grade section of this report.

The first subtest, DORF Score: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency - Words Correct revealed

that 6 students (46.15%) were at Intensive Support, 2 students (15.38%) were at Strategic

Support and 5 students (38.46%) were at Core Support at the beginning of the year. At the

midpoint of the year, 5 students (38.46%) were at Intensive Support, 2 students (15.38%) were at

Strategic Support, and 6 students (46.15%) were at Core Support. Further evaluation revealed

that 5 students at Intensive Support remained at Intensive Support. However, 1 student moved to

Strategic Support. At the end of the year, 4 students (30.77%) were at Intensive support, 4

students (30.77%) were at Strategic Support, and 5 students (38.46%) were at Core support. A

review of the year, shows that all students made progress regardless of the support level.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Student 1 Student 2 Student 3 Student 4 Student 5 Student 6 Student 7 Student 8 Student 9 Student10

Student11

Sco

reDaze-Adjusted Score





that 1 student (7.69%) was at Intensive Support, 3 students (23.08%) were at Strategic Support,

and 9 students (69.23%) were at Core Support at the beginning of the year. At the mid-point of

the year, 2 students (15.38%) were at Intensive Support, 2 students (15.38%) were at Strategic

Support, and 9 students (69.23%) were at Core Support. Two students (15.38%) ended the year

at Intensive Support, 1 student (7.69%) ended the year at Strategic Support, and 10 students

(76.92%) ended the year in Core Support.

The third subtest, DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency – Retell revealed that 3 students (23.08%)

were at Intensive Support, 4 students (30.77%) were at Strategic Support, and 6 students

(46.15%) were at Core Support at the beginning of the year. At the midpoint of the year, 2

students (15.38%) were at Intensive Support, 5 students (38.46%) were at Strategic Support, and

6 students (46.15%) were at Core Support. Further evaluation revealed that 2 of the students at

Intensive Support at the beginning of the year remained at Intensive Support at the midpoint of

the year, however one student at Intensive Support at the beginning of the year moved to Core

Support at the middle of the year. At the end of the year, 0 students were at Intensive support, 3

students (23.08%) were at Strategic Support, and 10 students (76.92%) were at Core Support.

Final analysis showed that all 12 students showed an increase from the beginning of the year to

the end of the year and 1 student showed a slight decrease but remained in the Core Support

level.

0

50

100

150

200

250

Student1

Student2

Student3

Student4

Student5

Student6

Student7

Student8

Student9

Student10

Student11

Student12

Student13

Sco

reDIBELS Oral Reading Fluency - Words Correct




The fourth component given to all fifth graders was the Daze - Adjusted Score. Two students

(15.38%) were at Intensive Support, 3 students (23.08%) was at Strategic Support, and 8 students

(61.54%) were at Core Support at the beginning of the year. At the middle of the year, 2 students

(15.38%) were at Intensive Support, 4 students (30.77%) were at Strategic Support, and 7

students (53.85%) were at Core Support. At the end of the year, 1 student (7.69%) was at

Intensive Support, 4 students (30.77%) were at Strategic Support, and 8 students (61.54%) were

at Core Support. At the end of the year, all 10 students showed an improvement in their Daze-

Adjusted Score, and 1 student remained the same.

The final component to evaluate was the fifth grade Composite Score. At the end of the year,

one student (7.69%) was at Intensive Support, 4 students (30.77%) were at Strategic Support,

and 8 students (61.54%) were at Core Support. As a final note, the DIBELS Oral Reading

Fluency -Retell Quality score for students was not evaluated because the score is subjective

based on the evaluator.

Parent Survey Data A survey was completed in November 2017 by 35 parents of students that participated in the

program. The assessment questions were scored on a Likert Scale:

• Strongly Disagree

• Disagree

• Neutral

• Agree

• Strongly Agree

The following summarizes the questions and student assessments:

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Student1

Student2

Student3

Student4

Student5

Student6

Student7

Student8

Student9

Student10

Student11

Student12

Student13

Sco

reDIBELS Oral Reading Fluency – Retell




1) The program is addressing my child's specific needs.

Overall, 91% of the parents agree or strongly agree that the program is addressing

their child’s specific needs. The other 9% were neutral, and no parents that

disagreed.

2) The program offers my child a variety of academic and enrichment opportunities.

All of the parents agree or strongly agree (100%) that the program offers their

child a variety of academic and enrichment opportunities. No parents that

disagreed.

3) The program staff communicates with me about my child's behavior and activities in a

helpful way.

Overall, 94% of the parents agree or strongly agree that the program staff

communicates with them about their child's behavior and activities in a helpful

way. The other 6% were neutral, and no parents that disagreed.

4) My child feels happy and safe when participating in after-school activities provided by

the Boys and Girls Club.

Overall, 94% of the parents agree or strongly agree that their child feels happy

and safe when participating in after-school activities provided by the Boys and

Girls Club. The other 6% were neutral, and no parents that disagreed.

5) My child's social skills have improved since he or she began participating in after-school

activities provided by the Boys and Girls Club.

Overall, 74% of the parents agree or strongly agree that their child feels happy

and safe when participating in after-school activities provided by the Boys and

Girls Club. The other 26% were neutral, and no parents that disagreed.



The parent survey was offered once relatively early in the program. Only 35 out of the 105

participant’s parents completed the survey.

Teacher Survey Data

The teachers completed an assessment for 65 of the students that participated in the program.

The local Intermediate Unit provides the assessment questions, and the students are scored on the

following scale:

• Slight decline

• No change

• Slight improvement

• Moderate improvement

• Significant improvement

• Did not need to improve (Note: this rating assesses the student as proficient without room

to improve).

The following summarizes the questions and student assessments:

1) To what extent has your student changed their behavior in terms of completing

homework to your satisfaction?

Regarding a student’s behavior for completing homework, the assessment indicated that 41% (26

students) showed an overall improvement and 30% (19 students) were already satisfactory

completing their homework. There was only 1 student behavior for completing homework

declined, and the remaining 27% (17 students) behavior did not change.



2) To what extent has your student changed their behavior in terms of participating in

class.

Regarding a student behavior for participating in class, the assessment indicated that 45% (28

students) showed an overall improvement and 26% (19 students) were already satisfactorily

participating in class, and the remaining 29% (18 students) behavior did not change. No student’s

behavior declined.

3) To what extent has your student changed their behavior in terms of volunteering

(e.g. for extra credit or more responsibilities).

Regarding a student behavior for volunteering, the assessment indicated that 25% (16 students)

showed an overall improvement and 19% (12 students) were already satisfactory volunteering in

class, and the remaining 56% (36 students) behavior did not change. No student’s behavior

declined.



4) To what extent has your student changed their behavior in terms of being attentive

in class.

Regarding a student behavior changing for being attentive in class, the assessment indicated that

36% (23 students) showed an overall improvement and 22% (14 students) were already

satisfactory being attentive in class, and the remaining 42% (36 students) behavior did not

change. No student’s behavior declined.

5) To what extent has your student changed their behavior in terms of behaving well in

class.

Regarding a student behavior for behaving well in class, the assessment indicated that 31% (20


behaving well in class. There was only 1 student behavior for behaving well in class declined,

and the remaining 38% (24 students) behavior did not change.



6) To what extent has your student changed their behavior in terms of academic

performance.

Regarding a student behavior for academic performance, the assessment indicated that 57% (36


performing academically. There was only 1 student behavior for academic performance declined

and the remaining 27% (17 students) behavior did not change.

7) To what extent has your student changed their behavior in terms of coming to

school motivated to learn.

Regarding a student behavior for coming to school motivated to learn, the assessment indicated

that 31% (20 students) showed an overall improvement and 23% (15 students) were already

satisfactorily performing academically. There were 2 students’ behavior for “coming to school

motivated to learn” declined, and the remaining 42% (27 students) behavior did not change.

Comment:

• The teacher completed surveys on 65 of the 105 student participants.

• There were a few students that had no responses (blank answer) for a few questions.

Student Success Stories Student A is a non-English speaking student started the club our first day. He stood off by

himself just watching and taking it in. He could only say a few works like the bathroom, thanks,

and bye. As the days and weeks went on, he started to talk more and he joined in the activities.

The other kids always included him never once blinking an eye that he did not talk much. As he



learned more English, he talked more to all of us. He even became excited to have us listen to

him during his guided reading. By the end of the school year, he was asking to be a leader and

picking kids to be in his group.

Student B is a student with behavioral issues who loved coming to the Club. On days when her

parent would say she was not coming was a bad day in the classroom of shutting down and being

defiant. While she was here, she loved working hard and earning some one on one time with a

teacher who would stop in at the beginning of the Club to check in on her. She would always try

to help others here. She really does try and just wants attention from others, especially adults.

We have worked out that, if she does her best, she can lead during Phys Ed for a turn.

Student C is an autistic boy who is very quiet and doesn’t like being around others. He started

coming to the club midyear. Mom was very worried because he kept to himself and hated school.

He has become a whole new kid. His mom cries when she says how much the club has helped

him grow. He loves coming and is seen interacting with other kids, playing games, or just

hanging out. He has no fear of just walking in and leaving his mom at the door as he heads in to

see who all is attending. He even tells others about the fun he has here.

Student D is a girl who struggles with stealing and over stimulation. We have worked on what is

mine and what is something I just want. It is still a struggle for her, but she is trying. She sees

things she likes and thinks she can just take them and say they are hers. She has grown and if she

does take something and you sit and ask her, “Is it yours or did you just want it?” She will

stutter and think and finally admits to taking something that was not hers. She also has other

issues of getting over-stimulated and needs to unwind. She has joined our Art with a Heart group

and loves to make artwork to unwind from the school day.

Note: The four student success stories listed above was provided by the program’s staff.

News Articles About the Eagle View Community Learning Center The program received positive articles from the Daily American, Somerset County local

newspaper. The following articles were published:

• Lightning Larry promotes kindness

May 24, 2018

https://www.dailyamerican.com/news/local/somerset/lightning-larry-promotes-

kindness/article_bea0d512-9df5-5d8e-acfd-13f069a588b1.html

• Elementary school musical performance

December 14, 2017

https://www.dailyamerican.com/entertainment/photos/elementary-school-musical-

performance/collection_b06117be-e0da-11e7-a4f8-4f29124bbdea.html

• Students in song: Eagle View Carolers

December 13, 2017

https://www.dailyamerican.com/news/local/somerset/students-in-song-eagle-view-

carolers/article_d9fc9c5d-0bd8-5de3-b442-4010463619db.html

https://www.dailyamerican.com/news/local/somerset/lightning-larry-promotes-kindness/article_bea0d512-9df5-5d8e-acfd-13f069a588b1.html

https://www.dailyamerican.com/news/local/somerset/lightning-larry-promotes-kindness/article_bea0d512-9df5-5d8e-acfd-13f069a588b1.html

https://www.dailyamerican.com/entertainment/photos/elementary-school-musical-performance/collection_b06117be-e0da-11e7-a4f8-4f29124bbdea.html

https://www.dailyamerican.com/entertainment/photos/elementary-school-musical-performance/collection_b06117be-e0da-11e7-a4f8-4f29124bbdea.html

https://www.dailyamerican.com/news/local/somerset/students-in-song-eagle-view-carolers/article_d9fc9c5d-0bd8-5de3-b442-4010463619db.html

https://www.dailyamerican.com/news/local/somerset/students-in-song-eagle-view-carolers/article_d9fc9c5d-0bd8-5de3-b442-4010463619db.html



• Shining a light on STEM

October 26, 2017

https://www.dailyamerican.com/news/local/somerset/shining-a-light-on-

stem/article_3a5dc5a0-64ae-5022-9c55-3e44d4ef62d1.html

• Boys & Girls Club holding annual fundraiser

October 26, 2017

https://www.dailyamerican.com/news/local/somerset/inbrief/boys-girls-club-holding-annual-

fundraiser/article_54a4d429-18aa-5244-9e74-5c0416fc3c76.html

Social Media

Additionally, the program is very active in promoting and providing an update on Facebook

https://www.facebook.com/BGCSomerset/

Somerset Magazine:

Five Questions with Jamie Barron

April 2018

Conclusions and Future Directions The Somerset Area School District has completed one year of the 21st CCLC grant at the Eagle

View Community Learning Center. This evaluation has concluded that the academic, behavioral

and social outcomes have all been positive. There was academic growth on the part of all

students Kindergarten through 5th grade. Students showed growth on their report cards, on the

Guided Reading Level, their DIBELS scores and their PSSA tests.

Throughout this evaluation, what is seen in data, surveys, and most importantly observations are

an authentic, caring, love of children by all the adults involved in the program. An anonymous

quote says, “Students do not care how much you know until they know how much you care.”

This statement summarizes the actions of the adults within this program.

The evaluator observed many positive relationships and outcomes at each visit. The following

are some concluding notes regarding the program:

• During multiple onsite observation visits, the students, staff, and multiple volunteers were

observed participating in a number of different activities that promoted science,

technology, engineering, art, and math (STEAM). The students appeared to be very

engaged and enjoying the activities.

• The teaching staff stated that the program is having a very positive impact on the

students. They believe that the flexibility of the program will allow for continual

improvement by making appropriate changes and bringing in new and interesting

STEAM activities.

• The teaching staff also stated that the STEAM activities are Kinesthetic (experiential) in

nature and the students are enjoying them so much; they do not realize they are learning.

https://www.dailyamerican.com/news/local/somerset/shining-a-light-on-stem/article_3a5dc5a0-64ae-5022-9c55-3e44d4ef62d1.html

https://www.dailyamerican.com/news/local/somerset/shining-a-light-on-stem/article_3a5dc5a0-64ae-5022-9c55-3e44d4ef62d1.html

https://www.dailyamerican.com/news/local/somerset/inbrief/boys-girls-club-holding-annual-fundraiser/article_54a4d429-18aa-5244-9e74-5c0416fc3c76.html

https://www.dailyamerican.com/news/local/somerset/inbrief/boys-girls-club-holding-annual-fundraiser/article_54a4d429-18aa-5244-9e74-5c0416fc3c76.html

https://www.facebook.com/BGCSomerset/



• “Homework Help” is providing a structure and support for students who may not be

receiving the help that is needed at home. This coincides with the teachers stating that

they believe that smaller teacher to student ratio at the afterschool program is very

beneficial.

• The Theater club has enabled some really ‘shy’ students to gain the confidence to speak

and perform in front of others.

The evaluator also gained insightd from the students involved in the program. They shared the

following thoughts:

• They really enjoy the different art projects, especially building the bird feeder. (Note –

that was the activity of the day).

• They really enjoyed the games, the robotic ball controlled by the iPad, the crafts, pie-

making, making tie-dyed shirts, theater club, Gym, outside play-ground.

• They enjoyed being a ‘specific-part’ in the play.

• One student stated the next year he/she wanted the entire time to be gym time and snacks

• One student said she wanted water bottles outside and does not like milk.

The afterschool program partnered with Johnstown Hospice to provide ‘gifts’ to the patients

from students that included encouraging messages, artwork, decorated pots, and sapling plants

for the garden. This partnership allowed the students to help others. Other community and social

activities they participated in were: writing encouraging notes for other students, sending

Valentine’s Day cards with artwork to nursing homes, and they performed a play to entertain

their peers, parents, and the public.

The future looks very bright for the students and staff of the Eagle View Community Learning

Center afterschool program. This evaluation will conclude with a story that was shared during an

onsite visit. This story and the picture that was drawn better shows the impact of this program on

children than any evaluation, test score or survey that could be completed.

“A student draw picture of a ‘two-headed’ person. One of the ‘heads’ was very dark and

angry, while the other ‘head’ was happy and pleasant. When asked about the drawing,

the student indicates the ‘dark’ head was how she felt before the program, and the

‘happy’ head was how she felt when she was in the program.”



Contact Information For questions regarding the Somerset Area School District Afterschool Program contact:

Judith Maxwell

Director of Curriculum and Technology

and Eagle Online Academy Coordinator

Somerset Area School District

645 South Columbia Avenue

Somerset, PA 15501

814.443.2831

[email protected]

For questions regarding the evaluation contact:

James M. Coughenour, MBA, PMP, PMI-ACP

Certified DISC Practitioner

Managing Partner

Knowledge Certified

8510 Singletree Court

North Huntingdon, PA 15642

724.590.0799

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]



Appendix

Kindergarten Student Academic Data

First Grade Student Academic Data



Second Grade Student Academic Data



Third Grade Student Academic Data

Fourth Grade Student Academic Data



Fifth Grade Student Academic Data

Documents

Center Community Learning Eagle View · Eagle View Community Learning Center 21st Century Afterschool Program Year 1 Evaluation Report (2017-2018 School Year) funding supports the