The meeting is voice recorded in its entirety. A CD will be available for checkout from the First 5 Sacramento Commission offices at 2750 Gateway Oaks Dr., Suite 330, Sacramento, the day after the meeting.

The on-line version of the agenda and associated materials are posted for your convenience at

http://www.first5sacramento.net/default.htm. Some documents may not have been posted on-line because of their size and/or format. As they become available, hard copies of all documents are available from the Clerk of the Commission

at the First 5 Sacramento Commission offices. Page 1 of 1

FIRST 5 Sacramento Commission

EVALUATION COMMITTEE 2750 Gateway Oaks Drive, Suite 330

Sacramento, CA 95833

AGENDA

Friday October 9, 2009 9:30 a.m. Members: Robert Bonar, Ernie Brown, Terry Jones, Marcie Launey, Scott Moak, Marilyn Ratkay Staff: Kim Dahl, Julie Field Consultants: Fred Molitor, Summerlynn Anderson, Lisa Branton, Gary Resnick Clerk: Sonia Zamora ____________________________________________________________________________

1. Approve September 11, 2009 Draft Action Summary (5 minutes)

2. Monthly Commission Staff Status Report (5 minutes)

3. WRMA Monthly Progress Report (5 minutes)

4. Approve SR Evaluation Report (15 minutes)

5. HKHF Evaluation Discussion (5 minutes)

6. Birth and Beyond Independent Evaluation efforts report (10 minutes)

7. NFP Independent Evaluation efforts report (10 minutes)

8. Committee Member Comments (5 minutes) a. Miscellaneous b. Future Agenda Items

9. Public Comments on Non-Agenda Matters (5 minutes)

FIRST 5 SACRAMENTO COMMISSION

For the Agenda of: October 9, 2009

To: Evaluation Committee Members From: Julie Field Evaluation Manager Subject: Monthly Commission Staff Status Report RFP/RFA Process Commission staff have released RFAs for Breastfeeding and Nutrition. The majority of the other RFA/RFP’s will be released throughout October and November. Based on recommendations made by the Evaluation Committee, Commission staff will present information on the RFA/RFP process at the October 5th Commission meeting. Commission staff are in the process of building review panels and are working to complete the scoring tools for the review process. The evaluation component of the internal scoring tool will look at the following aspects of each proposal:

1. Proposed strategies/activities can be clearly linked to Commission approved Indicators. 2. It is clear that the program would provide data to link to indicators.

3. The program would have direct client contact which would lend itself to client consent

forms, i.e., Contractor has access to clients to recruit for evaluation.

4. If prior contractor funded by Commission, the number of times contractor was reported to the Evaluation Committee for non-compliance.

For items 1-3, if the reviewer answers yes to the questions, the proposer will receive full points possible for that question. If the answer is no, the proposer receives no points. Item 4 will be informational only and has not been assigned a point value.

Walter R. McDonald & Associates, Inc.Contract #06/07-ADM-031

First 5 Sacramento EvaluationMonthly Progress Report for:

September 2009

October 1, 2009

Prepared for:First 5 Sacramento Commission

Prepared by:Walter R. McDonald & Associates, Inc.2720 Gateway Oaks Dr., Suite 250Sacramento, CA 95833fmolitor@wrma.com916-239-4020, ext. 246

Page 1

First 5 Sacramento Evaluation Contract

SECTION I: INTRODUCTION, PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The Sacramento County First 5 Commission has contracted (Contract #06/07-ADM-031) with the team of Walter R. McDonald & Associates, Inc. and Harder+Company Community Researchfor evaluation services during the 2007-2010 period. For this deliverables-based contract, our team submits monthly progress reports as a key communication tool for all concerned stakeholders. In the monthly progress report we identify the status of major deliverables in the contract. We also preview deliverables that are expected to be submitted in the subsequent monthand identify key questions or challenges that need to be resolved.

For this work period, our primary activities relate to Tasks 5 and 6.

SECTION II: WORK PLAN

The work under this contract is organized according to the following tasks.

Task 1 Strategic Planning Activities Task 2 Evaluation Design, Scope and ReportTask 3 Funding ProcessesTask 4 Contract NegotiationsTask 5 Evaluation Support, Planning, Collecting and Reporting Task 6 Data Collection Management System, Outcomes Collection, Analysis and

ReportingTask 7 First 5 Sacramento Commission Evaluation Annual ReportTask 8 State Evaluation and First 5 California Annual Report

SECTION III: PROGRESS

Task 1 Strategic Planning Activities Scheduled Period of Activity: Phase 2/Year 3 & 4Deliverables: Monthly Progress ReportsStatus: Completed

Task 2 Evaluation Design, Scope and ReportScheduled Period of Activity: Phase 1/Year 1 & Phase 2/Year 2 & 3Deliverable 1: Draft Evaluation Design ReportDeliverable 2: Final Evaluation Design ReportDeliverable 3: Evaluation Design Report (Year II)Deliverable 4: Evaluation Design Report (Year III)Status: Completed

Task 3 Funding ProcessesScheduled Period of Activity: Phase 2/Year 2Deliverables: Monthly Project ReportsStatus: Not yet initiated.

Page 2

Task 4 Contract NegotiationsScheduled Period of Activity: Phase 1/Year 1Deliverable: Completed

Task 5 Evaluation Support, Planning, Collecting and ReportingScheduled Period of Activity: Phase 1/Year 1 & Phase 2/Year 2, 3 & 4Deliverable: Monthly Progress Reports

During September the evaluation team completed the SPSS syntax to convert the responses from the Parent Interviews to the primary outcomes variables for analyses. For example, the series of questions related to breastfeeding of the youngest and oldest child were coded to identify 6-month and 12-month exclusive breastfeeding, while omitting from these variables children who were not at least 6 or 12 months of age at the time interviews were conducted. The service data were merged with the outcome data, and services within each of the four Result Areas were examined to identify those with a sufficient number of entries to include in the linear mixed model analyses. Finally, we began the linear mixed model analyses which, in addition to examining services in relation to outcomes, examine changes from baseline to follow-up, while controlling for race/ethnicity, primary language, and household education levels. Completed in September was the master list of CBI events, with help from First 5 Sacramento staff in providing us all necessary information. The coding of Parent Interview responses related to community events in comparison with the CBI master list has begun, and will follow with the examination of CBI attendance in association with outcomes.

On September 17, the evaluation team attended the School Readiness Coordinator meeting to distribute and discuss district-specific analyses from the Parent Survey, and to discuss ideas on collecting fall 2009 Parent Survey data earlier than the fall 2008 data. Following this meeting, the evaluation team met with the staff from the three new/expansion school districts. This meeting was called to answer any questions that the new districts had related to getting started implementing programs, fiscal reporting, or the evaluation. It was agreed at this meeting that by the middle of October, a due date would be identified for the new contractors’ first quarterly milestone report.

The Data Manager provided new staff with training on consent and intake procedures in September:

September 8: Nurse Family Partnership, 2 staff September 9: Galt Join Union ESD, 5 staff September 10: Natomas USD, 8 staff

Task 6 Data Collection Management System, Outcomes Collection, Analysis andReportingScheduled Period of Activity: Phase 1/Year 1 & Phase 2/Year 2, 3 & 4Deliverables: Monthly and Quarterly Progress Reports

The Data Manager trained new staff on the entry of client data into Persimmony in September, as well as procedures for completing the quarterly milestone reports in Persimmony. The following trainings were provided:

September 2: Twin Rivers USD, 1 staff – milestone reports & overview of Persimmony

Page 3

September 4: Sacramento Crisis Nursery South, 1 staff – client data entry September 8: Nurse Family Partnership, 2 staff – milestone reports & overview of

Persimmony September 15: Nurse Family Partnership, 3 staff – client data entry September 18: Natomas USD, 3 staff – client data entry September 23: Los Rios, 1 staff – client data entry September 29: Natomas USD, 1 staff – milestone reports September 30: Sacramento City USD, 3 staff – client data entry

In addition, the Data Manager finalized and distributed the draft of milestones for both the Natomas USD and Galt Joint Union ESD. Currently, the milestones are under review by First 5 Sacramento staff and contractor.

In September, the Data Manager also set-up all contractors’ milestones for the 2009-2010 fiscal year.

The Data Manager continues to work with Persimmony to develop new features that will meet the growing needs of contractors. A new, “special needs” feature will be released in the next version of Persimmony which will allow contractors to record whether the child they are serving has special needs. The current method for tracking special needs will continue to be used for “parents’ knowledge at intake, of the child’s special needs.”

Task 7 Annual First 5 Sacramento Evaluation ReportScheduled Period of Activity: Phase 2/Year 3 & 4Deliverables 1: Annual First 5 Sacramento Evaluation Report (Year 3)Status: CompletedDeliverables 2: Annual First 5 Sacramento Evaluation Report (Year 4)Status: Due December 31, 2009

Task 8 State Annual ReportScheduled Period of Activity: Phase 2/Year 2, 3 & 4Deliverables 1: Annual First 5 Sacramento Evaluation Report (Year 2)Status: CompletedDeliverables 2: Annual First 5 Sacramento Evaluation Report (Year 3)Status: CompletedDeliverables 3: Annual First 5 Sacramento Evaluation Report (Year 4)Status: Due September 30, 2009

SECTION V: WORK TO BE PERFORMED IN THE NEXT REPORTING PERIOD

Task 5 Evaluation Support, Planning, Collecting and Reporting Key Tasks:- Analyze of Parent Interview data, including analyses related to CBI event attendance.- October Evaluation Newsletter.- Retrieve consent forms.

Page 4

Task 6 Data Collection Management System, Outcomes Collection, Analysis and ReportingKey Tasks:- Provide additional Persimmony training to contractor

SECTION VI: KEY CHALLENGES OR QUESTIONS TO BE RESOLVED

- None to report this month.

EVALUATION NEWSLETTERSeptember 2009

THE EVALUATION TEAM:The evaluators of First 5 Sacramento represent a team from Walter R. McDonald & Associates, Inc. (Sacramento) and Harder+Company Community Research (Davis). The evaluation team is dedicated to assessing the impact of First 5 Sacramento services on families throughout Sacramento, while minimizing the amount of time that contractors have to spend on evaluation activities. Please call us if you have any questions about the evaluation of First 5 Sacramento services: WRMA 916.239.4020; H+Co 530.757.8420.

Consent Form Reminders

Over the last month, we have tightened up our procedures for reviewing the consent forms that are returned to WRMA. We would like to take this time to remind you of a few procedural points on consent forms.

There must be a signature/mark on the “Signature” line—not only just the adult’s name printed on the “Printed Name” line.

The person who signed the consent form should be the parent/guardian of the child who is 0-5 years old. The exception is for other adults connected with the family who are receiving services—their signed consent form should be in addition to the one that you receive from the parent/guardian of the child.

All teen parents must either 1) be emancipated minors (and noted on the consent form), or 2) have signed the teen assent forms and had their guardians sign the grandparent consent form.

Staple the teen assent form (top) to the grandparent consent form (bottom). This is important for us to know which forms go together and count as 1 valid consent.

Returning signed/refused consent forms to WRMA: All signed consent forms returned should have the original signature—not copies.

Names should not be on the refused consent forms—only “Refused” should be written on the form. The evaluation team can not know the names of who has decided not to participate in the evaluation.

If the date written on the consent form is not valid (e.g., child’s DOB, parent’s DOB), pleaseput a line through the date, write the correct date of consent, sign your initials, and note where the information came from (date of class).

If the adult’s signature or printed name is not easily read, please print the adult’s name below what is written. This is important for our purposes of filing the forms.

All these steps require that someone carefully review each consent form before they are returned to us.

Services Among Parent Interview Families

Now that the one-year follow-up Parent Interview is completed, we have begun to examine services in relation to outcomes. Your effort to enter all of the service data for fiscal year 2008/2009 was extremely important for these analyses.

A total of 11,690 services were provided to the538 families participating in the Parent Interview, or an average of 21.7 services per family. Only 3.0% of families did not have a record of service. The number of families with services by the Result Area is as follows:

Result Area Families with Services

Effective Parenting 24.0%

School Readiness 28.3%

Health Access 23.0%

Nutrition 27.5%

FIRST 5 SACRAMENTO COMMISSION

To: Evaluation Committee Members From: Fred Molitor Walter R. McDonald & Associates, Inc. Subject: Cycle 2 School Readiness Report Fiscal Year 2008/2009

The Cycle 2 School Readiness Report deliverable includes feedback from First 5 Sacramento staff and two School Readiness Coordinators. We are currently making arrangements for the report to be professionally formatted after your approval. As such, the report submitted for your review currently does not have a cover, Table of Contents, or pictures from the First 5 Sacramento archives that will be incorporated into the report before copies are distributed to the Commission.

Draft 01Oct09 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The School Readiness Initiative provides funds to the lowest academically performing schools in Sacramento County to prepare children to enter kindergarten “ready to learn.” Services and supports are directed at children, parents, families, and teachers, and range from multi-session workshops, to preschool, to providing information and referrals on topics such as immunizations and health insurance.

School Readiness receives the largest proportion of funding of all First 5 Sacramento programs designed to improve the lives of children ages 0 to 5 years and their families. During the 2008/2009 fiscal year, services were provided by six school districts to 2,894 families (3,162 children and 1,788 parents or other adults) within Sacramento County. The population of children was 49.1% Hispanic/Latino, 10.8% African American, and 9.6% Multiracial. The primary language spoken by 48.0% of School Readiness adults and 40.2% of children was Spanish.

School Readiness services include:

Family literacy programs where the importance of reading at home is emphasized and time and reading materials are provided for parents and children to read together.

Summer camps for children with little or no preschool experience to provide exposure to a classroom setting and numeracy and reading education.

Structured family visits to kindergarten to introduce children to the classroom, teacher, and activities; and to familiarize parents on school expectations and opportunities at the school to assist with their children’s learning.

Screenings for physical, emotional, developmental, speech, and hearing difficulties.

Intensive intervention and support for children demonstrating evidence of special needs, including therapy and follow-up referrals and linkages to appropriate services.

The screening and support of children with special needs through early intervention services represent one of the major objectives of School Readiness. Almost one-in-six (17.1%) School Readiness children have been diagnosed with a physical, emotional, hearing, or learning difficulty, or other special need.

A review of the School Readiness program supports the conclusion that high quality services are being delivered to children and parents. Parent involvement appears relatively high; both in terms of the types of contact that teachers report having with parents as well as the different ways in which parents are involved in the classrooms. School Readiness providers successfully implement their services by hiring multi-lingual and multi-cultural staff, by translating materials into the primary languages of their communities, and by providing English-learning services for parents and children. In addition to a review of the program, the evaluation included a survey of parents and a one-on-one assessment of children receiving School Readiness services.

Draft 01Oct09 2

KEY FINDINGS

A major undertaking for the evaluation was a cognitive assessment conducted by trained school staff on randomly-selected 4 and 5 year old children. This assessment found School Readiness children to outperform a comparable population of Head Start children on measures of early math skills and letter naming.

Outcomes from this assessment and other data collection activities were examined by type of School Readiness services. Those services aimed at parents that included facilitated discussion on family literacy and "parents as the child's best first teacher" were related to increases in children’s:

Early Math Skills

Letters Naming

Language Understanding

Awareness of All or Most Letters

Overall Literacy

The School Readiness services that promoted positive interaction between the parent and child as well as provided strategies for managing children's emotional responses were related to decreases in children’s:

Aggressive Behaviors

Withdrawn Behaviors

Overall Behavior Problems

Changes during the 2008/2009 school year among School Readiness parents included:

Increases in the number of activities involving the parent and child

Decreases in reported levels of parental stress

Finally, evidence was found to support the relationship between the amount of time adults read to children and First 5 Sacramento-funded preschool; and between greater emotional support and family participation in literacy programs.

CONCLUSIONS

School Readiness children demonstrated higher early math skills and letter naming scores than their Head Start peers. School Readiness services were related to an impressive number of important outcomes that increase a child’s chance of success in kindergarten and beyond. Services directed to parents, rather than those to children or to the family, were found to have the most immediate impacts on increasing academic achievement and decreasing problematic behaviors.

It is very impressive that each of these outcomes remained significant when using more advanced statistical analyses that controlled for parent’s race/ethnicity, language, education, and employment status.This gives us confidence that School Readiness services are having real benefits.

Linear regression analyses were also performed on these outcomes and Withdrawn Behaviors and Overall Behavior Problems remained significant.

Draft 01Oct09 3

CHAPTER 1INTRODUCTION

The First 5 Sacramento Commission supports a variety of programs for children ages 0 to 5 years and their families in Sacramento County. First 5 Sacramento services, funded through a statewide tax of 50 cents on all tobacco products, include application assistance for families to obtain health insurance for children, lactation support services for expecting and new mothers, and interventions directed at families to address childhood obesity. School Readiness—programs designed to prepare children for kindergarten—are supported, in part, by state-match funds and represent the Commission’s largest investment. School Readiness includes workshops to increase parent knowledge and promote positive parenting practices; literacy programs to promote reading; screenings to identify speech, development, vision, oral, and general healthproblems; information, activities, and materials such as backpacks and school supplies to prepare children and parents for kindergarten entry; and pre-kindergarten summer camps to expose children with little or no preschool experience to a classroom environment and school activities.

In April 2008 the First 5 Sacramento Commission approved the expansion of School Readinessto involve more school districts and serve more children and families than the initial, or “Cycle 1” School Readiness programs. Cycle 2 School Readiness was designed to offer a more comprehensive approach to services with a core set of programs implemented across the county. Finally, Cycle 2 provided additional services for families with children ages 3 years and under,such as home visits and playgroups to increase parents’ knowledge of child development and promote interaction between the parent and child.

The Cycle 2 School Readiness programs were implemented on July 1, 2008 within six schooldistricts (Table 1.1).

Table 1.1: Cycle 2 School Readiness School Districts Providing Services in 2008/09

Elk Grove Unified School District Folsom/Cordova Unified School District Robla Elementary School District Sacramento City Unified School District San Juan Unified School District Twin Rivers Unified School District

Draft 01Oct09 4

Working across the school districts, the Sacramento County Office of Education implementedPreschool Bridging Model (PBM) services designed to enhance the quality of child care. PBM works directly with teachers and providers in child care centers and family homes to provide consultation, needed resources, and instructional materials.1

Each school district has a “School Readiness Coordinator” who oversees the programs and functions as a liaison between First 5 Sacramento and the school staff providing the services. School Readiness Coordinators’ responsibilities include managing all aspects of program implementation. In addition, they provide budget oversight and monitor outcomes to ensure that programs are of sufficient quality and having the desired impacts.

Development of the Evaluation

Prior to the implementation of Cycle 2 School Readiness programs, a series of meetings occurred with the School Readiness Coordinators, First 5 Sacramento staff, and the evaluation team of Walter R. McDonald & Associates, Inc. (WRMA) and Harder+Company Community Research to reach a consensus on an evaluation design. It was recognized early on, by all who attended these meetings, that developing a comprehensive design to address the number of outcomes related to the variety of services provided to children and parents was a daunting task. The School Readiness Coordinators rose to the challenge and agreed to implement a number of evaluation activities that would require a substantial effort on their part as well as on the staff providing the funded services. The instruments and measures of this multifaceted evaluation aredescribed below. Discussion of the data collection procedures and recruitment rates for each component of the evaluation are presented in Appendix A.

Evaluation Instruments and Measures

School Readiness staff presented parents (or caregivers or other adults) with a consent form to participate in the evaluation, and a Family Intake Form which asked for demographic information about the parent and his or her children ages 0 to 5 years. Both forms received Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval and were available in Hmong, Russian, Spanish, Ukrainian, and Vietnamese. A “Teen” assent form was also available for parents under 18 years of age, and a signature from their parent/guardian on a “Grandparent” consent form was required for the minor to participate in the evaluation.

Data recorded on separate forms were used to track the services received by families. The services provided to families and the demographic information from the Family Intake Formwere entered by School Readiness staff into a web-based data system referred to as “Persimmony”–short for the name of the software provider, Persimmony International, Inc.

1 PBM pilot tested the Teacher/Provider Survey (discussed later in this report) in 2008/2009 and will collect data with this instrument in 2009/2010. Thus findings from PBM as well as for the expansion school districts that did not begin School Readiness services during fiscal year 2008/2009 are not included in this report. These school districts are the Galt Joint Union Elementary School District, the Natomas Unified School District, and the River Delta Unified School District.

Draft 01Oct09 5

The Cycle 2 School Readiness evaluation included five instruments and involved obtaining data from parents, children, teachers, School Readiness Coordinators, and selected school administrators. The “Parent Survey” measured activities with the child, discipline practices, children’s history of developmental screenings, special needs, and parents’ perceived stress and social support. The “Child Assessment” documented children’s emergent literacy, cognitive, language, and math skills. The “Teacher Child Report” was used to record children’s social skills, including accomplishments (i.e., letter naming, counting ability), motivation, and behavior problems. School staff participated in the “Teacher/Provider Survey,” which obtained information about the number of children receiving care; the teacher/provider’s level of education; training and continuing education in early childhood education; demographic characteristics; languages used with the children; attitudes and knowledge of developmentally appropriate practices for children; and the types of learning activities/curricula used in the preschool classrooms, infant-toddler rooms, or playgroups. Finally, the “Administrator Interview” assessed School Readiness Coordinators’ and administrators’ perspectives on indicators of quality in their First 5 Sacramento-funded programs and obtained their feedback on program successes and challenges. Parent Survey data were collected in the fall and spring whilethe other instruments were administered in the spring only.

Draft 01Oct09 6

CHAPTER 2CLIENT CHARACTERISTICS AND SERVICES

School Readiness clients were 3,162 children consented to participate in the evaluation during the 2008/2009 fiscal year, and those consented prior to July 1, 2008 who subsequently received services during the fiscal year. The data below also summarize the race/ethnicity and primary language of the 1,788 adults who participated in School Readiness services, and could include one or both parents or caregivers from a family, or other relatives who received services offeredby School Readiness providers.

Demographics

The racial/ethnic category with the largest proportion of clients was Hispanic/Latino (Table 2.1). Nearly one-in-10 (9.6%) children were identified as Multiracial by their parents on the Family Intake Form. Just under half (48.0%) of parents identified Spanish as their primary language, and Spanish was the primary language for 40.2% of children (Table 2.2).

Table 2.1: Race/Ethnicity of School Readiness Children, Parents, and Other Adults, Fiscal Year 2008/09

Children, %(n = 3,162)

Parents/Adults, %(n = 1,788)

Hispanic/Latino 49.1 55.6

Black/African American 10.8 8.8

White, non-Hispanic 12.6 13.0

Russian/Ukrainian 2.4 2.5

Other Slavic 0.3 0.3

Hmong 5.9 4.1

Chinese 1.4 1.3

Filipino 0.8 0.7

Vietnamese 1.1 1.3

Asian Indian 1.3 2.0

Other Asian 2.1 2.3

Native Hawaiian 0.1 0.2

Other Pacific Islander 1.1 1.6

Alaska Native/American Indian 0.3 0.2

Other Race 0.9 0.6

Multiracial 9.6 5.4

Missing/Decline/Don’t Know 0.2 0.2

From Persimmony

Draft 01Oct09 7

Table 2.2: Language of School Readiness Children, Parents, and Other Adults, Fiscal Year 2008/09

Children %(n = 3,162)

Parents/Adults, %(n = 1,788)

Spanish 40.2 48.0

English 45.9 39.5

Hmong 4.6 3.1

Russian 2.0 2.1

Ukrainian 0.3 0.3

Vietnamese 1.1 1.1

Lao 0.2 0.1

Mien 0.3 0.4

Tagalog 0.3 0.4

Hindi 0.5 0.7

Korean 0.0 0.0

Chinese-Cantonese 0.9 1.0

Chinese-Mandarin 0.2 0.1

Other 2.8 2.9

Missing/Decline/Don’t Know 0.8 0.3From Persimmony

Parents reported that 17.1% of children had a physical, emotional, language, hearing, learning difficulties, or other special need, as “diagnosed by a doctor or other health or education professional” (Table 2.3). Five percent of School Readiness children (or 29.4% of children with special needs) have a disability that affects their learning.

Table 2.3: Children with Special Needs and Disabilities, Fiscal Year 2008/09

%

Children with special needs or disability 17.1

Children with disability that affects learning 5.0

From Parent Survey

Among parents who indicated that their child had a special need, 72.5% (of the 17.1%) identified a specific disability. Speech impairment was the most common disability, and represented one-fourth (25.7%) of special needs reported by parents, followed by language impairment (18.8%) and specific learning disability (15.8%; Table 2.4).

Draft 01Oct09 8

Table 2.4: Types of Children’s Special Needs and Disabilities, Fiscal Year 2008/09

%

Speech Impairment 25.7

Language Impairment 18.8

Specific Learning Disability 15.8

Orthopedic Impairment 6.9

Emotional/Behavioral Disorder 5.9

Visual Impairment Other Than Blindness 5.0

Non-categorical/ Developmental Delay 5.0

Mental Retardation 3.0

Autism 2.0

Hearing Impairment 1.0

Blindness 1.0

Traumatic Brain Injury 1.0

Other Health Impairment Lasting at Least 6 Months 5.0

Other Special Need 4.0

From Parent Survey

Services

The School Readiness services provided during fiscal year 2008/2009 were directed at parents (2,543 services), children (43,837 services), and families (36,670 services). These 83,050services were categorized into 16 types of services, as reviewed below.

As seen in Table 2.5, Parent Discussions & Engagement services (number of services provided during the year was 1,159, or n = 1,159) involved facilitated discussions with group of parents, while multi-session Parenting Instructional Workshops (n = 1,023) relied on structured curricula of instruction. A service is recorded for every session of multi-session workshops, so a once a week six-week parent education workshop would count as six services. Parent Discussions & Engagement and Parenting Instructional Workshops represent the more intense services offered to parents, and on average, parent participants were involved in 3 discussion/engagement sessions or 4 workshops. Less intensive and frequent School Readiness services were distributing Health Information on topics such as child immunizations and mental health (and making referrals when needed), and providing Lactation Support Referrals for expecting or new mothers.

Figure 2.1 shows that 13.1% of families received Parent Discussion & Engagement services and 8.9% of families participated in Parenting Instructional Workshops in fiscal year 2008/2009. These percents translate into 379 families with Parent Discussions & Engagement services and 258 families where one or more adults participated in Parenting Instructional Workshops during the year.

Draft 01Oct09 9

Table 2.5: Types and Number of School Readiness Services for Parents, Fiscal Year 2008/09

Service Name Description of ServiceServices Provided

(n = 2,543)

Parent Discussions & Engagement

Topical discussions with groups of parents and facilitator including: child development, behavior, attachment, parenting, ‘male involvement,’ mental/emotional health, kindergarten readiness, importance of family literacy, "parents as their child's best first teacher," and activities to support cognitive development. Parent engagement in governance groups such as advisory committees or school site councils to participate in school-based decision making.

1,159

Parenting Instructional Workshops

Workshops for parents utilizing curriculum to increase dialogue and positive interaction between parent and child, and/or learn how to manage children's emotional responses.

1,023

Health Information

Information for parents on mental health, oral health, and/or immunizations, and some referrals for children’s mental or oral health follow-up.

349

Lactation Support ReferralsThrough home visitation, referrals for lactation support to pregnant mothers or mothers with newborns.

12

From Persimmony

Figure 2.1: Percent of Families (n = 2,894) Receiving Services Directed at Parents, Fiscal Year 2008/09

0.4%

8.9%

9.9%

13.1%

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14%

LactationSupport Referrals

ParentalInstructional Workshops

Health Information

ParentDiscussions &Engagement

From Persimmony

Draft 01Oct09 10

Over half (52.8%) of School Readiness services were provided directly to children. Most of these were Preschool (n = 37,135), and Summer Camps (n = 4,962) targeted to children with little or no preschool experience during the school year prior to kindergarten entry (Table 2.6). The number of services provided, as shown in Table 2.6, reflect the number of days that children participated in Preschool and Summer Camps. The remainder of School Readiness services for children were related to promoting children’s health, and included screenings for potential developmental and physical health problems (Health Screenings, n = 999; or Speech/Language & Development Screenings, n = 525). Oral Health Services (n = 216) included teeth cleanings and varnishes to prevent tooth decay. First 5 Sacramento supported Health Screenings for over one-fourth (26.8%) of the 2,894 School Readiness families receiving services the fiscal year (Figure 2.2).

Table 2.6: Types and Number of School Readiness Services for Children, Fiscal Year 2008/09

Service Name Description of ServiceServices Provided

(n = 43,837)

Preschool

Preschool for children ineligible for other preschool programs due to family income. Services include social, emotional, physical, language development, and learning activities.

37,135

Summer Camps

Pre-kindergarten camps offered for 4-6 weeks over the summer, provide exposure to a classroom setting and kindergartenconcepts such as numeracy, literacy, and social interaction; intended for children withlittle or no preschool experience.

4,962

Health Screenings*

Comprehensive health screenings for children addressing: medical, developmental, vision, hearing, oral health, and immunizations. Some individual hearing, vision, and/or immunization screenings for children. Oral health screenings include dental varnishes, and all screenings result in referrals for follow-upwhen needed.

999

Speech/Language & Development Screenings

Speech/language or developmental screenings, or behavioral and developmental assessments including diagnosis for children.

525

Oral Health Services*Oral health screenings and/or cleanings and varnishes for children. 216

From Persimmony*Dental varnishes provided with the oral health screening listed in Health Screenings cannot be separated from the other health screenings provided based upon how the data were tracked and recorded. The 216 services listed as Oral Health Services are not included in the 999 Health Screenings.

Draft 01Oct09 11

Figure 2.2: Percent of Families (n = 2,894) Receiving Services Directed at Children, Fiscal Year 2008/09

5.3%

9.4%

15.8%

16.3%

26.8%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Oral Health Services

Preschool

Summer Camps

Speech/Language &Development Screenings

Health Screenings

From Persimmony

The bulk of School Readiness services aimed at both the child and parent were Literacy Programs (n = 23,679) and Playgroups (n = 8,434; Table 2.7). Of services targeted at the family, Literacy Programs were provided to the largest proportion (40.6%) of School Readiness families (Figure 2.3). Based upon client data entered into Persimmony, Transition Activities were received by the second highest (30.9%) proportion of families. All three of these services are directly in line with the overall goal of School Readiness: to prepare children and parents for and smooth the transition to kindergarten. Literacy Programs deal specifically with reading—emphasizing the importance of “parents as their child’s best first teacher” and reading to their child, as well as providing the location/time and materials for parents to read to their children. Playgroups are designed to promote developmentally appropriate interactions between the parent and child. Transition Activities also optimize the potential for kindergarten success by introducing families to school processes, expectations, and staff.

Transition Materials provide pre-kindergarten children with backpacks containing supplies they need for school success, and include important information for their parents on child development, nutrition, and community resources. Intensive consultation and therapeutic services through Speech/Language & Development Interventions were provided for 13.3% of School Readiness families. Home Visits involved a number of services for the family, including education on positive parenting practices and child development, developmentally appropriate activities that can be done with the child, and case management for referrals for additional services needed. Home Visits were provided to 5.3% of School Readiness families, and Health Insurance Referrals and Information to 3.7% of families (Figure 2.3).

Draft 01Oct09 12

Table 2.7: Types and Number of School Readiness Services for Families, Fiscal Year 2008/09

Service Name Description of ServiceServices Provided

(n = 36,670)

Literacy Programs

Literacy programs include family night events to discuss family literacy and the importance of reading at home; parents and children to read and talk together; library time for parents and their children; English as Second Language (ESL) workshops for parents to affect family literacy;and/or a supplement to preschool for Hmong speaking children/parents. Another program is curriculum based including two components: workshops for parents discussing the importance of literacy and take-home book bags for children to read with their parents.

23,679

Playgroups

Playgroups for children and their parents teaching and encouraging developmentally appropriate parent-child interactions; some provide age-specific Learning Toolkits with tools and materials for parents and child.

8,434

Home Visits

Education on positive parenting practices, child development, and/or the importance of family literacy; a needs assessment to provide case management and connect families with additional services, such as for special needs children; and/or supplying literacy materials/kits.

1,570

Transition Activities

Activities include visits to the kindergarten for children; workshops to familiarize children with the classroom, teacher, and kindergarten activities; school registrations and orientations for parents on school readiness and expectations for kindergarten; parent exposure to the kindergartenclassroom, and the school district/system; and/or parent-teacher meetings and opportunities to meet the principal.

1,495

Speech/Language & Development Interventions

Intervention services include speech/language consults; direct support to parents for developmental and/or speech/language needs of their child; developmental play therapy for the child; and/or follow-up linkage to special needs services.

850

Transition Materials

Backpacks with school readiness information, supplies, and activities; and/or kits with information on child development, parenting, nutrition, dental care, and community resources, for families with children transitioning into kindergarten.

498

Health Insurance Referrals or Information

Screenings and referrals for health insurance, or receipt of health insurance information. 144

From Persimmony

Draft 01Oct09 13

Figure 2.3: Percent of Families (n = 2,894) Receiving Services Directed at Families, Fiscal Year 2008/09

3.7%

5.3%

12.3%

13.3%

16.7%

30.9%

40.6%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

Health InsuranceReferrals or Information

Home Visits

Playgroups

Speech/Language &Development Interventions

Transition Materials

Transition Activities

Literacy Programs

From Persimmony

Tables 2.5 – 2.7 present all records of School Readiness services that occurred during the fiscal year for families in Persimmony. Our analyses of services in relation to outcomes for parents (Chapter 3) and children (Chapter 4) were limited by the proportion of families who completed both the fall and spring Parent Survey (and the 4 and 5 year olds within these families for the Child Assessment and Teacher Child Report) and had a record of service in Persimmony. The inclusion criterion for these analyses was that of at least five percent of families had to have received the service. Otherwise, we risked the chance of making what researchers refer to as a “Type II error,” or reporting in error that a service was not related to an outcome due to low “statistical power,” or having an insufficient number of responses to support a valid analysis. Using the five percent criterion, the following services were excluded from the analyses: Health Information, Lactation Support Referrals, Summer Camps, Transition Materials, Home Visits, Speech/Language & Development Interventions, and Health Information Referrals or Information. The primary services examined in association with parent and child outcomes in the following two chapters were Parent Discussions & Engagement, Parenting Instructional Workshops, Preschool, Literacy Programs, Playgroups, and Transition Activities.

Draft 01Oct09 14

CHAPTER 3CHANGES DURING THE SCHOOL YEAR: FINDINGS FROM THE PARENT SURVEY

Addressing Special Needs

Individualized Education Programs (IEP) and Individual Family Service Plans (IFSP) are designed by educators and parents to address the specific needs of a child with disabilities andmaximize the child’s learning potential. The IEP and IFSP help determine how a child’s progress will be measured and which services would best address the child’s needs. These plans include the child’s current developmental and academic abilities, goals for the child and family, and the programs and services to be provided to assist in achieving these goals. Examples of services to enhance the child’s development include special education services; literacy interventions;speech, occupational and physical therapy; social and emotional development interventions; and supplementary aids.

In Chapter 2 we saw that 17.1% of School Readiness children had special needs. In the fall,46.2% of special needs children had an IEP or IFSP. By the time the spring Parent Survey was administered, 62.9% of special needs children had an IEP or IFSP.

Parental Stress

High stress can disrupt parenting practices causing parents to become more controlling, irritable, critical, and punitive with their children. Parents with lower levels of stress are less likely to physically abuse their children. In addition, children are known to generally have higher self-esteem and confidence when their parents are less stressed.

Seven statements in the Parent Survey were used to measure levels of stress, such as “I feel trapped by my responsibilities as a parent,” “I feel alone and without friends,” and “I don’t enjoy things as I used to.” Parents were asked their level of agreement to each statement on a 5-point scale (“Strongly Disagree” to “Strongly Agree”), with higher scores reflecting greater levels of stress. By the spring, parents reported lower levels of stress than they did in the fall (Figure 3.1).

Draft 01Oct09 15

Figure 3.1: Significant Changes in Parent Stress Fall 2008 versus Spring 2009

2.32.2

1.01.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3.0

Fall Spring

From Parent Survey, statistically significant at p < 0.001.

Activities with Child

Developmentally appropriate interactions between parents and children promote child development. For example, verbal interaction with children, such as talking with them about their day, singing songs, or narrating stories, all support their development as it gives childrenthe opportunity to improve their language and listening skills.

The Parent Survey listed a number of activities that adults in a family might do with a child. Specifically, parents with children two years or older were asked if during the past week they or “someone in your family” had done activities such as “sung to or with (child) songs or music,” or“played counting games like singing songs with numbers, or reading books with numbers” with the child. The analyses of these responses consisted of counting the number of times that parents indicated they or someone in their family did each of the 10 activities at least once with the child during the past week, for a maximum score of 10.

As seen in Figure 3.2, both in the fall and spring surveys, parents reported a high level of involvement in activities with children. The average number of activities that parents conducted at least once with children increased in the spring.

Draft 01Oct09 16

Figure 3.2: Significant Changes in Activities with Child During the Previous WeekFall 2008 versus Spring 2009

9.0 9.2

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

Fall Spring

From Parent Survey, statistically significant at p = 0.02.

Parents’ activities during the past month with children at least three years of age also increased from the fall to the spring (Figure 3.3). The scores in Figure 3.3 represent the average number of activities that parents reported doing with their child in the last month, with a maximum score of 5. Examples of the activities included: talking about family history or stories about the family with the child, and attending family functions, community events, sporting events, or religious activities.

Figure 3.3: Significant Changes in Activities with Child During the Previous MonthFall 2008 versus Spring 2009

2.93.1

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Fall Spring

From Parent Survey, statistically significant at p = 0.03.

Draft 01Oct09 17

Reading to Children

There are a number of positive outcomes related to reading to children. Children under one year of age develop eye muscles by focusing on the pictures presented to them in books. Through the experience of rhythms and sounds, they begin to learn words. Reading to children helps language development and writing skills, which are sustained through elementary education.

Randomly-selected parents of School Readiness families were asked both the frequency and the number of minutes “per sitting” that family members read to children. Reading “every day”decreased during the school year, from 42.7% to 34.8%, although the finding for the spring Parent Survey is still comparable to the 36.5% reported among California families.2 Similarly, average number of minutes spent reading to children decreased during the school year, from 23.7 minutes in the fall to 21.5 minutes in the spring (p = 0.01). However, reading levels for children attending Preschool or participating in Transitional Activities remained stable during the school year. As seen in Figure 3.4, decreases in the number of minutes that adults read to children were found for those not enrolled in these School Readiness services.

Figure 3.4: Changes in Number of Minutes Spent Reading to Child, Fall 2008 to Spring 2009, by Preschool and Transition Activities Services

From Parent Survey, both statistically significant at p = 0.05.

Discussion of Chapter 3 Results

Parent reports of an IEP or IFSP for children with special needs increased considerably over the school year, from 46.2% to 62.9%. Thus, by the end of the school year, most School Readiness children with special needs were receiving early intervention services. The social significance of this result is underscored by research findings that link early intervention programs to high school completion, and decreases in outcomes such as teenage pregnancy, delinquency, and criminal behavior.3 Moreover, the long-term benefits of these services are estimated to produce

2 Child and Adolescent Health Measurement Initiative. 2007 National Survey of Children Health. Available at: www.nschdata.org.3 Shonkoff, J. P., & Meisels, S. J. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of Early Childhood Intervention (2nd ed.) Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

1.1

-3.1

0.4

-3.2-4.0

-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

Preschool

No Preschool

Transition Activities

No TransitionActivities

Draft 01Oct09 18

cost savings as high as $100,000 when considering such factors as adult productivity and tax revenues.4 One cost-benefit study of children with autism reported that the per-child savings gained from early intervention services range from $1,686,061 to $2,816,535 by age 55 years.5

Modest improvements from fall to spring were found for parental stress and participation in activities with children, based on both the previous week and the past month. Although statistically significant (and thus very likely beyond chance), the magnitude of these changescould be viewed as not very socially significant. However, is it important to note that the fall Parent Survey did not represent a pre-service, baseline measure. In fact 84.1% of families had a documented service prior to November 18, 2008, when data collection began. Thus, the significant changes in parental stress and activities with children may have started prior to late-November through December, but the Parent Survey only captured the potential changes after the holiday season rather than from the start of the school year.

An overall decrease in the time spent reading to children might be due to a seasonal effect:parents may have been less likely to read to their children in April through June when outdoor activities took precedence over those more likely to occur indoors during the fall, such as reading. However, it appears that children’s involvement in Preschool, and the messages that parents received during Transitional Activities such as teachers’ expectations for their students, motivated parents to continue to read to their children at the same levels throughout the year.

Too few of the families randomly selected for the Parent Survey had received certain services to allow for meaningful analyses. This was the case for Home Visits, for example, which the evaluation team hypothesized would be related to reading to children, activities with children, and levels of stress. Unfortunately, these services were only recorded for 12 families who participated in the fall and spring Parent Survey (5.3% of families overall). Thus, other than the results presented for Preschool and Transition Activities, history of School Readiness services was not found to be related to fall to spring changes in the measures included in the Parent Survey.

This chapter examined School Readiness services in relation to fall to spring changes on measures from the Parent Survey. Levels of Emotional Support, which ranged from 1 to 5, remained constant over the school year (3.9 in fall and 4.0 in spring) and thus were not discussed above. Emotional Support was also unchanged for families participating in Literacy Programs, with an average score of 4.1 at both fall and spring (Figure 3.5). However, it appears that receiving Literacy Programs services prior to the fall Parent Survey may have increased levels of Emotional Support. That is, a significant difference was found between families involved in Literacy Programs, compared with those not involved in Literacy Programs, based on responses from the fall Parent Survey (Figure 3.5). Presumably, before participating in Literacy Programs,parents may have had levels of Emotional Support similar to those who did not participate in Literacy Programs (at 3.8) and this increased to 4.1 due to the relationships that parents developed with others attending Literacy Programs.

4 Shonkoff, J. P., & Meisels, S. J. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of Early Childhood Intervention (2nd ed.) Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.5 Jacobson, J., Mulick, J., & Green, G. (1998) Cost-benefit estimates for early intensive behavioral intervention for young children with autism- general model and single state case. Behavioral Interventions, 13, 201–226.

Draft 01Oct09 19

Figure 3.5: Levels of Emotional Support by Parental Participation in Literacy Programs,Fall 2008 and Spring 2009

From Parent Survey, Difference between No Literacy Program and Literacy Program groups statistically significant at p = 0.02.

3.84.1 4.1

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

No LiteracyProgram

Literacy Program Literacy Program

Fall Parent Survey

Spring Parent Survey

Draft 01Oct09 20

CHAPTER 4CHILD OUTCOMES

Academic Achievement

Child Assessment. The Child Assessment was comprised of short versions of well-known standardized norm-reference instruments, which consisted of items to measure Early Math Skills (early counting and simple arithmetic), Letter Naming (asking children to identify as many of 26 letters as they could), Language Understanding, and Receptive Vocabulary (a short form of the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test).

The assessment was administered as a one-on-one interview by trained school staff to 4 and 5 year old children – those children likely to enter kindergarten in the following year – from families participating in the fall Parent Survey. As discussed in Appendix A, each assessment was conducted by school staff who was not the child’s own teacher and each assessor participated in a structured training session.

Children were assessed in English, Spanish, or both languages as determined by a language screening section of the instrument. Eighty-one children were assessed in English only, 11 in Spanish only, and 37 in both languages. A total of 166 Child Assessments were completed for 129 children. The average age of the assessed children was 59.5 months, or 4 years 11 months.

Child Assessment measures were examined in comparison with national Head Start data and in relation to School Readiness services. Before doing so, the validity and reliability of this first-time assessment of Cycle 2 School Readiness children were examined.

The level of precision of each measure was tested by calculating the standard error. For most research purposes, a standard error of 0.45 is considered good, with the lower the standard error the better the precision. As seen in Table 4.1, most of the standard errors for the Child Assessment measures were well under 0.45 with only the Spanish Receptive Vocabulary test showing a slightly higher level, but still indicative of adequate precision.

Good precision does not necessarily mean good reliability, or the consistency of the test performance. Reliability coefficients of 0.70 are interpreted as modest, and 0.80 or higher are considered excellent. Reliability among the Child Assessment measures was excellent with some of the tests exceeding 0.90 (Table 4.1). The only test with modest but still good reliability was the Spanish Receptive Vocabulary. Overall, the Child Assessment was found to have sound validity and reliability.

Child Assessment outcomes were compared with a comparable group of children; this is, those participating in the national Head Start National Reporting System (HSNRS) study (2004). Early Math Skills among School Readiness children assessed in English and Spanish were found to exceed those for Head Start children (Table 4.1). Compared with the Head Start population, higher scores for Letter Naming were also found among the School Readiness sample. Scores for Language Understanding and Receptive Vocabulary were statistically similar between the First 5 Sacramento and Head Start children

Draft 01Oct09 21

Table 4.1: Number of Items, Standard Error, and Reliability of Child Assessment Measures Among School Readiness Children and Outcomes Compared with Head Start Peers, Fiscal Year 2008/09

Number of Items

Standard Error Reliability

First 5 Sacramento Children Compared

with Head Start Peers

English Language

Early Math Skills 19 0.44 0.85 Exceeded

Letter Naming 26 0.33 0.92 Exceeded

Language Understanding 20 0.36 0.85 Equivalent

Receptive Vocabulary 24 0.45 0.83 Equivalent

Spanish Language

Early Math Skills 17 0.38 0.85 Exceeded

Letter Naming 27 0.30 0.94 Exceeded

Language Understanding 17 0.44 0.85 Equivalent

Receptive Vocabulary 23 0.46 0.77 Equivalent

Child Assessment outcomes were examined in association with School Readiness services. Involvement in Parent Discussions and Engagement services, which include facilitated discussions on the importance of literacy and activities to increase children’s cognitive development (see Table 2.5), was related to higher scores on Early Math Skills, Letter Naming, and Language Understanding among children assessed in English (Table 4.2).6

Table 4.2: Child Assessment Outcomes by Parent Discussions and Engagement Services,Fiscal Year 2008/09

History of Parent Discussions and Engagement Services

Yes No

Early Math Skills 17.8 15.7

Letter Naming 22.0 15.1

Language Understanding 17.2 15.3

Receptive Vocabulary 15.4 14.6

Numbers in bold are statistically significant at p ≤ 0.05.

6

Comparisons for the Spanish Child Assessment measures were not conducted because only seven families for

children assessed in Spanish had received Parent Discussions and Engagement services.

Draft 01Oct09 22

Teacher Child Report. Teachers at the six school districts completed the Teacher Child Reportfor 90.8% of children from families who participated in the fall Parent Survey and were sampled for the Child Assessment. The Teacher Child Report was completed in April through June, and thus teachers had most of the school year on which to base their responses related to educational achievement and behavior problems, which were subsequently examined in relation to School Readiness services.

As we saw for the outcomes from the Child Assessment, Parent Discussions and Engagement services were related to educational achievement measures from the Teacher Child Report. A greater percentage of children with parents who participated in these services were reported by teachers to be able to recognize most or all letters (Table 4.3). Although not significantly different, the four remaining educational achievement items in Table 4.3 are in the direction that supports a benefit from Parent Discussions and Engagement services. In fact, when thesemeasures were combined, children of parents who had participated in Parent Discussions and Engagement were found to have a higher Overall Literacy score than children from families that did not receive these services.

Table 4.3: Teacher Child Report Outcomes by Parent Discussions and Engagement Services,Fiscal Year 2008/09

History of Parent Discussions and Engagement Services

Yes No

Recognize most or all letters 92.0% 61.1%

Count to 20 80.0% 61.1%

Writes/draws rather than scribbles 88.5% 86.3%

Write own name 96.2% 89.4%

Identify all primary colors 96.2% 86.2%

Overall Literacy 4.5 3.8

Numbers in bold are statistically significant at p ≤ 0.05.

The findings presented in Tables 4.2 and 4.3 represent simple tests of differences. More complex analyses revealed that scores for Early Math Skills, Letter Naming, and Language Understanding from the Child Assessment and scores for Recognizing Most or All Letters and Overall Literacy from the Teacher Child Report remained significant when controlling for parents’ race/ethnicity, language, education, and employment status.

Behavior Problems

The Teacher Child Report also collected information concerning behavior problems observed by the teachers. Teachers were presented with a number of statements describing specific types of

Draft 01Oct09 23

behaviors on which they were to respond “Not true,” “Somewhat or sometimes true,” and “Very true or often true” for each child. These statements were subsequently scored to develop measures for Aggressive, Withdrawn, and Hyperactive behavior. The propensity for Aggressive behavior was assessed with items such as “disobeys rules or requests” and “hits or fights with others.” Statements to measure Withdrawn behavior included “hard to understand what he or she is saying,” “keeps to himself or herself,” and “lacks confidence in learning new things or trying new activities.” Significant relationships were found between Parenting Instructional Workshopsand decreased Aggressive and Withdrawn behaviors (Table 4.4). A score for Overall Behavior Problems for each child was developed based on the Aggressive and Withdrawn items, as well as those for Hyperactive (e.g., “Is very restless,” “fidgets all the time,” “can’t sit still”). As seen in Table 4.4, children from families that received Parenting Instructional Workshops had a significantly lower Overall Behavior Problem score than children from families not receiving these services.

Table 4.4: Teacher Child Report Outcomes by Parenting Instructional Workshops, Fiscal Year 2008/09

History of Parenting Instructional Workshops

Yes No

Aggressive score* 0.3 1.2

Hyperactive score* 0.8 1.0

Withdrawn score* 0.6 1.8

Overall Behavior Problem score* 1.6 4.0

Attention/Persistence score† 15.9 14.2

* Higher scores equates to a greater levels of problematic behavior.Numbers in bold are statistically significant at p ≤ 0.05.† p = 0.09.

Attention and Persistence

The Teacher Child Report also included an Attention/Persistence dimension to assess children’s ability to sustain attention and their diligence toward accomplishing challenging tasks. Teachers rated how true each of the nine statements was for the child. Attention/Persistence statements included child “sticks to an activity for as long as can be expected for a child of this age” and“shows little determination to complete an activity, gives up easily.” Children rated as more persistent and having greater ability to attend to relevant tasks were reflected by higher Attention/Persistence scores. Children’s Attention/Persistence scores were related to their parents' Parenting Instructional Workshop attendance, that is, the average child Attention/Persistence score was higher (at p = 0.09) for children whose parents received Parenting Instructional Workshops (Table 4.4).

Draft 01Oct09 24

Linear regression models were also developed based on Teacher Child Report outcomes reported in Table 4.4. In these analyses, Withdrawn and Overall Behavior Problem scores remained lowerfor children whose parents had a history of attending Parenting Instructional Workshops, regardless of parents’ race/ethnicity, language, education, or employment status. However, the effect that Parenting Instructional Workshops had on Aggression and Attention/Persistence scores was not significant when including these family characteristics. Thus, family characteristics were found to have a greater influence on a child’s aggression and attention than Parenting Instructional Workshops, or School Readiness services in general.

Discussion of Chapter 4 Results

The strengths of the Child Assessment are that it was a standardized tool with measures havingestablished validity and reliability, and that the data were collected by trained school staff other than the children's teachers, those much less likely to introduce biases into the assessment and scoring procedures. Outcomes from the Child Assessment, such as early math proficiency and the ability to name letters in the alphabet, were compared with an analogous population of childrenfrom Head Start, and within the First 5 Sacramento School Readiness population by the types of services that families received. The evidence from both these efforts strongly suggests that School Readiness services are indeed better preparing children for kindergarten. Data from a different evaluation instrument, the Teacher Child Report, confirmed the relationship between School Readiness services and enhanced academic performance, and suggest that services to parents are reducing children's problematic behaviors.

Two School Readiness services in particular seem to be most effective in influencing children's readiness for kindergarten. The topics selected for discussion by the facilitators of Parent Discussions and Engagement services, and the curriculum for the Parenting InstructionalWorkshops, appear to translate into tangible child outcomes in line with the goals of these School Readiness services.

Evaluation studies often find that the relationships between services and outcomes in simple or bivariate analyses become substantially reduced or vanish when family characteristics or other "third variables" are introduced into more advanced statistical analyses. This is because these factors are so important as to how well a child does in school, for example. This was not found to be the case for these School Readiness services. This gives us confidence that School Readiness services are indeed having real benefits to children in Sacramento County.

Draft 01Oct09 25

CHAPTER 5TEACHER/PROVIDER SURVEY

The Teacher/Provider Survey was implemented to assess “best practices” through a set of “quality indicators,” such as the kinds of activities and curricula used in the preschool classrooms, infant-toddler rooms, or playgroups; and the teacher/provider’s level of education, and training and continuing education in early childhood education.

Description of Facilities, Programs, and Classrooms

Fifty-five teachers of children enrolled in School Readiness services participated in the Teacher/Provider Survey. The majority of these early care educators were teachers in preschools (52.7%), pre-kindergarten programs (21.8%), or Head Start (14.5%). Combined, they represent teachers of pre-school aged children (89.0%). Relatively few teachers/providers were teachers in playgroups (7.3%) or kindergarten (3.6%). Just under half (45.5%) of teachers/providers used two languages to communicate with the children in the classroom, although 25.5% reported using three or more languages. The following sections review reports of the quality of care and education provided to children receiving School Readiness services.7

Teacher/Provider Backgrounds and Qualifications

The qualifications and experience of early care educators are important contributors to school readiness and program quality. Increasingly, the national trend is to raise the qualifications of preschool teachers, with an emphasis on college degrees in early childhood education, child development, or a related field. The most recent Head Start Reauthorization Bill, Improving Head Start for School Readiness Act of 2007, has required that, by 2013, at least 50% of Head Start teachers nationwide in center-based programs have either a Bachelor’s or advanced degree in early childhood education; or a Bachelor’s or advanced degree and coursework equivalent to a major relating to early childhood education, with experience teaching preschool-age children (Public Law 110-134, 42 U.S.C. 9843a(2), 2007). In California, consensus on a level of education and training required for early care educators to be effective has not been reached. Recommended benchmarks for education and training typically specify at least an Associate’s degree, if not a Bachelor’s degree, as well as specialized child development training.8

Currently there is an important ongoing debate about the minimal qualifications required to ensure high quality in preschool classrooms and the increased cost to public programs should higher qualifications be required. Most reviews of research studying the relationship between teacher qualifications and classroom quality point to the importance of teachers with higher education degrees, particularly the Bachelor’s degree, as well as the contribution of specialized early childhood education and child development training. However, it is not clear from the research literature what is gained from the Bachelor’s degree over the Associate’s degree or what 7 Not all teachers who participated were providing funded First 5 Sacramento services, but rather were primary educators of children enrolled in School Readiness services.8 Karoly, L. A., Ghosh-Dastidar, B., Zellman, G. L., Periman, M., Fernyhough, L. (2008). Prepared to Learn: The Nature and Quality of Early Care and Education of Preschool-Age Children in California (TR-539). Available from the RAND Corporation web site: www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR539.

Draft 01Oct09 26

value is added with an advanced degree. We did address this question by conducting correlations between teachers’ education levels and child outcomes. Low but significant correlations were found for Letter Naming (r = 0.23), recognizing most or all letters (r = 0.22), and Overall Literacy (r = 0.17). Thus, among the funded School Readiness programs, levels of teacher education are related to improved child outcomes.

Data from the Teacher/Provider Survey indicate that those providing education to children receiving School Readiness services are highly qualified. That is, 85.5% have the Child Development Permit and 63.1% are at the Master Teacher level or higher (Table 5.1). TheCalifornia Commission on Teacher Credentialing issues Child Development Permits to teachers who meet the college unit requirements for Early Childhood Education, general education, and specialization along with the required hours of experience for each matrix level. Instructors at a Master Teacher level are permitted to provide care and instruction to children, supervise teachers and assistants, and coordinate curriculum in a child development program.

Table 5.1: Percentage of Teachers at Each Level of the Child Development Matrix (n = 46), Fiscal Year 2008/09

%

Assistant 2.2

Associate Teacher 10.9

Teacher 23.9

Master Teacher 10.9

Site Supervisor 43.5

Program Director 8.7

Additionally, 47.2% of teachers/providers reported having their teaching credential and 61.8% have a degree in early childhood education. Although only 22.2% reported having their Child Development Associates diploma, this is likely due to the relatively high proportion of teachers with a Bachelor’s degree or higher (74.5%).

A greater percentage of teachers in School Readiness programs had Bachelor’s degrees or higher, compared with a national sample of Head Start teachers (2003). Moreover, 45.3% ofteachers providing education and care to children receiving First 5 Sacramento services reported belonging to a professional Early Childhood Education association. Membership in a professional association has been shown to be highly correlated with classroom quality in that higher quality classrooms tended to have teachers who belonged to a professional association.9

Overall, the teachers of Cycle 2 School Readiness programs are highly qualified.

9 Zill, N., Resnick, G., Kim, K., O’Donnell, K., Sorongon, A., McKey, R. H., Pai-Samant, S., Clark, C., O’Brien,R., D’Elio, M. A. (2003). Head Start FACES 2000: A Whole-Child Perspective on Program Performance, FourthProgress Report. Washington, DC: Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health andHuman Services. Available at:http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/hs/faces/reports/faces00_4thprogress/faces00_title.html.

Draft 01Oct09 27

Parent Involvement

Parent involvement in their child’s education has been shown to relate to children’s cognitive development.10 Teachers/providers were asked to indicate which of the following six strategies parents are involved with:

Volunteering or helping in classrooms; Observing in classrooms for at least 30 minutes at a time; Preparing foods or materials for special events; Helping with field trips or other special events; Attending parent education meetings or workshops on topics such as job skills or

childrearing; and Visiting with staff members in their homes.

Teachers reported a relatively high level of parent participation as the average parent involvement score was 4.3 out of 6 possible. This indicates that on average, teachers have included parent participation and received parent involvement in at least 4 of the 6 parents participation activities listed.

Teachers/providers were also asked to indicate which of the following six methods they use to meet or keep in touch with parents individually:

Regular parent-teacher conferences; Parent-teacher conferences that follow the teacher’s review of the child’s progress; Parent-teacher conferences scheduled at least two times a year; Keeping written notes on information from the parent-teacher conference; Responding to parents’ notes or telephone calls within two days of receiving them; and Conducting home visits twice a year.

Teachers reported an average of 4.9 methods (out of 6), showing a high degree of communication between teachers and parents.

Description of Learning Activities and Curriculum

Although there are no absolute standards for how many minutes per day children must spend in a particular instructional modality, according to the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) Accreditation Standards, it is important that children spend time in learning activities that involve small groups and individual, one-on-one activities with a teacher. To obtain some indication of the quality of classroom learning activities, teachers estimated how much time on average the children spend in a number of different types of instructional modalities: teacher-directed whole class activities, teacher-directed small group activities, teacher-directed individual activities, and child-selected activities. High-quality early childhood programs tend to provide a large amount of time for individual and small-group activities

10 First 5 California Special Study of High-Quality Preschools. Available at: “Case Studies of the First 5 School Readiness Program” www.first5california.com/press/pub.asp.

Draft 01Oct09 28

directed by the teacher, as well as opportunities for children to direct their own activities. Most standardized observational measures (such as the ECERS-R or the Assessment Profile) include these modalities when rating the quality of the classroom.

As seen in Table 5.2, children spend a great deal of time in a variety of instructional settings, and most of their time in learning activities they selected. While teacher-directed activities for the whole class occupy just over half the amount of time that child-selected activities do, it is on par with the amount of time spent in teacher-directed small group activities (49.1 and 43.3 minutes respectively). The difference between the time children spend on whole class activities and the time they spend in small group or individual activities suggests that School Readiness programs are following this best practice, indicating good quality.

Table 5.2: Average Minutes per Day Children Spend in Each Type of Instructional Modality, Fiscal Year 2008/09

Minutes (Average)

Teacher-directed whole class activities 49.1

Teacher-directed small group activities 43.3

Teacher-directed individual activities 39.1

Child-selected activities 88.4

Total Time Spent in Learning Activities 220.2

Teachers/providers were also asked how often children are actively involved in a number of reading and language activities. Scores ranged from 0 to 10, with 10 indicating the highest frequency for a given learning activity. Table 5.3 shows that the most frequent activities were story and print conventions (e.g., one must read from left to right), letter recognition, and early writing. Teachers less frequently read stories where children did not see the print; consistent with the best practices in which showing print while reading stories teach children story and print conventions as well as new words.

Draft 01Oct09 29

Table 5.3: Average Frequency of Learning Activities in the Classroom, Fiscal Year 2008/09

Average Score

Story and Print Conventions (listen to you read stories where they see the print, learn about conventions of print) 8.3

Letter Recognition (learning names of the letters) 8.0

Writing Activities (practice writing the letters of the alphabet, write own name) 7.6

Vocabulary Development (learn new words or prepositions) 7.4

Phonics and Rhyming (learn about rhyming words and word families) 6.5

Expressive Vocabulary (dictate or retell stories) 5.4

Listen to you read stories but they don’t see the print 4.0

Table 5.4 summarizes the percentage of teachers who reported having different types of interest or learning centers in their classrooms. Most teachers reported their classrooms had a variety of interest and learning areas. All teachers reported having reading and writing learning centers and more than 90.0% of teachers reported having dramatic play, art, math, and science/nature learning centers. These results provide further evidence that the quality of the classroom environment in these School Readiness programs is very high.

Table 5.4: Percentage of Teachers Reporting Each Type of Learning Center in the Classroom, Fiscal Year 2008/09

%

Reading area with books 100.0

Writing center or area 100.0

Dramatic play area or corner 96.4

Art area 96.4

Math area with manipulatives 94.5

Science or nature area with manipulatives 90.9

Private area for one or two children to be alone 74.5

Computer area 65.5

Listening center 63.6

Draft 01Oct09 30

A variety of primary curricula were reported by teachers providing education to School Readiness children:

Houghton Mifflin, reported by one-fourth (25.5%) of teachers as their primary curriculum, incorporates literacy skills (e.g., vocabulary, phonological awareness, print awareness and alphabet knowledge) as well as math, social, science, art, and physical activities in learning.11

Open Court, used by 23.6% of teachers, is a literacy-focused curriculum that addresses eight themes (i.e., children’s identity, families, friends, social interactions, transportation, the physical senses, nature, and transitions) through literacy activities.12

Creative Curriculum, a curriculum/framework used by 16.4% of teachers, addresses social/emotional, physical, cognitive, and language development areas and requires 10 interest centers (i.e., blocks, dramatic play, toys and games, art, library, discovery, sand and water, music and movement, cooking, and computers) to use as teaching tools.12

Other principal curricula used by School Readiness teachers/providers, included Letter People (using multiple contexts to learn letters), High Scope (hands-on learning using different types of teaching formats) and Hampton Brown Alphachants (phonics-focused supplemental curriculum).

These curricula, with the exception of Alphachants, were common curricula used among First 5 California teachers in high quality preschools.13 The National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) suggests there is not one best curriculum, but recommends curriculum for young children to be “thoughtfully planned, challenging, engaging, developmentally appropriate, culturally and linguistically responsive, comprehensive and likely to promote positive outcomes for all young children.”14 Teachers’ reports on curriculum use support that School Readiness children are exposed to developmentally appropriate, researched-based curricula with specific goals to promote children’s learning.

Absenteeism

Absenteeism is another indicator of quality in the classroom, and speaks particularly to the spread of disease or illness in the classrooms due to unsanitary health practices. When teachers/providers were asked about the number of children who were absent on an average day and consistent absenteeism, 80.0% reported that two or fewer children are absent on an average day and 85.5% reported that two or fewer children are consistently absent. The fact that very few

11 Houghton Mifflin launches pre-k program: New Curriculum Meets Early Reading First Criteria. (2005, June 27). Houghton Mifflin Co. News Release. Available at: http://www.hmco.com/company/newsroom/news/news_release_062805.html12 Effects of Preschool Curriculum Programs on School Readiness. (2008) Report from the Preschool Curriculum Evaluation Research Initiative.13 First 5 California Special Study of High-Quality Preschools. Available at: “Case Studies of the First 5 School Readiness Program” www.first5california.com/press/pub.asp.14 National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). (2003) Early childhood curriculum, assessment and program evaluation: Building an effective, accountable system in programs for children birth through age 8. Position paper available at: http://208.118.177.216/about/positions/pdf/CAPEexpand.pdf

Draft 01Oct09 31

children are absent on a regular basis is consistent with earlier findings that these classrooms have very high quality.

Beliefs and Attitudes about Best Practices

Teachers/providers were asked whether they agreed or disagreed to a set of items drawn from a subscale of the 24-item Teacher Beliefs Scale. The subscale measures the degree to which teachers have knowledge of and utilize best practices in early childhood education. The subscale included positive items like “classroom activities should be responsive to individual differences in development” and negative items such as “students should work silently and alone on seatwork.”

The average score was 6.6 out of a possible high score of 10 on the beliefs and attitudes scale. This is notably lower than those reported in the national Head Start study (2000) in which the average score was 7.9 out of 10, indicating that teachers caring for children enrolled in the Cycle 2 School Readiness programs have less positive knowledge and beliefs about best practices in early childhood education compared with Head Start teachers.

Teachers were also asked to rate statements regarding child initiated learning practices. Teachers indicated how strongly they agreed or disagreed to statements including: “Children in classrooms should learn through active explorations” and “Children should dictate stories to the teacher.” The average teacher score was 4.4 out of 5, indicated high belief in child initiated learning.

Process Quality in Classrooms

A number of questions asked teachers about activities in the classroom that have been shown, in observational measures, to be related to higher levels of quality. The following indicators were included:

Whether parents visit the center/home unannounced; Whether a schedule of activities is posted inside or outside of each classroom; Whether activities are tailored to meet the needs of specific children; Whether a television is turned on for children to view; How much time a television is turned on during the day; and How much time children spend playing outdoors, weather permitting.

The average score for these items was 5.3 out of a possible 6.0, indicating high levels of process quality overall. In fact, 56.4% of all teachers obtained the highest possible score of 6.0, supporting a very high level of process quality in these classrooms.

Discussion of Chapter 5 Findings

The majority of teachers in the sample were those who were teaching in preschool-aged classrooms, either as part of a pre-kindergarten, Head Start or preschool program. Overall, data from the Teacher/Provider Survey support the conclusion that the quality of classroom School Readiness children obtain education and care in are of high quality. Most teachers have

Draft 01Oct09 32

Bachelor’s degrees or higher, many have teaching certificates, and many majored in early childhood education or child development in college. There are also many opportunities for children to receive individual or small group learning experiences as well as self-directed learning experiences, and the classrooms tend to be very well equipped with a variety of learning centers. Teachers included reading to children while showing print, teaching letter names, and practice writing letters most frequently in their literacy curriculum.

Parent involvement appears relatively high in all classrooms caring for School Readiness children; both in terms of the types of contact that teachers report having with parents, as well as the different ways in which parents are involved in the classrooms.

Draft 01Oct09 33

CHAPTER 6PROGRAM SUCCESSES AND CHALLENGES

The Administrator Interview was designed to obtain the perspectives of School Readiness Coordinators and other school administrators on indicators of quality in their programs as well as on the importance of First 5 Sacramento funding in their school districts. The interviews provided an opportunity for program administrators to describe the structure and content of their programs and discuss how First 5 Sacramento funding affects the programs/services they are able to offer to families.

Program Strengths

Seven of the 11 respondents stated that building families’ trust and relationships with schools is something their program does very well. Preparing children for kindergarten was identified as a strength by six respondents, and one respondent explained that School Readiness programs “…prepare kids for school so they are coming in with a school routine intact. They are ready for academic success.” Three respondents also identified parent education as something their School Readiness program does well, as well as home visitation and leveraging resources.

Meeting Community Needs

Six of the 11 respondents identified preparing children for school/kindergarten as a community need their School Readiness program is meeting. This was followed by five respondents who indicated that serving low-income and/or ethnic communities and increasing parent engagement with schools are community needs being met by their School Readiness program. Four respondents cited the health, developmental, and/or behavioral screenings as a community need being met. Other community needs identified were collaboration among agencies, offering preschool to families who are not eligible for State preschool, and professional development for early childhood education staff.

Serving Diverse Cultural Backgrounds

In order to serve the diverse cultural backgrounds of children and families participating in School Readiness programs, nine respondents stated that they hire multi-lingual and/or multi-cultural staff. Five also noted that they translate all materials into the primary language(s) of their community. Other strategies for engaging participants from diverse cultural backgrounds included providing books in the library that reflect the community make-up, providing English Learner training for staff, and conducting parent literacy nights. One district started a Hmongschool to reach an underserved segment of their community. The district’s Hmong program was designed to develop Hmong parents’ language skills to make them more competent for the language development needed for their children’s English language acquisition.

Draft 01Oct09 34

Challenges

Parental involvement was cited as a challenge by three respondents, making it the most common answer. Parenting instructional workshops was the only service a respondent stated having difficulty retaining participants. When asked if they had challenges raising awareness about the School Readiness program, half of the School Readiness Coordinators responded yes. Respondents also stated the specific challenge of recruiting participants from underserved communities. Other challenges mentioned by School Readiness Coordinators and administrators had to do with operational details of the program, including hiring staff and facilitating the logistics of offering night and weekend services. One School Readiness Coordinator was challenged by getting buy-in from elementary schools, and an administrator discussed the difficulty of meeting the dental milestone.

Changes Desired for the Programs

As expected, the desired change most often cited by respondents was to expand services offered by the School Readiness programs. Examples of expanded services include transportation assistance for families to attend program activities, more Spanish literacy programs, and increasing the parent education programs offered. Two respondents also indicated they would like to be able to hire more staff for their programs. Other changes respondents desired for their programs included improved communication about the impact of School Readiness programs and closer connections with the district’s preschool department.

First 5 Funding Impacts on School Readiness Programs

Five School Readiness Coordinators and administrators interviewed stated that without First 5 Sacramento funding their School Readiness program would not exist. One administrator explained that First 5 Sacramento funding allows them to:

“…reach children who have never had a preschool experience. There are children who show up at kindergarten with no prior school experience. They have some health, developmental, or behavioral issues that have not been addressed. Contrast that with children, who through First 5 funding, have been given all those academic and social functions.”

Respondents also discussed the role First 5 Sacramento funding plays in providing preschool to children whose families do not qualify for State-funded preschool, but cannot afford private preschool. One School Readiness Coordinator stated that “Our Superintendent acknowledged that First 5 Sacramento truly reaches our most needy without leaving out families who are unable to receive subsidized services.” Another district received support for School Readiness programs from their Superintendent who “…now refers to the district as Pre-K through 12. [School Readiness] has had a hand in how the district changed its mission to include Pre-K kids.” Other responses about how First 5 Sacramento funding has enhanced School Readiness programs related to the services districts are able to provide. Respondents referenced overall expanded services, transition activities, and workshops for parents and teachers as important enhancements to their School Readiness program.

Draft 01Oct09 35

CHAPTER 7CONCLUSIONS

The evaluation of the First 5 Sacramento School Readiness program during fiscal year 2008/2009 found services related to outcomes that are fundamental to academic success among children preparing for kindergarten entry. Moreover, School Readiness children performed better on academic competency tests when comparing the scores published for children enrolled in the national Head Start program. These academic competency data were collected with the Child Assessment, a standardized, one-on-one assessment with proven reliability and validity. Children of parents participating in School Readiness services were also significantly less likely to be observed as demonstrating problematic behaviors. Overall, associations between School Readiness services and outcomes from the Child Assessment (higher early math, letter naming, and language understanding) and teachers’ observations (higher letter recognition and literacy scores and lower withdraw and overall behavior problems) remained significant after taking into account parents’ race/ethnicity, language, education, and employment status.

Some empirical support was found between services directed at children (Preschool) and at the family (Transition Activities and Literacy Programs) and parent outcomes, such as time spent reading to children and perceived levels of emotional support. However, delays in implementation of the evaluation activities to assess parent outcomes, specifically the Parent Survey, are likely to blame for not uncovering more robust findings. Delays in start-up of thenew Cycle 2 services, and the time required to enter parent and child information into the web-based system (Persimmony) from which families were sampled, stalled the implementation of the Parent Survey until mid-November—months after many School Readiness services were already in full swing. As such, a period of only about five to six months was available to detect significant changes over time.

The evaluation team is currently exploring a few options to address this shortcoming for the 2009/2010 school year, including initiating the fall Parent Survey not at once across all school districts but when each school site has a sufficient number of families enrolled in the evaluation. Another option under consideration is to sample families before they are entered into Persimmony by using the paper-based Family Intake Forms at sites that experience a backlog of data entry. Regardless of these limitations, parents were found to report lower levels of stress by the end of the school year and an increase in the number of activities that have the potential to teach and strengthen the bond between the child and the parent and community.

In short, we anticipate that the evaluation of Cycle 2 School Readiness services during fiscal year 2009/2010 will confirm the value of services directed to parents on child outcomes and will provide the opportunity to better test the relationship between services and parent outcomes. It will also be interesting to examine whether child and parent outcomes improve this fiscal year versus last year, which is plausible given the time that was required to ramp up some new Cycle 2 services, and the findings from the Teacher/Provider Survey that verify that the current school districts were providing high-quality services at the end of the school year.

Draft 01Oct09 36

APPENDIXDATA COLLECTION

Parent Survey. Fifty-four families from each of the six school districts were randomly sampledand asked to complete the Parent Survey in the fall (November-December) and spring (April-June) of the school year. The instrument was available in both English and Spanish. The School Readiness Coordinators were responsible for the data collection which included recruitment and distributing the instrument, and in some cases administering it over the telephone, at the school site, or the parents’ homes. During data collection School Readiness Coordinators met with an evaluation team member on an ongoing basis to review the status of recruitment. The reason behind each unsuccessful recruitment attempt was documented, and included whether the parent had moved or refused to participate. The overall recruitment rates were 94.0% and 80.0% for the fall and spring Parent Surveys, respectively (Table A.1). Overall, both fall and spring data were available from 239 parents.

Child Assessment. Four and 5 year old children of families who completed the fall Parent Survey were selected for the Child Assessment. The assessment was administered by school staff not directly involved with these children’s care. Prior to data collection, the evaluation team trained the school staff at one of two trainings on the proper procedures for administering the Child Assessment. These training sessions covered the importance of refraining from coaching, providing neutral praise, and procedures for administrating and scoring each page. The training also included an item-by-item review with particular attention paid to the initial screening section to determine whether a child should receive the English, Spanish, or both versions of the assessment. Finally, the trainees practiced administering the assessment to each other while evaluation team members observed and provided guidance. Each trainee received a Child Assessment instrument, instructional materials, and child specific scoring sheets pre-labeled with the children’s name. Data collection occurred from March through May on 153 children with a recruitment rate of 84.3% (Table A.1).

Teacher Child Report. The Teacher Child Report was completed by the teachers of the 4 and 5 year old children sampled for the Child Assessment. The School Readiness Coordinators recruited the teachers for the survey, and monitored data collection by meeting weekly with evaluation team staff who reviewed and collected completed instruments. From April through June, 139 Teacher Child Reports were completed for a 90.8% recruitment rate (Table A.1).

Teacher/Provider Survey. School Readiness Coordinators identified the educational instructors who worked closest with each child from the fall Parent Survey sample to complete the Teacher/Provider Survey. In some cases these were preschool or playgroup teachers, child care providers, speech therapists, or case management staff. From April to June, School Readiness Coordinators distributed and collected 55 Teacher/Provider Surveys. Evaluation team staff reviewed surveys for completion when meeting with individual School Readiness Coordinators each week. All Teacher/Provider Surveys were completed.

Administrator Interview. Members of the evaluation team administered the Administrator Interview by telephone to School Readiness Coordinators and school administrators identified by

Draft 01Oct09 37

the School Readiness Coordinators as persons who could furnish a district-wide perspective on the impact of the School Readiness activities. The interviews were completed in May 2009 withall School Readiness Coordinators, and five out of the six identified administrators (Table A.2).

Table A.1: Cycle 2 School Readiness Completion Rates, Fiscal Year 2008/09

Table A.2: School Readiness Administrator Interview, May 2009

District School Readiness Coordinator

Interview Date Administrator Interview

Date

Elk Grove Ada Arevalo 5/11/09 Fawzia Keval Not availableFolsom/Cordova Denise Thomson 5/15/09 Linda Burkholder 6/16/09Robla Laura Lystrup 5/29/09 Lisa Hall 6/17/09Sac City Doris Reese 5/14/09 Kris Lawson 5/26/09San Juan Dave Pascoa 5/19/09 Tracy Tomasky 6/15/09Twin Rivers Tabitha Thompson 5/12/09 Sara Haycox 6/01/09

District Fall Parent Survey, %

Spring Parent Survey, %

Child Assessment, %

Teacher Child Report, %

Elk Grove 96.3 80.8 81.0 83.3Folsom/Cordova 92.3 75.0 100 100Robla 94.1 89.6 90.9 90.9Sac City 90.7 85.7 95.2 95.2San Juan 96.3 73.1 81.3 90.6Twin Rivers 94.3 76.0 75.8 93.9Total 94.0 79.9 84.3 90.8