From Birth to College Findings from Year 1 of a Process ... - Chapin Hall

From Birth to College Findings from Year 1 of a Process Evaluation of the University of Chicago Charter School Model Julie Spielberger Joy Lesnick 2010

From Birth to College: Findings from Year 1 of a Process Evaluation of the University of Chicago Charter School Model Julie Spielberger and Joy Lesnick ISSN: 1097-3125 © 2010 Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago 1313 East 60th Street Chicago, IL 60637 773-753-5900 (phone) 773-753-5940 (fax) www.chapinhall.org

Acknowledgments We would like to acknowledge several individuals and organizations for their help in the preparation of this report. We are very appreciative of the school directors, teachers, and program staff at the four campuses who welcomed us to their schools and openly gave of their time and information. We thank the staff of the Urban Education Institute at the University of Chicago, especially Linda Wing and Terese Zimmer, for their advice and guidance in developing an evaluation plan, introducing us to the four school campuses and their staffs, and assisting us in gathering information on students’ program participation and academic progress data. At Chapin Hall, two research analysts, Bonnie Hart and Kai Guterman, also assisted us. Finally, we are grateful to the W. K. Kellogg Foundation for the funding that supports this evaluation.

i

Table of Contents Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................... vi Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 1 Overview of UEI Educational Model ....................................................................................................... 1 Project Outcomes and Research Questions .............................................................................................. 5 Methods .................................................................................................................................................... 7 Year-1 Findings............................................................................................................................................. 9 Academic Progress ................................................................................................................................... 9 Participation in Extended Learning Opportunities ................................................................................. 13 Enhancing Extended Learning Time ...................................................................................................... 15 Enhancing Social Supports: The Student Support Team........................................................................ 26 Fostering Innovation: The Transition Team ........................................................................................... 34 Community Involvement in the Development of the Birth-to-College Model ...................................... 38 Summary and Conclusions: Building the Network..................................................................................... 45 References............................................................................................................................................... 52 Appendix A: Research Questions ............................................................................................................... 54 Appendix B: Key Informants ...................................................................................................................... 55

ii

List of Figures Figure 1. STEP Level Performance by Cohort–Donoghue Elementary School ......................................... 10 Figure 2. STEP Level Performance by Cohort–NKO Elementary School ................................................. 11 Figure 3. ISAT Performance in Reading by Cohort.................................................................................... 12 Figure 4. ISAT Performance in Math by Cohort ........................................................................................ 13 Figure 5. Participation in Extended Learning Opportunities by School ..................................................... 14

List of Tables Table 1. Research Questions for UEI Birth-to-College Educational Model................................................. 7 Table A-1. Research Questions for UCCS Birth-to-College Educational Model Evaluation .................... 52

iii

iv

Executive Summary This report presents findings from the first year of a process evaluation of the University of Chicago Charter School (UCCS)’s efforts to develop a high-performing educational model for vulnerable children from birth to college on Chicago’s South Side. UCCS consists of four campuses serving children from prekindergarten through high school and is operated by the university’s Urban Education Institute (UEI). During the 2009–2010 school year, funding from the Kellogg Foundation provided support for the development of four components of the model: the quality and availability of extended learning opportunities at the school, particularly for children who are struggling academically; social supports for students through a cross-campus Student Support Team made up of a nurse, school counselor, and psychologist; transition activities for children moving from elementary school to middle school and their families; and a partnership with the Ounce of Prevention’s Educare Center to incorporate education and other services for children from birth to age 3. An additional, overarching goal of these efforts was to enhance communication, networking, and collaboration among staff and to align policies and practices across the four campuses. The purpose of the first year of the evaluation was to assess the process of developing and implementing the four components of the model listed above. We also were asked to report on students’ academic progress, participation in extended-day activities funded by the Kellogg Foundation, and receipt of social services from the SST. Below we briefly summarize our key findings and recommendations, based on an analysis of data drawn from meetings, key informant interviews, initiative documents, and student records. Academic Progress Overall, 66 percent of students in grades K–5 at Donoghue and 84 percent of students at NKO Elementary were reading at or above grade level at the conclusion of the 2009–2010 school year as measured by the Strategic Teaching and Evaluation of Progress (STEP) assessment. At Donoghue, a higher proportion of v

students were reading at or above grade level in kindergarten through second grade compared to students in third through fifth grade; this pattern was reversed at NKO. Based on 2 years of STEP data, the biggest drop-off occurred at both Donoghue and NKO between cohorts of students who were in kindergarten in 2008–2009 and in first grade in 2009–2010. Student reading performance during the transition from kindergarten to first-grade might therefore be an area for future investigation. It might also be useful to examine more closely the longitudinal performance of student cohorts from kindergarten through fifth grade to determine where students begin to fall below grade level and where interventions could be most effective, using both STEP data for all students and ISAT data for students in grades 3 through 5. Extended Learning Opportunities Across all four campuses, students were provided with a variety of opportunities to receive additional learning time during the 2009–2010 school year. Though not funded by Kellogg, the extended learning time model at Donoghue is the most developed and includes programs that occur before school, after school, on Saturdays, in the summer, and during the school day. At the other three campuses, the extended learning time model is growing as a result of Kellogg support. For example, almost a third of students at NKO receive additional learning time through the extended-day program that takes place daily after school; at CGW Middle School, 14 percent of students participate in an afterschool tutoring program, and 27 percent of students participate in summer school; and at UCW, more than half of students participated in tutoring, freshman study hall, ACT preparation, or tutored middle school students, while smaller percentages attended afterschool credit recovery programs or summer school. In an effort to enhance the extended learning time models at NKO, CGW, and UCW, a cross-campus Extended-Day Team was created. During the first year, progress was made in understanding the concept of a comprehensive extended learning time program targeted to students’ needs and interests, as well as some of the challenges involved in trying to create a cross-campus program and coordinated data system. Work to articulate the cross-campus vision, goals, and strategies of the program and to address some of the data, financial, and logistical challenges will continue in the year ahead. One important outcome of the work of the cross-campus team was the formation of a cohesive group across the four UCCS campuses and a real commitment to improve the variety and quality of, and access to, extended learning opportunities. Although more work remains, there was much greater clarity among group members about what a model extended-day program might look like across the schools. They also made discussed and made decisions about the aligning job descriptions, developing common training, and sharing costs of transportation, all of which reflected a stronger network at the end of the year than at the beginning.

vi

Based on these early positive findings, we make the following recommendations for the continued work of the cross-campus extended-day group: 

In terms of the group process and structure, thought should be given to sharing responsibilities for group facilitation and documentation, although there is value in having a consistent leader.



As the programmatic approach to extended learning opportunities evolves, we recommend examining the developmental value of some of the fee-based programs currently in place at NKO and CGW before ending them. Some of these programs might still fit in a broad system of supports for students, especially if they are accessible to a broader range of students on a sliding fee or no-cost basis.



Over time, we hope to see stronger connections between the extended-day staff and the Student Support Team and, perhaps, other social support staff. It would have been premature to have included developing these connections as an explicit goal of the first year’s work, but the extended-day program is one part of a menu of social and academic supports provided to students. As the goals and strategies of the SST and extended learning time groups become clarified, the two groups might look for opportunities to share information and collaborate more intentionally.

The Student Support Team During its first year, the SST provided direct services or indirect support to students across the four campuses usually on an individual, group, or classroom basis. Because of the nature of her work, the nurse probably saw the largest number of students. In addition to individual students she saw on a daily basis at NKO, she provided classroom health and nutrition activities to 250 to 300 upper elementary, middle, and high school students at all of the campuses. Although the school counselor occasionally consulted at other schools, most of his contacts were with students at CGW. The psychologist, who was based at Donoghue, worked at the classroom level with two fourth grades and two fifth grades. She also provided assessment and other services to support about 25 individual students across the four campuses. In addition, the SST met every other week throughout the year and made substantial progress in establishing goals, communicating a vision, and becoming integrated into the UCCS network. Respondents felt strongly about the need for the SST and positive about the accomplishments of the first year. Based on findings on SST activities, we make the following recommendations: 

The SST should continue to work toward effective communication with school administrators as well as staff at each school site. Some respondents identified communication as one of the biggest challenges in strengthening the network, and the SST is well positioned to support that effort. Integrating the SST into other existing meetings is important—specifically the special-education team, the social work team, and the school directors meetings, as well as other relevant meetings.

vii



The SST might review its structure and consider whether having a more centralized leadership approach to tasks would be more efficient than a distributed leadership, which resulted in some tasks not getting done or a lack of awareness of when tasks were completed.



There is a need to improve SST staff’s access to student data and health action plans. Because of the nature of the CPS IMPACT data system, SST staff could not access online data for all four schools at the same time and must instead rely on other school-based personnel to access student records, which made them less efficient.

The Transition Team The Transition Team, which was created through the new Innovation Incubator process, was also implemented for the first time in 2009–2010. Because at the time of our data collection it was focused on a transition yet to occur (i.e., between the 2009–2010 and the 2010–2011 school years), it is a little early to assess the impact of the Transition Team’s work on students, families, and teachers. Nonetheless, important process outcomes were observed. These include the involvement and support for the work of the team from all levels of staff, including administrators, teachers, and support staff. Staff participating in the Transition Team also recognized the importance of documenting the experiences of children, families, and teachers during the transition to the middle schools in the fall and conducting interviews or surveys to collect information on the perspectives of staff and families about the transition. Finally, also was a sense that people involved in planning transition activities became more aware about transitions in general. It will be important to observe if and how this increased awareness and strategies for easing the elementary to middle school transition are shared with staff working with children at other levels and applied to other transitions, for example, middle school to high school, prekindergarten to kindergarten.

Community Involvement in the Birth-to-College Model Development A key component of the UCCS educational model is programming for children in the first 5 years of life and their families. In the spring of 2009, UEI and UCCS leaders and staff began meeting with the Ounce of Prevention Fund’s leadership and the staff of its Educare early childhood center, which serves children from 6 weeks to 5 years and their parents. These meetings continued throughout 2009–-2010 on a regular basis to develop a plan for a “seamless transition” in programming from infancy to prekindergarten that could include guaranteed admission for children coming from Educare to one of the UCCS elementary schools. These meetings, though intense, were very productive. Interview informants were very positive about the growing relationships between the two organizations as well as the groundwork for the partnership that had been achieved—“a real authentic partnership,” as one participant described it. By the end of the year, the working group had produced a document outlining the mission, vision, core values, and goals of the partnership, and work was continuing to identify strategies for each of the goals.

viii

One goal in the process of developing the model is to involve community members, particularly parents, but also Educare and UCCS teachers and other staff in the process. Participants in the development of the vision of the model and its core values and goals during the first year were primarily teachers and school leaders. However, a small group of parents from UCCS and from Educare did participate in a visioning process and providing feedback on the concept of an educational model that begins at birth. Other events were held to orient Educare parents to the UCCS schools, including a panel on kindergarten readiness, workshops on math and literacy approaches at the elementary schools, and a visit to NKO and Donoghue to meet with kindergarten teachers there. In addition to these and other specific activities to engage families, we also observed the emergence of a somewhat broader staff view of what family involvement in the educational model might mean for children in the first 5 years of life compared to older children. In embarking on the relationship with Ounce/Educare, participants at UEI and UCCS understood the importance of clear communication about roles, expectations, curricular philosophies, and the cultures of the two organizations and the importance of both contributing to the design of the model. This was, again, a time-consuming and intense process, but the result appears to be a strong foundation for the work ahead to develop the strategies and logistics of implementing the plan. Those who have been and will continue to be involved in the next stage of developing the plan are also aware of significant challenges ahead, including ensuring sufficient time and staffing to devote to the plan and that UCCS has the capacity in terms of facilities and staff to handle the expected increase in the number of children with special needs.

Conclusions This evaluation focused on assessing progress in four components of the UEI educational model supported by Kellogg and, additionally, the extent to which Kellogg funding helped to strengthen the UCCS network of schools. Although it was only the first year of what will be a long process, substantial progress was made. Notably, three cross-campus teams (Extended-Day, Student Support, and Transition teams) were established to improve communication and coordination across UCCS campuses for staff, students, and families; psychological first-aid training was provided to staff at all campuses to support the socio-emotional needs of children; and first steps were taken to develop a partnership with the Ounce to establish a birth-to-college model of seamless learning for children. In addition, there appears to be an increased awareness among UCCS administrators and staff about the resources of each other’s schools and more thinking about how what happens at one school influences the other schools in the network. Given the data collected in this process evaluation, the UCCS schools seem well positioned to build on their experiences from the 2009–2010 school year and extend their efforts and influences on student experiences even further in the years ahead.

ix

Introduction In the fall of 2009, funded by the Kellogg Foundation, the University of Chicago’s Urban Education Institute (UEI) contracted with Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago to begin a process study of the development and implementation of a scalable model of a high-performing school serving vulnerable children from birth to college. In this report, we begin with an overview of the model; its core assumptions, components, and activities; and key research questions for this initial phase of implementation. We then discuss results for each of the several components of the model and reflect on how these components are also contributing to and strengthening the network of four schools implementing the model.

Overview of UEI Educational Model Funded by the Kellogg Foundation, the planned model is a significant elaboration of the current design of the University of Chicago Charter School (UCCS), which is operated by UEI. The school currently consists of four campuses on Chicago’s South Side. There are two elementary schools—North Kenwood/Oakland (NKO), which was the first school to open in 1998, and Donoghue, which opened in 2005. Both schools serve children from prekindergarten through the fifth grade. The charter school also includes a sixth- through eighth-grade middle school, Carter G. Woodson (CGW), which opened in 2008, and a combined middle and high school, the University of Chicago Charter School Woodlawn (UCW), which began operations in 2006. Collectively, the four campuses of the charter school provide families with a prekindergarten-through-grade-12 pathway to college. The schools currently serve 1,500 children—who are admitted by lottery—and are expected to grow to serve more than 1,800 over the next 5 years. Almost all of the children attending the schools are African American, and approximately 84 percent are eligible for free- or reduced-price lunches. Most children entering the schools are academically similar to other children living in low-income and racially

Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago

1

segregated communities across Chicago when they enroll in the elementary or middle schools, meaning that they are behind their more advantaged peers. However, they have been found to outperform their counterparts in other Chicago schools when tested in third, sixth, seventh, and eighth grades.1 These results have been achieved through a belief that all children can be successful and a set of curricular strategies designed to accelerate children’s learning of content, concepts, and skills that allow them to make more than 1 year of progress in a single school year. As described in the concept paper, the design of the university charter schools includes the following elements: 

An instructional regime based upon high expectations for all students, regular interim assessments, data analyses, and interventions based on assessed skills and needs



Instructional practice made public for continuous improvement through observation and feedback



More instructional time, including extended day, Saturday, and summer school participation for students below academic benchmarks



The alignment of academic and social supports to reinforce student learning



Building on the assets of families and engaging them in their children’s academic and social development



Ongoing, on-site professional development to foster the development of teaching strategies to address student needs, as indicated by interim assessment data



Dedicated school principals and teacher-leaders who focus their time and resources on bringing about instructional improvements

A number of important aspects of and underlying assumptions about the design of the schools reflected in these elements should be noted. First is to recognize that multiple ecological systems, most notably, family, school, and community, affect children’s development and school success (e.g., Bronfenbrenner, 1986; Eamon, 2001; Rauh, Lamb-Parker, Garfinkel, Perry, & Andres, 2003). The deleterious effects of poverty on children’s physical well-being, social and emotional health, and academic performance have been well documented in the research literature (e.g., Brooks-Gunn, Duncan, & Aber, 1997; Eamon, 2001; Hill & Craft, 2003; Hoglund & Leadbeater, 2004; Lee & Burkam, 2002). At the same time, early childhood experiences are not the only factors that affect children’s development and future success. The family home environment and other child development settings during the first 3 years of life and the formal schooling, neighborhood, and other proximal settings that follow preschool also play a large part in their future achievement. This suggests that any intervention to improve children’s educational

1

UEI concept paper submitted to the Kellogg Foundation (2/25/2009) and personal communication with UEI staff, L. Wing and T. Zimmer, on 7/28/2009, 8/19/2009, and 10/5/2009. Additional detail on recent test results and the design of the model can be found in the concept paper. Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago

2

outcomes and prospects must happen at multiple levels and at multiple points in time—prenatal, infancy, preschool, middle childhood, preadolescence, and adolescence—although research indicates that interventions during the first 5 years of life are most effective in reducing the need for remediation programs later on. Another important assumption is that children’s school readiness and academic success require both cognitive and noncognitive (social and emotional) skills, which has also been established in the research literature (e.g., Heckman, 2006; McEvoy and Welker, 2000; NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, 2001, 2004; Raver and Knitzer, 2002).2 Another is the importance of aligning the prekindergarten learning goals, standards, curricular approaches, and methods of assessment with those of the rest of the elementary school. This effort and experience will be helpful in developing one of the key components of the model, which, as described below, will be to create a closer alignment between preschool programming for children at a community-based early care and education center and the prekindergarten and kindergarten programming at the charter schools. Moreover, the design of the schools also considers strong school leadership, family engagement, and the use of assessments to improve instruction and make it fundamental to their success. Although the documented achievement of students attending the university charter schools supports their current design, UEI staff and other stakeholders believe that they must do much more to fully execute and extend the design to both meet the needs of their current students and, over time, disseminate this model of urban education more broadly. For example, at the start of the initiative, two-thirds of the third graders at NKO and Donoghue met or exceeded state reading standards; UEI aspires to make it possible for all (100%) of the third graders to meet this benchmark. Toward that end, UEI plans a twofold strategy to implement a model that will include (1) strengthening the academic and social services at the two elementary schools and (2) extending the strategies of the schools outward to encompass children from birth to 3 years. The result will be a full demonstration of what high-quality schooling looks like for children ages 0 to 10. We briefly describe the several parts to their strategy for building the model below.

Birth-to-5 Programming First, to extend the model downward, UEI plans to create a “seamless transition” in programming from infancy to prekindergarten/kindergarten through a collaboration with the Ounce of Prevention Fund’s (the

2

A recently completed evaluation of the Children’s Behavioral Health Initiative in Palm Beach County (Spielberger, Haywood, Schuerman, Michels, & Richman, 2005) also found a complex and dynamic relationship between social adjustment and academic performance in that kindergarten children’s ratings of social and emotional competencies were significant predictors of children’s academic outcomes, but academic performance also predicted social and emotional adjustment. Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago

3

Ounce) Educare Center, a highly regarded early childhood organization serving infants from the age of 6 weeks and toddlers, as well as older 3-, 4-, and 5-year-old children. One goal of the collaboration is to provide Educare children with admission to one or both of the charter elementary schools to continue their education in a high-quality learning environment, if their parents choose to apply. Creating this seamless transition, however, will require recognizing the differences as well as the commonalities between Educare and the UCCS schools in terms of their principles, goals, and curricular approaches, as well as the standards and regulations to which they adhere. Another component of this design includes strengthening the prekindergarten program at NKO and Donoghue and continuing to provide, through grant funding (since the state only funds a half-day program), a full-day preschool program. In addition, there is interest in building partnerships with local hospitals and community development agencies to reach and provide parenting information to new parents and create a broader community of support for families of young children starting at birth. UEI and UCCS leaders also seek to improve the collection, integration, and analysis of longitudinal data on children’s academic and social development to track their children’s progress and inform instruction. UEI has expressed particular interest in measuring socio-emotional development, which is not currently being tracked the way academic progress is. To help meet this goal, UEI will examine available measures of socio-emotional competencies and resilience of preschool children—including those that are being used at the Educare center—and select one with sound psychometric properties.3

Extended-Day Programming A critical element of the UCCS model is more time for learning for struggling students. This aspect of the design is best exemplified by a comprehensive program of extended-day activities at Donoghue that are available before and after school, on Saturdays, and for 4 weeks during the summer. The extended-day programming at Donoghue not only aligns with the core academic instruction children receive during the regular school day but, based on the assumption that there are many pathways to literacy, it complements, extends, and reinforces their school-day learning by providing a variety of complementary experiences in the performing and theater arts, digital media, and mentoring. Although NKO and the middle and high schools provide afterschool tutoring and 3-week summer school for struggling students, these are not as intensive or enriching as those at Donoghue. Thus, a third component of the planned model consists of improving the alignment of the extended-day program and the core academic day by making it possible for students at all of the charter schools to have the same complementary learning opportunities provided

3

Although a number of preschool measures are available, psychologists and educators note that social and emotional behaviors are more variable at younger ages and so are challenging to assess reliably (Meisels 2007, Raver & Knitzer 2002). Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago

4

to students at Donoghue (e.g., by allowing students, where feasible, to attend Saturday and summer programming).

Supportive Social and Health Services A third goal of the model is to improve school-based academic and social supports for special-needs students and children who experience violence and other trauma in their lives. Presently the schools provide the approximately 15 percent of their students with special needs a full continuum of specialeducation and social work services, interventions, and adaptations to meet their needs. The two elementary schools also have staff dedicated to developing family and community engagement. The schools also provide additional services when students experience, or witness, or are affected by trauma, including community violence. However, the schools still depend on the Chicago Public School (CPS) system for additional support staff (e.g., nurses, psychologists, speech therapists, and other specialists), who typically are not coordinated or available on a regular basis. Thus, in the 2009–2010 school year, UEI implemented a cross-school team—the Student Support Team—composed of three additional support staff to assess and serve children in need in an ongoing, coherent, and dedicated manner. UEI also started working with the consulting arm of the Community Mental Health Council to build the capacity of teachers and other staff to respond to children’s basic and traumatic challenges.

Innovation Incubator Finally, the model includes incentives and supports for teachers to continually improve their practices through an innovation incubator. Although teachers continually work to improve their practices and are given opportunities to collaborate and solve problems jointly with colleagues, UEI decided to make this a more deliberate and vigorous process and establish “a culture of innovation” through a collaboration with the Institute of Design at the Illinois Institute of Technology. The innovation incubator process brings together cross-school and cross-functional teams of teachers to creatively address problems facing the schools. Proposals developed by these teams of teachers are selected each year based upon the connection to the key question, originality, potential for building relationships across campuses, and potential for catalyzing sustained work. Teachers who participate in the innovation incubator receive stipends, devoting 2 days to 2 weeks to the work, depending on the scope of the proposal. This process began in the summer of 2009 and resulted in the creation of a Transition Team based on a perceived need to more intentionally support children moving from elementary to middle school.

Project Outcomes and Research Questions As outlined above, the birth-to-college model is multifaceted and is expected to take a number of years to fully develop and establish. Six major outcomes at the heart of the effort are as follows:


5

1. The majority of children from Educare will annually progress to kindergarten at one of the UCCS campuses and remain in our system. 2. All (100%) of the students from the Educare and charter schools prekindergarten programs will demonstrate reading readiness by the end of prekindergarten and will continue to meet reading benchmarks at every grade, outperforming other CPS students in reading and math. 3. All (100%) of in-need students will receive extended learning opportunities and services from school-based and cross-school teams of social workers, psychologists, nurses, and specialeducation teachers. 4. One-fourth (25%) of the teachers in the charter elementary schools will participate in an innovation incubator with each producing a tool, protocol, or product. 5. The charter schools will have a positive impact on the quality of life in the communities where they are located, as demonstrated by parent surveys. 6. The 0-to-10 model of schooling will be documented, disseminated, and discussed among urban educators across the nation.4 The first 18 months of the initiative, which began in June 2009, focused on the development and implementation of the model. For this initial phase, the outside evaluation team was asked to describe the key components and activities of the model and their expected outcomes. They then observed the early evolution of the model to assess the extent to which UEI, Educare, and other stakeholders were able to collaborate and implement the model elements as proposed and what changes, if any, were made in the proposed design. In addition, UEI and Kellogg identified five key questions to guide the first phase of evaluation activities as shown in Table 1. These questions are also listed in Table A-1 in the Appendix along with additional questions that might be addressed in future evaluation activities. Table 1. Research Questions for UEI Birth-to-College Educational Model Model Component Academic Progress Extended-day Program Supportive Services Community Involvement Charter School Network

4

UEI/Kellogg Questions for Year 1 To what extent are students reading at or above grade level from kindergarten through fifth grade? To what degree did students at the charter schools receive extended learning time through the extended-day, weekend, and summer school program? To what extent did students receive supportive services through the cross-campus team and/or other school-based supports? How effectively were community members [including parents] involved in the design of the birth-to-10 model? In what ways did this project strengthen the network of the University of Chicago schools?

UEI concept paper submitted to the Kellogg Foundation (2/25/2009).


6

Methods The overall goal of the evaluation was to examine the process of implementation, including relationships among stakeholders in the initiative—UEI staff and UCCS administrators and teachers; Educare staff; and parents of children attending the charter schools and Educare. The evaluation examines how well each component is working as it is implemented and what areas might need modification. The research team examined the context for implementation and the barriers and facilitators to implementation, which might include differing views of appropriate curricula among collaborating agencies, difficulties on the part of parents in engaging in their children’s learning, or neighborhood safety. Primary methods of data collection for the first year of the evaluation included observation of selected meetings attended by UEI staff, program staff and school directors of the charter schools, and parents; review of meeting minutes, participation records, and other secondary information; and key informant interviews. Review and Analysis of Documents and Student Records: We examined documents pertinent to the creation and implementation of the model, including written goals and planned activities, school policies and procedures, planning meeting minutes, and other materials describing efforts to engage parents and other community members in the design of the model. (In time, this information along with conversations with UEI and other initiative developers will be used to create a logic model to guide future evaluation.) In addition, we also reviewed results from the Strategic Teaching and Evaluation of Progress (STEP) assessment of reading performance, records of participation in extended-day activities, and receipt of support services. Meeting Observations: We determined the meetings and events to be observed in collaboration with UEI staff. We participated in selected meetings of staff involved in the implementation of the SST, the Transition Team, the Extended-Day Program Team, and one of the community meetings with parents of elementary school students. We also visited classrooms at one of the elementary schools. Key Informant Interviews: Near the end of the school year, in May and June, we conducted semistructured, in-person interviews with 20 UEI and UCCS staff members involved in implementing the initiative. The positions of those we interviewed are listed in Appendix B. The interviews were intended to clarify their understanding of the initiative goals and practices, and to obtain their perspectives on the design, feasibility, and quality of implementation. These interviews will help us define the key components of successful programs and specify important outcomes that should be assessed in a fuller, longer-term evaluation.


7


8

Year-1 Findings In this section, we begin with the results of an early analysis of school records on students’ academic progress and participation in extended learning opportunities to support their academic progress and social development. We then turn to findings based on our analysis of key informant interviews and secondary data on the implementation of key components of the initiative—the Student Support Team (SST) ,the Transition Team, enhancement of extended learning opportunities, and a collaboration with a local early childhood program, parents, and other community partners to extend the current UCCS model to birth. In each of these sections, we include findings related to the contributions of these components to strengthening the network of charter schools.

Academic Progress One of the research questions for the first year of the evaluation was the following: To what extent are students reading at or above grade level from kindergarten through fifth grade? Results from STEP assessments at the two UCCS elementary schools reveal an increase in the percentage of students reading at or above grade level (as measured by meeting or exceeding the June benchmark for the STEP assessment). At the end of the 2009–2010 school year, 66 percent of students at Donoghue met or exceeded the benchmark compared to 64 percent of students the previous school year. At NKO, the increase went from 75 percent of students meeting or exceeding the benchmark in 2008–2009 to 84 percent of students in 2009–2010. Figure 1 below shows the percentage of students at Donoghue reading at or above grade level in each grade. The blue bars represent students in their 2009–2010 grade. The red bars show the percentage of those same students who met or exceeded the benchmark at the end of the previous school year. Fewer third-, fourth-, and fifth- grade students met the benchmark as compared to students in kindergarten, first, and second grade in 2009–2010. However, looking at the percentage of students by cohort, we can see


9

that the biggest drop off in reading at or above grade level in 2009–2010 occurred in the cohort of students who were in kindergarten in 2008–2009 and in first grade in 2009–2010. The cohort of secondand fifth-grade students in 2009–2010 showed slight increases in the percentage of students reading at grade level compared to 2008–2009.

Figure 1. STEP Level Performance by Cohort–Donoghue Elementary School

Percent of Students Meeting/Exceeding June Benchmark

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 2008-2009 40%

2009-2010

30% 20% 10% 0% K

1

2

3

4

5

Overall

Grade in 2009-2010

Figure 2 displays a different pattern for students at NKO Elementary. Overall, compared to Donoghue, more students are reading at or above grade level as measured by meeting or exceeding the June STEP level benchmark. In addition, the percentage of students in each grade reading at or above grade level is at least 70 percent. For students in the kindergarten, grade-2, grade-4, and grade-5 cohorts in 2009–2010, more students were at or above grade level in 2009–2010 than in the previous grade in 2008–2009. Fewer students in first and third grades in 2009–2010 were reading at or above grade level than in the previous grade in 2007–2008.


10

Percent of Students Meeting/Exceeding June Benchmark

Figure 2. STEP Level Performance by Cohort–NKO Elementary School

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 2008-2009

40%

2009-2010

30% 20% 10% 0% K

1

2

3

4

5

Overall

Grade in 2009-2010

Results from the Illinois Standards Achievement Test (ISAT) test (given only to students in grades 3 and above) tell a similar story for most cohorts of students at the elementary level. Figure 3 shows that students at Donoghue either slightly decreased or slightly increased in terms of how many met or exceeded standards in fourth and fifth grade in 2009–2010. Similar to the STEP results presented above, students at NKO displayed higher levels of reading performance, and both fourth and fifth graders in 2009–2010 showed an increase in the percentage meeting or exceeding the benchmark as compared to the previous grade. Notably, the percentage of students reading at or above grade level increased by 18 percentage points when compared to their own fourth-grade performance.


11

Figure 3. ISAT Performance in Reading by Cohort

Percent of Students Meeting/Exceeding Benchmark

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40%

2009

30%

2010

20% 10% 0% 4th

5th DON

4th

5th NKO

School/Grade in 2009-2010

Overall, a higher percentage of students at both Donoghue and NKO met or exceeded the ISAT gradelevel standard in mathematics. More than 80 percent of students in fourth and fifth grade were at or above grade level for math. The fourth graders in 2009–2010 at both schools demonstrated consistent performance compared to their third-grade results. However, more fifth graders at Donoghue met or exceeded the standard as compared to their fourth-grade performance, and slightly fewer fifth-grade students at NKO met or exceeded the standard compared to last year. Figure 4 displays the results.


12

Percent of Students Meeting/Exceeding Benchmark

Figure 4. ISAT Performance in Math by Cohort 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40%

2009

30%

2010

20% 10% 0% 4th

5th

4th

DON

5th NKO

School/Grade in 2009-2010

Participation in Extended Learning Opportunities Another key research question was the extent to which students received extended learning time through extended-day, weekend, and summer school programs and other social and academic supports during the 2009–2010 year. In this section, we provide data relevant to participation in extended learning time opportunities that were supported by Kellogg funding. Additional information on receipt of social support services through the new cross-campus Student Support Team and/or other school-based resources will be described in the section on the SST. Across all four campuses, students were provided with a variety of opportunities to receive additional learning time during the 2009–2010 school year. Though not funded by Kellogg, the extended learning time model at Donoghue is the most developed. Additional programs to support student learning and development occur before school, after school, on Saturdays, in the summer, and during the school day. The multiple groupings of students in the variety of programs combined with an increased number of adults providing services allow students to enjoy lower teacher-student ratios and to better receive individualized support. At Donoghue, almost all students participate in one of the many programs that


13

extends the learning day and increases the intensity of attention students receive from teachers. Because none of the funding for these programs comes from the Kellogg Foundation, the bar for Donoghue in Figure 3 is 0 percent. At the other three campuses, the extended learning time model is growing as a result of Kellogg support. At NKO Elementary, almost a third of students receive additional learning time through the extended-day program that takes place daily after school. At CGW Middle School, 14 percent of students participate in the Black Star afterschool tutoring program, and 27 percent of students participate in summer school. Finally, at the UCW High School, more than half of students participate in tutoring, freshman study hall, ACT prep, or tutored middle school students, 25 percent of students attend summer school, and 17 percent of students attend afterschool credit recovery programs (for ninth- and eleventh-graders). The results are displayed in Figure 5 below.

Figure 5. Participation in Extended Learning Opportunities by School 100% 80% 60%

52%

40%

31%

25% 17%

14%

20% 0%

27%

0% All

Ext Day

DON (379)

NKO (319)

Black Star

Summer School

Tutoring, etc.

CGW (350)

Summer School

Credit Recovery

UCW (523)

School / Program Note: These numbers represent only students who receive extended learning time as a result of Kellogg funding. At Donoghue, almost all students receive some kind of extended learning time. At the three other campuses, more students than are displayed in Figure 5 receive extended learning time, although not at the level of Donoghue programming.


14

Enhancing Extended Learning Time As indicated above, one of the goals for the first year of the Kellogg initiative was to increase the number of students who participate in extended learning time—especially students who are struggling academically—whether before, during, or after the traditional school day. Another goal was to learn more about “best practices” for extended-day programming and work to align or coordinate approaches to extended learning time across the four schools, recognizing that there naturally would be variations in program offerings and structure depending on the needs, interests, and development of the students. One part of this approach was to increase connections between the regular school day course of instruction and what was provided during the extended learning time. In this regard, there was particular interest in enhancing the range and structure of afterschool offerings at NKO, using the array of extended learning opportunities provided at Donoghue as a model. Previously, extended-day programming at NKO consisted primarily of tutoring provided by City Year to fewer than 50 children and the EXTRA program, which consists of a series of fee-based, discretionary enrichment afterschool activities that generally cater to parents who wanted these activities and could afford the costs. To implement these goals, a working group of staff was formed and met monthly or bimonthly during the school year. Regular members of the group were the two community and family engagement directors from NKO and Donoghue, the extended-day coordinator at UCW, the academic and social support services coordinator from CGW, and the UEI director of schools and community engagement. Other participants during the year included the UEI project manager, UEI director of strategic initiatives, the NKO afterschool enrichment coordinator, the SST counselor, the UCW director of academic and social support services, the Power School data system developer, the UEI design director, and a member of the Chapin Hall research team. Ten group meetings, each lasting approximately 2 hours, were held during the regular academic year between October and June. The meetings were usually facilitated by the NKO family and community engagement director with the active assistance of the UEI director of schools and community engagement; however, different staff members at the four schools took turns hosting each meeting. Additional communication in person and by email and subcommittee meetings occurred in between these meetings. In our observations of meetings, review of meeting minutes and other documents, and interviews with key informants, we were especially interested in perspectives on the progress made during the past year toward achieving the initiative’s goals, challenges and issues experienced, unanticipated benefits of the initiative, how activities to enhance extended learning time might support the “network” of charter Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago

15

schools, and recommendations for guiding/improving work in the coming year. As discussed below, we were also interested in the level of participation in the cross-campus meetings, which took time from other day-to-day responsibilities, and whether these meetings were having a collective impact on the four campuses as a network.

Activities and Progress toward Goals The cross-campus group addressed several topics in-depth during the year, which fell into four broad, but interrelated, areas. These were improving the quality and targeting of programming, developing a data system to track program participation and outcomes, solving transportation and other logistical problems, and implementing professional development for program staff. Implementing High-Quality Programming Targeted to Student Needs Efforts in this area included defining and describing different approaches to extended-day programming; becoming familiar with and categorizing extended-day programming offered at the four campuses; exploring ways to align extended-day programming with instruction during the regular school day (e.g., by having staff who overlap regular school-day and extended-day hours, or encouraging regular teachers to provide enrichment classes after school); reviewing the state’s learning standards, particularly in the area of social-emotional learning, and developing ways to connect extended learning opportunities to these standards; and exploring how and whether to integrate the Tribes character education curriculum5 used during the regular school day by teachers into extended-day activities. To inform these discussions, part way through the year, a subcommittee of the larger group was created to research “best practices” in extended-day programming. Although the bulk of these conversations focused on students who were struggling academically or socially, mention was also made of students who excelled academically but were not otherwise engaged in the school. The number, variety, and quality of extended learning time opportunities varied in the types of programs provided by the four campuses, whether or not parent fees supported them, as did the extent to which struggling students were targeted and participated, and—as shown in Figure 5 above—the number of students who participated. This was not surprising given the wide age span of children served by the four campuses and the relatively short time three of the schools had been in operation. Several informants did remark on the growth in extended-day activities for middle and high school students at UCW over the previous year. One who described UCW as providing students with “a whole different range of activities” after school reported that the school had conducted surveys with incoming

5

The Tribes program emphasizes cooperative learning activities and requires reflection and positive peer and teacher interactions. Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago

16

students so that programs could respond to their interests. Another informant also commented on student input into the offerings and described the variety of activities available to both middle and high school students at UCW as “comprehensive,” noting that athletic programs—both intramural and competitive sports—had “probably doubled in size” since the previous year. Importantly, a UCW staff member noted the recent addition of technology, music, theater, dance, and art programs to the menu of offerings at her school had helped to attract a group of middle school students “who had not been engaged in activities before, students who are really high achievers and otherwise don’t have a whole lot else connecting them to the school and they’ve probably always been good at school.”6 A UCW administrator also noted that, in addition to expanding the range of programs for students, the school has also strengthened the connection between what’s being offered and specifically students’ strengths and/or areas of improvement. We have tried to be a bit more targeted.… If we’re going to have all of our arrows pointing in the same direction, then the things that happen after school should be directly correlated to the things that they’re going to need to do well during the school day. As an example, the extended-day coordinator at the high school reported on a new study hall option for ninth graders—supported by Kellogg funding—to help students develop personal and social skills related to learning: …One of the biggest things that we’ve done differently this year [is] we started the freshman study hall where we utilize our cafeteria as the meeting ground, and then have ninth-grade teachers along with the ninth-grade counselor do preventive measures.… We’re giving them habits necessary for them to tackle high school. So they meet once a week here every Monday where they’re going to get support from their teachers and the counselor supervising what they’re doing, and then he’s able to coordinate with their teachers. At the same time, there was general recognition that except for Donoghue, all of the other schools were still working to develop their programs to achieve desired levels of participation. The goal to develop additional kinds of programming, in addition to tutoring, targeted at students who are struggling academically or socially and would not require parent fees at NKO was not realized during the past year. Although disappointing to some of our informants, they also acknowledged the difficulty in transforming EXTRA into a true extended-day program in such a short period of time. In our view as well, the goal to change the program so substantially would require more time to develop strategies for change, for example, to shift and, if necessary, hire and train staff and communicate changes to parents,

6

Again, it should be noted that many of these program are funded through other sources, while Kellogg funds primarily support credit recovery classes and tutoring at UCW. Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago

17

who had come to rely on the fee-based program. Although Kellogg funding supported the hiring of the new family and community engagement director at NKO, he was new to the school in 2009 and, everyone agreed, “had a lot on his plate” just getting familiar with the school, the existing staff, the programs, and the children and their families. Parents also had assumed that the program would continue as it had been. According to one informant, Changing the program is somewhat complicated because EXTRA was already in place and has been in place for years, and it has a director, and a heavy kind of administrative structure compared to what it probably needs. But it’s been at the school for a number of years. It’s totally self-sustained.… [To change the program,] you can’t do it overnight.… [And] parents would still expect to have those enrichment opportunities. On the other hand, members of the cross-campus group well accepted the general concept or vision of an extended day or extended learning time activities that could occur any time of the day as well as on weekends and during the summer. As the facilitator of the group, the NKO family and community engagement director explained, It’s really trying to integrate what happens during the day with afterschool [and make it a] seamless transition. It’s not so much that you’re here in school during the day and now you’re about to do the afterschool program,…but the two experiences enhance each other.… It’s helping the students develop, but it’s also really helping them to be better students in school. So we’re seeking to make that more explicit both when we explain the extended day and interpret it to people, and in the things that we offer and the policy that we have about participating. In terms of actual programming content, an administrator at NKO noted that they hoped to develop a program that would include support for both academic and social needs, based on the Donoghue model: So [we would continue] to offer tutoring, homework help, and support with trained staff as we did this year in Balanced Literacy and Everyday Math to support the homework. We want it to be an extension of the school day that’s going to support academic learning and social development—so running girls groups and boys groups around social development, mentoring programming, as well as having the debate team, math league, science club, literary guild, all of those academic kind of clubs and supports as well. In addition to that, it’s also about expanding the number of students that we service in the day to make sure that we’re especially targeting that needed accelerated learning time. She also maintained that there still was a “place for enrichment along with the academic supports, so maintaining offering foreign languages, maintaining chess club, maintaining instruments, and tapping into other modalities of learning and helping students see themselves shine in those lights as well.” Implementing this model at NKO, again, staff at the school believed would take time. According to the school administrator, “The model has been able to be fleshed out a little bit more on the Donoghue front,


18

and we’re working to get there. But that’s part of the work that we’re doing this year and moving forward, making sure that we can serve as many students as possible and not put a cap on that number.” Particular challenges that were anticipated included informing parents and program staff about the changes. Although parents had been told the approach to extended day would be different next year, the transition would not be easy: I wouldn’t call it easy for two reasons. There is what parents are being used to [having offered]. ‘I’m choosing this instead of the Y. So I want karate. I want all of the fun things, and the tennis lessons.’ So having to frontload parents now with a new rationale for what the program is, which is why the programming is changing. In addition, this will be an adjustment for the program coordinator and staff, who have been implementing the program for several years. It was good programming, but it’s not in alignment with what the overall vision is to support academic and social growth. When asked about parent involvement in developing the program, staff at NKO noted that they would like to involve parents at some level, but that it will be tricky: “Part of the trick is we’re informing them on our philosophy.... But at the same time, it is valuable always to partner with parents and get their thinking about how they can support it or help us in promoting it, helping their children understand how important it is for them to be hooked into certain things.” Over time, as the cross-campus group meetings continued, strategies for change remained to be articulated more clearly. At the same time, we also observed a deepening understanding of the concept. For example, staff at CGW began talking about ways to expand and target their extended learning opportunities in the future. According to one informant, This year we kind of just followed the model that NKO had.… It was a paid afterschool program that [the parents applied for]. [The offerings] were mostly around technology-based classes.… And we have about 40 students in those. However, at year’s end, staff were thinking that we could open it up to more students and really make it more focused on what kids [need and] are interested in. In addition, as indicated above, there was a strong belief that extended-day learning opportunities should encompass all areas of children’s development, not just the traditional academic areas, and that social and physical enrichment can also have a positive impact on academic progress. The extended-day coordinator at UCW, for example, suggested that opportunities to develop social skills and self-regulation are especially important for middle and high school students: One of the biggest things is that we’re making a shift over to the Tribes system, which they’re using over at the younger schools [during the day].… [But] as far as the extended-day structure,…the main shift, when you start to get into middle school, you start to get more socialization programs, and with the high schoolers, you start to look at identifying careers and structuring programs around them.


19

Developing a Data System for Planning and Tracking Participation and Outcomes Increasing the collection of data on student participation is viewed as an integral part of the effort to improve the quality of extended learning time opportunities and measure their impacts on children. Indeed, the effort to define goals for extended-day programming and expected outcomes for children, and then to categorize current offerings into areas of development likely to be affected, was driven in part by the effort to develop a cross-campus data system using software called Power School. Observations of selected cross-campus meetings, review of meeting minutes, and individual interviews indicated that the four campuses vary in their abilities to track extended-day and other supportive services for students and in their use of data to identify the students who might benefit from extra support. In this respect, UCW appears to be somewhat ahead of the other schools, in that the Power School system was mentioned as one source of information for identifying students with academic needs for extended-day activities. However, most participants on the cross-campus team understand the value of this kind of information not only for tracking students but also for planning programs. At CGW, for example, most of the documentation on students participating in extended learning activities comprises quarterly attendance lists for children in tutoring or enrichment activities. “We’ve been trying to get a system together,” one staff member acknowledged. “[But now] what I have is more lists. So I have the list of kids that go to tutoring, a list of kids that are going to summer school (and that’s also funded by Kellogg).… I also have a list of [kids] in social work groups, anger management, my girls’ group. I have lists of kids that are failing. They get a weekly check-in.” Considerable progress was made in defining categories of programs to track (e.g., academic, physical, social, and identity development) and how often students should be tracked (e.g., weekly, monthly, quarterly). One informant reported, The other thing we talked about in some of our meetings this year is to begin to actually measure and document how our students are doing and tie in things like behavior issues, discipline, and a whole host of things. We want the data stream to be wide enough so that we think about students and what they need. For example, as we look at data around discipline, we might be able to say, “Well, these 50 kids had been referred multiple times with these kinds of things.... The data shows they’re having these kind of issues.” We really want to be data-driven, too, on how we develop the kinds of programs that the students really need based on the information we have about them. In addition, a technical specialist, the Power School database system administrator, participated in a number of the monthly meetings and met individually with staff at each school to discuss possible designs of the system. However, at the end of the school year, a final design for the system—one that would work for all four of the schools—was yet to be realized. As the NKO family and community engagement director reflected on the process, he noted the challenge in coming up with a single system: Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago

20

Part of the issue was us wanting to standardize—not to make a cookie-cutter approach to the program but really thinking through as a network, “What do we want extended-day to do, and how could we do enough things that are similar so we have the same philosophy and the same basic approach to it, but also acknowledge that the schools have individual needs?” The extended-day coordinator at UCW expressed a similar view: [Extended-day] looks different at all of the schools. They may have programs that go on during the day. We do until 5:00 p.m. a program that has a range of different programming styles and types. But we all meet to coordinate.… We’re working on identifying how we structure, how we use our internal day system to keep track of what everybody is doing and create this “best practices” system across the board. Solving Transportation and Space Problems Discussions in this area focused on creating a more cost-effective way to provide facilities and transportation for extended-day activities, especially given expected cuts in CPS funding. This is a particular need of UCW, which shares space with an elementary school that is not part of the UCCS network and does not have a large gym or physical facilities on its campus for some of its sports and recreational activities. As one informant explained, “They have to do a lot of their programming off site. So, for places that were further than, you know, like a walking distance from school, which was part of the sites we used, they had to call in a bus service.” As a result, the cost of bus service for high school students who had to leave the campus for certain kinds of physical education, sports, and other recreational activities has been very high, estimated by one informant to be four times that of the other campuses. Thus, the monthly group spent a portion of nearly all of its meetings talking about and investigating the costs of various alternatives to the current system of paying for bus service, including purchasing or leasing vans of different sizes and hiring part-time drivers (including parents with appropriate qualifications). The group also surveyed staff of the four campuses to be more informed about their various transportation requirements during and after the regular school day. By the end of the year, the issue had not been resolved. Although the group was much more informed about the costs of different options, it appeared that uncertainty about funding from CPS was making it difficult to move ahead. The tentative plan was for UCW, because it had the most need for transportation, to lease a large bus or two buses, and all four schools would share in the cost of insurance for operating the buses. The other three campuses could then arrange with UCW to use the bus when they had a need. Improving Staff Skills through Professional Development Efforts in this area are tied into the exploration of “best practices” and work on aligning programs with social-emotional learning standards. They also included reviewing staffing structures and job descriptions Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago

21

for extended-day staff with an eye toward aligning the descriptions for program directors/supervisors and frontline staff across the four schools. A subcommittee of the group also developed and implemented a survey of extended-day staff to develop a plan for professional development, which would be used to develop common training needs across the four campuses that would begin in the fall. The group also decided to introduce the Tribes curriculum to the staff at the start of the new school year with training provided by the coordinator of academic and social support at CGW.

Contributions to Network Building Based on our observations of selected meetings and a review of detailed meeting minutes provided by the facilitator, we found a high level of investment and commitment by the participants. All four schools were consistently represented, participants prepared materials to share at meetings, and the discussions in the meetings were in-depth with increasing input from everyone in the group. There was a sense that although these meetings might have started as a way to share information and coordinate resources, over time they became a deeper collaboration of professionals working to improve the quality of their services and to solve logistical challenges. People were committed, attentive, and respectful. Our interviews with other participants in the cross-campus meetings reinforced this perception. In the words of one member of the group, People have been pretty committed. We’ve never had any of our schools not represented. People come on time. They’re there the whole time, [and have] a high level of engagement during the meetings. People are doing things in between meetings to prepare for them. People…come prepared to [participate]. People can see the benefit of it. It’s making everybody rethink, “What are we really doing?” And then people on their own are collaborating with their colleagues in different schools. People are visiting [each other’s schools]. So being familiar with each other’s campus and what people are doing, that’s being heightened by us networking together. Another group member recalled, “We’ve talked a lot about creating kind of a collective set of partners, kind of expectations around staffing. We’ve also spent a lot of time creating socio-emotional standards and mapping our Tribes over onto that.” However, in his view, perhaps the “most successful [part of the process] has just been the opportunity to collaborate and learn from what the other campus is doing, ’cause it’s all new.” A third informant reported that the group process went farther than she had anticipated at the beginning of the school year: It did create this set of people who meet at all the schools and share knowledge and come up with things. And actually it made at least our thinking about these programs deeper—and what we need to


22

do together. And it has created colleagueship, the idea there should be professional development across the schools. So that’s actually really great. In addition to the building of relationships and collaboration across the four campuses, the group also ended the year with a sense of greater knowledge, more clarity of direction for future work together, and energy to continue the work. The group appeared committed to establishing a vision for extended-day programming that cut across the four schools, even though it might be implemented somewhat differently at each one, and to creating a logic model that might represent the goals, activities, and outcomes of programming at all four campuses. Group members recognized the value of data for planning and measuring impact, and were committed to continue to work on a shared data system. Group members had the sense of being professionals who had resources and information to share with one another and a commitment to strengthening the program across UCCS not just at their individual schools. Finally, those we interviewed who participated in the extended-day meetings expressed little concern about devoting time each month to meeting. When we asked the facilitator if he found his role challenging, he acknowledged the time it took but said, “It’s something I want to be involved in.” He also explained that, over time, “as we began to meet it built momentum around certain things. It was easier to continue being the point person and coordinate that. At the beginning, I just wasn’t sure…but now it’s taken a life of its own.”

Summary and Recommendations During the first year of the cross-campus team, progress was made in understanding both the concept of a comprehensive extended learning time program targeted to students’ needs and interests and some of the challenges involved in trying to create a cross-campus program and coordinated data system. Work remains to articulate the cross-campus vision, goals, and strategies of the program and how to address some of the data, financial, and logistical challenges. One of the most significant outgrowths of the work of the cross-campus team of extended learning staff was the formation of a cohesive group across the four UCCS campuses. The group showed real commitment to and participation in the process to improve the variety and quality of, and access to, extended learning opportunities. Although the UEI director of schools and community engagement put forth a set of goals to begin implementing the initiative and guide the work of the cross-campus group, we sensed a higher degree of understanding and ownership of the goals within the group at the end of the year. The group’s facilitator endeavored to clearly document the discussion and decisions made at each of the meetings. Participants from the four campuses took turns hosting the meetings, which helped to distribute some of the responsibilities for the meetings as well as give group members a chance to visit each other’s schools.


23

At the end of the year, there was much greater clarity about what the extended-day program might look like across the schools, as well as a plan for future work. Given that several staff members were new in the 2009–2010 year and that three of the four campuses have only been operating for 2 to 5 years, this seems like important progress. Based on our interviews and analysis of meeting minutes, it appears that the group took substantial steps toward developing goals and a vision for extended learning time at the four campuses. Decisions made to align job descriptions, develop common training, and share costs of transportation (i.e., costs of insurance if UCW purchases or leases a bus) all suggest a network with stronger ties than it had at the beginning of the year. Again, respondents felt positive about the work they had done but particularly about the group process—despite the additional time that it involved. There is a clear intention to continue the cross-campus monthly meetings, and we support this as a critical step in the process. Consideration might be given to rotating the group facilitation role so other staff members have the experience of facilitating the group and documenting the meetings, or perhaps having two people share responsibilities for leading and documenting the work of the group. Again, as mentioned earlier, none of the participants suggested changes in frequency of meetings or the leadership structure. The meeting facilitator noted that they still regard the UEI director of school and community engagement “as the overall director” of the initiative, and they want to make sure their work is “in line with her thinking, too.” With regard to changing the approach to extended learning opportunities at some of the schools, it would be useful to examine the developmental value of some of the fee-based programs that are currently in place at NKO and CGW before eliminating them. There may be a place for some of these programs in a comprehensive system of supports for students, especially if they are accessible to a broader range of students at low or no cost. Chess, social skills development, and performing and visual arts also contribute to identity development and social skills that can support academic progress, although there will always be a need and place for tutoring and homework support, extra opportunities to read and practice math skills, and so forth. We also recommend strengthening connections between the extended-day staff and the SST and other social support staff. Although not an explicit goal of the first year’s work, most participants expressed the view that the extended-day program is just part of a menu of social and academic supports provided to students. This suggests that, as the goals and strategies of the SST and extended-day leaders become clarified, the two groups might overlap more in the future and, in addition, that social workers and other social support staff at the individual campuses interact more with extended-day staff and programming beyond providing referrals to one another. This kind of connection might also be important in the next phase of developing a data system for planning and measuring outcomes in that it would be


24

useful to track the range of school-based supports individual students receive.


25

Enhancing Social Supports: The Student Support Team The Student Support Team is one way in which Kellogg funding has been used to strengthen the network of charter schools during the 2009–2010 school year. Three positions were created and filled in October 2010 as the foundation of this team: a school nurse (housed at NKO), a school psychologist (housed at Donoghue), and a clinical counselor (housed at CGW). Along with the UEI director of schools and community engagement, a UEI project manager, and the UEI director of design, the members of the SST met weekly for 2 hours throughout the course of the school year to facilitate communication across campuses, to develop the vision and goal of the SST, and to complete a variety of additional activities detailed below. A member of the Chapin Hall research team also attended the weekly SST meetings from December to June. During these meetings (led by the UEI director of schools and community engagement), participants shared information with the group about individual news, items of interest at the home-base school, and items of interest across all schools. Meeting notes were taken on chart paper at every meeting, then typed up and shared with the group before the next meeting. A “Google Docs” website was also created to provide a shared master “to-do” list of items identified during SST meetings. Responsibilities for “to-do” items were shared across the group. Throughout the school year, other participants attended the weekly meetings, including members of a newly formed Transition Team (one representative from each campus working to support a smooth transition for students moving from fifth to sixth grade and entering a new school), an OB/GYN physician and professor from the University of Chicago Medical Center (to talk about appropriate sex education), a University of Chicago doctoral student doing research on the Tribes character education program, and the social workers from all four campuses (to discuss psychological first-aid training and follow-up training plans as well as coordination at each school with the SST). Primarily, the three members of the SST fill distinct individual roles in their home school as well as across the four campuses. Additionally, SST members act as a team to develop resources and materials, establish consistent protocols and procedures, and share learning across the network.

Individual Roles and Activities School Nurse The school nurse described her role in terms of both her school-based (NKO) role, her role as a resource for other schools, her role on the SST, and her role as liaison with the four CPS nurses assigned to each of the four UCCS schools. (Each CPS nurse is assigned five or six schools to visit weekly, focusing primarily on compliance.) The school nurse described her role as follows: Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago

26

I’m the school nurse for all four campuses. I work in conjunction with the CPS nurses because each school still has a CPS nurse that works for CPS, but my role is more to establish protocols that have not previously been there, get educational programs—health educational programs—off the ground, bring in community resources for health education, do things related to health that have not been done—that the CPS nurses can’t do, that’s not in their job description, all of those kind of things…. And I also do see the students at NKO and I act as a resource for the other schools. So when they call, if there are some health challenges or children that need to be seen or some incident happened and they’re not sure what to do, they give me a call. Also I’m on the Student Support Team in conjunction with a psychologist and a counselor. A review of the nurse’s activities over the course of the year reveals five areas of impact: (1) Policy and Protocol Development: The nurse developed a wellness policy for UCCS and an athletic policy for UCW. She established protocols for contact with the nurse for non-nursing personnel, developed a clinic recording sheet for use at all campuses, developed and implemented first-aid protocols at all campuses, established centralized data and information about the percentage of students at each campus affected with disease diagnoses, and developed an all-campus handbook on health and first aid. (2) Developing Community Partnerships and Utilizing External Resources: The nurse attended University of Chicago H1N1 advisory team meetings weekly, established a relationship with the mobile van to facilitate medical compliance, successfully applied for a grant for Foodplay Productions (a live theater show that makes nutrition and health come alive) to perform for 305 students at NKO, organized an asthma van meeting to establish relationships with all campuses (beginning with NKO; other schools to come), and organized a hygiene class through the mobile van that was delivered to 30 fifth graders and 40 sixth and seventh graders. (3) Training for Students and Teachers: The nurse provided training to 33 UCCS school staff members in CPR (12 at CGW, 6 at Donoghue, 23 at NKO), 6 UCCS school staff in first aid at Donoghue, 60 students in first-aid protocols at a fifth-grade retreat. She assisted assisting with a sex education class at UCW for 50 sixth graders and 70 ninth graders and conducted asthma training for staff at all campuses. (4) Parent Communication and Consultation: The nurse communicated with parents by writing letters to them about medical compliance issues such as health visits and vaccinations; potentially infectious problems such as bedbugs, scarlet fever, and ringworm; and conducting a parent conference for a student with newly diagnosed hypertension. (5) Clinical Practice: The nurse provided direct services mainly at NKO, where she saw an average of six to eight students per day for illness.


27

School Psychologist Like the school nurse, the school psychologist spends time acting as a liaison with the CPS psychologists who also provide support services to students. Because of her unique role as school psychologist for the UCCS schools, she has more flexibility and time than CPS psychologists. She told us that CPS psychologists typically work solely with the children who are either identified as Special Ed or possibly coming into Special Ed. Whereas, I don’t just do that. I…work as a preventative model, like before students get to that point where they need to be.… [Coordinating with CPS] hasn’t been a problem thus far, because they have a certain case load that they have as far as services that they have to fulfill with different students.… This time of year [end of the school year] things get bogged down for them because it gets really busy. Because prior to coming here, I was a CPS psychologist, so I’m aware of how the two dynamics intertwine. So it hasn’t been difficult maneuvering or coordinating with them because I…know the ropes and how it goes. Although she began the year helping fifth graders at Donoghue transition to sixth grade the next year, by the end of the school year, she reported making more visits to other campuses, especially the UCW high school, where she was asked to evaluate students who are failing or have been referred for expulsion. Additionally, at UCW, the school psychologist observed three students, reviewed three files, completed three family interviews, interviewed a parent, screened four students, met with two of the deans of students, held special-education parent interviews, attended two meetings of the Academic and Social Student Support (AS3) team7, and attended multiple meetings with teachers and staff. At CGW, she reviewed four student files and referrals, assessed two students, attended one AS3 meeting and two IEP meetings, met with CPS staff on three separate occasions, and attended multiple meetings with teachers and staff. At NKO, she observed three students, met one set of parents, met with the CPS special-education team, and attended multiple meetings with teachers and staff. Lastly, at her home school, Donoghue, the psychologist had the most contact with students. Her activities included observing two fifth-grade classes seven times each, observing two fourth-grade classes twice each, attending 26 AS3 meetings, observing 10 students, conducting five assessments of children’s behaviors related to children’s social-emotional strengths and needs with the Devereux Student Strengths Assessment (DESSA), and attending multiple meetings with teachers and staff. 7

The AS3 process is implemented when a student is struggling and as a preliminary intervention prior to a full evaluation that might lead to an IEP. The process can involve a wide variety of staff who have contact with the child, including the school director, the social worker, the classroom teacher, the resource teacher, and, at the elementary level, the director of family and community engagement. The staff meet with the child’s family to talk about what is going on for the child, review information collected on his or her behavior and school work, and discuss what supports he or she needs at home and at school. They develop a plan to implement the supports and then meet again within 2 months to see what progress has been made. At that point, if the child is still struggling, further evaluation and support might be recommended. Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago

28

School Counselor The third member of the SST, the school counselor, also described his role in terms of an individual caseload and programming at CGW, but also as a key part of supporting student transitions from one school to another. He told us: Well, as the counselor, I get to look at what problems each kid has individually. Right now at one school, I’m following the sixth grade, at the Carter G. Woodson, hopefully in terms of the transition, so as they grow to seventh grade, eighth grade, or when they move on, if any of those students move on to UCW, I’ll continue that relationship with them there, so as to help the teachers understand, okay, this is where this child comes from, this is what’s going on with them, to give the teachers a unique perspective they didn’t have, whereas, okay, they’re meeting the child for the first time and all these issues are coming up and they don’t know how to deal with them. So now they also have a resource that they can go to, and that’s what I see my role as, as being a huge resource, not for just one school but for all four. Similarly, after a fifth grader returned to school following mental health hospitalization, the counselor joined the team of support personnel at the elementary school to help the student transition from fifth to sixth grade the next year at CGW, the school where the counselor is located. Although the school counselor conducted evaluations at UCW and NKO, his primary impact was at the CGW campus. His activities at CGW include individual counseling (10 students are on his caseload and he sees walk-ins as part of the CGW social work department), teaching elective courses to middle school students entitled “What Makes Us Guys/Girls?” and focused on sex education and adolescent development, offering daily afterschool homework help for seven or eight students, and tracking and supporting students on “supervised” status at CGW. To better support students, three levels of monitoring were instituted at CGW during the third trimester. Students on supervised status require additional support as a result of not turning in work, experiencing behavior or discipline issues, being absent or tardy to school, and so on. These students receive extra help and support during recess (or other free periods), supervised by the counselor. Transitional students are on the cusp—they may slip into supervised status or be moved to independent status. Independent status requires that students come to school, stay out of trouble, and do work as expected. Students are placed in one of these three status levels every 2 weeks. The counselor reported that 25 percent to 37 percent of students were on supervised status during the first three cycles of this initiative in spring 2010: 

Cycle 1: 4/20/10–5/3/10: 124 of 334 students (37.1%)








29

Team Roles and Activities—Strengthening the Network of UCCS Schools Across all respondents, there was support for the SST and a real perceived need for this resource. There are different perspectives about how the SST can best be utilized across all four campuses, and because this is the first year for the SST team (and the first year in the network for the team members), everyone expects to see more integration during the second year. During the past year, the school nurse and school psychologist have had greater success becoming integrated in schools beyond their home campus. This may be because their job descriptions are more specialized and unique to the UCCS network. There is not much confusion about how the school counselor on the SST interacts with counselors at his home school, but branching beyond CGW to become a resource to other schools in the area of counseling was still in the early stages but starting to develop at the end of the first year of implementation. As the school counselor explained, Currently we’re moving towards those steps, so that all the schools really know exactly why we’re there. They know of our existence, which is the good thing. All four schools know of us, and they’re actually starting to use us.… NKO has me counseling one of their students and UCW, I was there yesterday to do an assessment. In short, at the end of the year, all members of the SST understood and embraced the cross-campus nature of their roles. For example, the school counselor stated, “I work for all four schools, not just for CGW.” However, the details of how those cross-campus relationships play out has not yet been fully defined and established. The director of family and community engagement and the school social worker at Donoghue described the ideal SST from their perspectives as “a set of people that could intimately know the kids and have a greater presence [across campuses] who also was a ‘real colleague that [school personnel] saw on a regular basis and could connect to.’ ” As students move through different campuses, “There would be consistency from providers, so that the SST would get to know families…and there would be someone who would know [the students and families] and be able to continue that service so it wasn’t like starting over.” Additionally, “When there’s a family with kids from all different ages but within our campuses of schools then the SST can be helpful too. Rather than a parent talking to a social worker at Donoghue and a social worker at Woodlawn, there’s one…point person.” But not all informants are as clear about the best ways the SST could be utilized. A school counselor at UCW highlighted the learning experience of the first year of SST from her experience at the one school that did not have a member of the SST there on a regular basis. She described the learning process that took place—and will continue to take place—around the role of the SST: “We’ve got a ways to go with both welcoming them, including them, calling them and asking them for support, and also just being


30

understanding ourselves as a school and as a network how they can and should fit in. So, yeah, we’ve got a long ways to go to really be able to use them for what their expertise is.” The SST members recognize that they are a new resource. “We’re providing services for all four schools that weren’t there prior to us coming, be it psychological, the social, the emotional well-being, or just health and wellness. We’re able to provide these aspects from our different…experience, we’re able to bring…what we have to the table and share them with all four schools,” the SST nurse explained. To that end, the SST visited all four schools during the 2009–2010 school year to communicate with school directors and staff about the skills and resources they can provide to all four campuses. Much progress was made during the first year of implementation, and everyone expects additional progress, communication, and integration across all four campuses to occur in year 2 of SST implementation. Four areas where the SST’s year-1 activities helped to strengthen the UCCS network (and will support additional year-2 understanding of the SST’s role) are enhanced communication, increased consistency across campuses, continuity during student and parent transitions, and professional development opportunities for SST members. Specific activities and accomplishments completed by the SST team in 2009–2010 are listed below. Enhanced Communication across Campuses To focus the work of the team and communicate the goals with school directors and staff, the SST developed an “SST Vision and Goal Statement,” identifying the three primary topics of interest as health, transitions, and family education. The “Vision and Goal Statement” was revised throughout the course of the year, incorporating feedback from key school personnel. The team also developed protocols for contacting the SST (Who? Why? When? How?) and attended school directors’ meetings to share the vision, protocols, and contact information. At the end of the year, with the support of the school social workers, the SST developed a protocol for students returning to school after a crisis or hospitalization for mental health. Members of the SST also began creating one-page briefs about topics of interest (e.g., ADHD) to share with school personnel. Increased Consistency across Campuses During the 2009–2010 school year, the SST reviewed the Illinois social emotional learning standards and aligned them using a mapping process to the Tribes goals by age/grade level. The Tribes program is used in both UCCS elementary schools and increasingly in the middle school, and the high school will use it next year. Aligning local practice at all campuses with state standards for socio-emotional learning was the goal of this effort. In addition, the SST compiled a “UCCS Family Resource Guide” that will be available online, a family and student handbook for UCCS schools that applies to all four campuses, and a


31

family agreement document detailing the roles of school, parents, and students as part of the UCCS learning community that will be part of the orientation packet for all families and students. Continuity of Student and Parent Experience during Transitions Student Support Team members were important members of the Transition Team, participating in regular meetings and events including sharing data; developing student profiles; designing teacher professional development days, which utilized “day in the life of fifth/sixth grader” videos, and shadow days when fifth graders visited sixth grade; hosting open houses for parents, and conducting incoming family interviews. More detail about the Transition Team appears in the next section of the report. Professional Development for SST Members Members of the SST read and discussed Resilience in African American Children and Adolescents: A Vision for Optimal Development, published by the APA Task Force on Resilience and Strength in Black Children and Adolescents, reviewed the W. K. Kellogg Foundation Logic Model Development Guide, and developed and discussed logic models representing their individual work. The SST also attended psychological first-aid training.

Summary and Recommendations During the first year of implementation, the SST provided direct services or indirect support to students across the four campuses usually on an individual, group, or classroom basis. Because of the nature of her work, the nurse probably saw the largest number of students; she estimated that she saw six to eight students on a daily basis at NKO, but she also provided classroom activities on health and nutrition to 250 to 300 upper elementary, middle, and high school students, and presented one schoolwide event to more than 300 students at NKO. As indicated above, the school counselor occasionally consulted at other schools but had most of his contacts with students at CGW; he mentioned providing support to at least 124 students on “supervised status” in the spring as well as offering individual counseling to 10 students, and homework support and sex education to small groups of students. He also was charged with following the current sixth-grade students in their classrooms and observing their transition to seventh grade in the fall. The psychologist, who was based at Donoghue, worked at the classroom level with two fourth grades and two fifth grades. She also provided assessment and other services to support about 25 individual students across the four campuses. In addition, as a group, the SST made great strides in establishing goals, communicating a vision, and becoming integrated into the UCCS network. Respondents felt strongly about the need for the SST and positive about the year-1 learning curve and possibilities for year-2 implementation. The following four areas of recommendations are the result of the extensive data collected on the SST team activities.


32

First, we recommend that the SST continue to work toward effective communication with school administrators as well as staff at each school site. One informant said that “the biggest challenge is improving communication” across the network, and the SST seems to be well positioned to support that effort. For the 2010–2011 school year, integrating SST meetings with existing meetings is important— specifically the special-education team meetings, the social work team meetings, and the school directors’ meetings, as well as other relevant meetings. Considering who should attend SST meetings regularly (in addition to SST members) may also be useful in working toward increased communication. One respondent suggested that bringing together representatives from all four campuses to brainstorm ways in which the SST could be most helpful would be a way to get “on the same page” across the network. Ideas could be listed and prioritized, and a cross-campus to-do list for the SST for the 2010–2011 could be developed. Second, we recommend that the SST consider whether having a centralized leader would be more efficient than a distributed leadership approach to tasks. The UEI director of design, who attended most of the SST meetings, suggested that the leadership could be “a little too distributed,” meaning that each person took a little part of the task. Because many new tasks came on every week, some ended up not quite done, some were done but the group didn’t know, some were not done, and so on. It might be useful to assign a point person responsible for coordinating the weekly team-based activities of the SST. Third, two logistical recommendations are related to access to IMPACT data and health action plans. Because of the way the CPS IMPACT data system is set up, SST staff cannot access online data for all four schools at the same time and must instead rely on other school-based personnel to access student records. Providing SST members with access to data seems crucial for them to do their jobs efficiently. The second recommendation came as a suggestion from an informant that the nurse help collect information to provide to substitute teachers about health concerns and action plans to ensure the health and safety of students, even when regular personnel are not present. Finally, interview respondents identified other topic areas that could be relevant to the SST’s work in the future. We recommend considering whether the health, transitions, and family education goals of the SST are broad enough to include other topic areas, such as SST members acting as consultants to provide or facilitate training to adults or students; considering the eighth- to ninth-grade transition in terms of preparing students for the selective enrollment process; career counseling that includes vocational training opportunities in addition to the goal of 4-year college attendance; and possible apprenticeships for students with local businesses and organizations such as the Museum of Science and Industry and the public library.


33

Fostering Innovation: The Transition Team The Transition Team was the result of an “innovation incubator” that took place in summer 2009. The incubator provides a space where cross-school and cross-functional teams of teachers and staff can think through key questions facing the schools and develop creative ways of approaching them. In the case of the Transition Team, staff from across the different campuses came together as a team and generated ideas about how to better support students during the first of a series of transitions throughout their educational careers. The transition that was the focus of this year’s efforts was the transition from fifth grade (both Donoghue and NKO are K–5 elementary schools) to sixth grade at either CGW (grades 6–8) or UCW (grades 6–12). Separate transition activities had been in place at each school prior to the formation of the Transition Team. Acting as a formal team for the first time in 2009–2010, the Transition Team brought together representatives from all four campuses to create consistent transition efforts across schools. The team met approximately twice per month in conjunction with the Student Support Team, during which time conversations focused on ways for fifth-grade students to learn about sixth grade, ways for fifth- and sixth- grade teachers to learn from each other, and ways to support parents to be active participants in the transition process. The team engaged in a variety of activities during the school year, including the following: 

Created fifth-grade student profile templates so that fifth-grade teachers and administrators could share information with sixth-grade teachers, including academic, health, socio-emotional, and specialeducation information.



Facilitated the filming of two videos: A Day in the Life of a Fifth Grader and A Day in the Life of a Sixth Grader for teachers to view.



Designed a teacher professional development activity that brought together fifth- and sixth-grade teachers for discussion about the Day in the Life videos, expectations, classroom organization and structure, curriculum, student performance, and social development.



Organized open house events for parents choosing a sixth-grade school (CGW).



Supported “shadow day” events when fifth graders “shadow” a sixth-grade buddy to experience what it will be like to be in sixth grade the next year.



Conducted incoming family interviews for admitted students in cooperation with school-based personnel.


34



Established an earlier start date (2 days early) for sixth graders at UCW to ease the transition into the new school year.

Because this was the first year of the Transition Team’s efforts, it is difficult to judge the impact of this endeavor on students. However, early reports from respondents were extremely positive. A resource teacher at one of the elementary schools was enthusiastic in her description of some of the activities that the Transition Team was able to implement: “There have been visits back and forth. NKO and Donoghue [kids] visited [CGW], and they were paired with upper grade buddies.… They did a really nice job of giving kids not just tours, but helping them experience classrooms for a day.” In addition, she noted, students with special needs also were included in the visit and “did some extended time in the instructional classroom” where they would be placed. “They knew students there because they were in their class previous years so they felt really welcome and connected, and I think it alleviated some of the anxiety.” A school director noted that the transition activities would likely help parents as well as students adjust to the middle school environment: “It was an opportunity to create just a more complete view of what we think transition is and what should happen. My anticipation is that it is going to have a positive impact on easing parents’ concerns and smoothing out the transition for kids.” A middle school social worker at UCW also noted plans to engage parents as she described upcoming transition activities: The sixth-grade team has agreed to host a parent/student mixer. So we’re just having all of our incoming families [those from Donoghue and NKO but also our other feeder schools] to come and meet one another, meet the team, just get a brief sense of what school’s going to be like so that they’re not quite so overwhelmed. And then, finally, I pushed for and successfully obtained an earlier start date for sixth graders. So we’re starting two days earlier than the rest of the school, and we’re really going to be focusing on transition…what does it mean that you have lost a part of you by leaving your old school. And then what does it mean to kind of take on the new traditions and expectations of this new school. And so we’re going to be really intentional about that and really talk about organization, really talk about time management and how to get along with one another. Because of the work that I was able to do with that team over the summer [in the innovation incubator], plus the work that we’re doing now with this transition team, I’m really excited about some of these pieces that we’re going to be able to implement for our incoming students. According to another school administrator, teachers have also responded positively to the professional development event that brought together fifth- and sixth-grade teachers, and that the feedback from the event will help to shape next year’s activities. A UCW social worker similarly commented on the importance of the interactions between the fifth- and sixth-grade teachers in illuminating the differences between the school experience of a fifth-grade child and a sixth grader. “In March all of the teachers got


35

together and really just kind of talked about the curriculum across the board the expected learning standards. We also were able to, as a group, kind of map out some of the socio-emotional learning standards that we think are really key for incoming sixth graders. And I think if I could have my blue sky right now, it would be that teachers could really keep in the forefront of their minds this child development piece [not just the content of what they’re teaching].” Indeed, the involvement of both the regular teaching staff and some of the resource teachers was an aspect of the work highlighted in some of our interviews. In the view of one of the elementary school program directors, as a result of this year’s Transition Team activities, the transition issue has moved from the top level administrators and school leaders to teachers. . .the people working day in and day out with the students…so the fact that they’re having this communication…is unique. I think that’s where we’re going to begin to see a lot of success. For example, tonight actually, a sixth grade math teacher is coming over [to a K–5 school] to do a workshop on Everyday Math. Many respondents agree that the work of the Transition Team will continue next year and that there is room for even more activities that begin earlier in the year. A member of the SST told us that the Transition Team generated a lot of additional ideas at the end of the 2009–2010 school year. She hopes that next year’s team will begin working on exploring and implementing some of the ideas earlier in the school year to make the transition even smoother for students and teachers.

Contributions to Network Building As with the other aspects of the model implemented this past year, the Transition Team was structured to involve participants from across the UCCS campuses. Focusing on the transition from elementary to middle school, it naturally linked Donoghue and NKO with CGW and UCW. Although still in its early stages, we were struck by the enthusiasm with which some of our informants talked about the opportunity to work with staff from the other campuses, the activities that had and would occur, the involvement of teachers, and the discussions—based on the videos that were created—about what it meant to be a student at one of the elementary schools versus a middle school. A greater awareness of the differences in the two school experiences, according to a school director, led in some cases to observable changes in teachers’ practices: One example when we look at fifth grade and sixth grade, one big difference was in fifth grade the classrooms are different. There’s a rug, there’s circle time on the rug and sixth grade, it’s kind of like everyone’s in desks. And so one thing I noticed was the week after [a sixth-grade teacher] rearranged her classroom. Even though they were still in desks, she put them like in a circle [and] she sat down to teach. And the kids got on the floor; not that they had to, but some of them did. So that was okay.


36

Another also expressed hope that “the momentum continues and that the work gets recognized as valuable and that people whose work is affected by the work the Transition Team did, I hope that they kind of see that and they want to contribute more to it.” She also expressed the hope that the work of the Transition Team would create more opportunities for joint professional development as was done with the production and sharing of the videos.

Summary and Recommendations As stated above, it is a little early to assess the impact of the Transition Team’s work on students, families, and teachers. Important process outcomes include the different levels of involvement in the work and support for it from all levels of staff, including administrator, teachers, and support staff—even though it meant time away from other duties and, in the case of teachers, an earlier start date. To continue learning from the experience, it will be important to document the experiences of children, families, and teachers during the transition to the middle schools in the fall. It also would be useful to conduct additional interviews or surveys on the transition in late fall to get perspectives from staff and families about the transition. Furthermore, there is a sense that people involved in planning the activities were more aware about transitions in general. In addition, it will be important to observe if and how this increased awareness and strategies for easing the elementary to middle school transition is shared with staff working with children at other levels and applied to other transitions, for example, middle school to high school, prekindergarten to kindergarten.


37

Community Involvement in the Development of the Birth-to-College Model As described in the introduction to this report, a critical goal of the UCCS model design is support and programming for children in the first 5 years of life and their families. Although both Donoghue and NKO provide prekindergarten starting at the age of four, they are unable to provide services for younger children. Thus, in the spring of 2009, UEI began meeting with the Ounce of Prevention Fund’s leadership and staff of its Educare early childhood center, which provides comprehensive early childhood services to children from 6 weeks to 5 years. The purpose of these meetings, which continued throughout 2009–2010 (and are still going on), is to develop a plan for a “seamless transition” in programming from infancy to prekindergarten/kindergarten. For children graduating from the Educare program to continue their education in high-quality learning environments, the plan includes an understanding that children from Educare would be guaranteed admission to one of the UCCS elementary schools. One goal in the process of developing the model is to involve community members—particularly parents, but also Educare and UCCS teachers and other staff—in the process. Thus, the research question relevant to this part of the evaluation is the following: To what extent were community members involved in the development of the model? In this section, we present findings related to community involvement drawn from an analysis of documentation provided by UEI staff and key informant interviews.

Involvement of Teachers and Staff Despite a common interest in the overarching goal of providing a pathway from birth to success in college, UEI and the Ounce/Educare leaders recognized from the outset of their relationship that there are differences between the two organizations in terms of their program philosophies and principles, goals, standards, and curricular approaches. The two organizations began the process of building their partnership with opportunities for their prekindergarten staffs to meet and observe each other’s classrooms during the spring and summer of 2009. UEI and UCCS staff also observed the Educare infant/toddler program. In the fall, they engaged an external facilitator to work with both organizations to facilitate discussions about the partnership and identified a UEI staff member to document meetings and other activities related to the development of the model. Throughout the first year, UEI and UCCS staff, the Ounce leadership, and Educare staff met frequently—on average, at least twice a month—to discuss philosophy of education, approaches to assessment, and staff development, and to share their beliefs, knowledge, and experience in fostering children’s social, emotional, and cognitive development; school readiness; and family engagement. They also discussed enrollment procedures and the logistics of implementing a guaranteed admission policy


38

These meetings were, according to our informants, intense and not without expected challenges when differences in interpretations and opinions arose—but also very productive. At the end of the school year, those we talked to who had been part of the process were very positive about what the working group had been able to accomplish. Participants produced a document outlining the vision, mission, and core values of the partnership and a timeline for implementation. A UCCS school director described the participants and process as follows: There was a committee formed that [included] our lower grade literacy teacher and a kindergarten teacher, and I’m on that team. And then there are a group of folks from Ounce, and there’s our teacher leaders, a family support provider, and a research person, and the [UEI director of schools and community engagement]. The first part of the work was to create the vision and mission, and then the working plan, and so we did that over the several months and took it to the executive director at Ounce of Prevention. We’ve taken the [process] through the big goals…creating the model, implementing the model, documenting the process, sharing outcomes with the world. And so now we’re working on really the activities that go under each [goal]—who, when, and how they’ll be measured, so that we can in the very near future take a whole plan back [for approval]. Some of the challenges involved differences in approaches to early childhood education, according to one informant. But some were based on “structural differences” between early childhood providers (including staff of both Educare and the UCCS prekindergarten program) and kindergarten teachers.8 For example, Educare preschool classrooms serve a mixed age range of 3- to 5-year-old children. However, staff at UEI and UCCS questioned this approach because they had experimented with a mixed-age classroom at NKO in the past—kindergarten and first grade—and found that “although the kindergartners were really benefitting, the first graders were not.” UCCS teachers and administrators also expressed concern about the lack of opportunities for 5-year-olds at Educare to experience larger group settings such as they are apt to encounter in kindergarten where teacher-child ratios are not as low as they are at Educare. We had one conversation in which [Educare staff] said one of the main things their families tell Educare after their kids leave is that they can’t sit still in kindergarten, first grade, and so forth, and it’s self-regulation. And so in one of those conversations, [one of our staff] said, “Well, would it be possible the last 6 months of Educare that you would have them in larger groups, for purposeful reasons, not just to go through an empty exercise, [before] they transition to kindergarten with one adult so that they can get accustomed to what that is like?” And also she suggested that there only be 5-year-olds in the group, not 3-, 4-, and 5-year-olds. And so Educare thought that was a brilliant idea.

8

A recent study of the implementation of a high-quality preschool program in a public school found implementation challenges stemming from different beliefs about school readiness and appropriate preschool curriculum among preschool and kindergarten teachers and school administrators, even though all embraced a “whole child” approach to early education. There also were logistical and space challenges in creating appropriate early childhood facilities in an elementary school setting (Spielberger, Baker, Winje, & Mayers, 2009). Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago

39

The meetings also surfaced differing perspectives on the involvement of families in the education of their children. Although family engagement is an important component of the UCCS school model, it is naturally a more integral component of the Educare program, which provides opportunities for parents to visit their children during the day, on-site parent education, and home visits by Educare staff. In the process of developing the vision and goals for the partnership, it became clear that although both organizations value parent engagement highly, they view it somewhat differently. According to a UCCS school director, one thing the UEI and UCCS staff learned was to think more intentionally about how families would be involved and supported: [At first] what got captured [didn’t] highlight the parent piece, [and that] is a key part of the initiative. And so now as we’re doing the activities we’re thinking about it as ‘hey, this is what supports parents, this is what supports kids, this is what supports teachers.’ And so it’s changed the wording [of the way we’re] building of the plan…I think [the focus on families] was always there, but I think it’s very clear now that it’s like children, families, and educators, all in the same level—in this together, acknowledging everybody as important pieces. All of the individuals we interviewed who had been involved in the working group were very positive about the relationship and progress they had made during the past year and looked forward to continuing the work. At the same time, they expressed concern about the time the process took. As one informant explained, The challenge is definitely going to be time. It’s going to be who, how often, how do we really facilitate high-quality collaboration where teachers really get to be with each other and talk and see each other’s practice so as to facilitate shared decisions that really lives, right, at each of the places. The power in it will be this kind of alignment that doesn’t exist now, but it will be hard to get there, and it will take time, and people will have to have the time to build relationships. Another informant agreed: We’ve had very good discussions with them. It’s been very positive. I think—the thing that gets challenging in these kinds of things are the logistics more than philosophy. Like you alluded to earlier, it’s the time. We’re busy. They’re busy. So how do you find the time to meet, to continue the dialogue when we all have so many other things going ourselves. So I think that’s the challenge overall is making sure that we continue to stay on it as far as meeting. But there’s no philosophical incongruence that we see so far. It’s just a matter of continuing to meet on a regular basis.

Involvement of Families According to one of the UCCS school directors, parents were not as involved as teachers in the development of vision and goals for the partnership. However, several activities to engage parents occurred during the winter and spring of 2010; a total of eight events involving parents were conducted.


40

In December and January, UEI staff, the school directors, and community family engagement directors held individual meetings with parents from Donoghue, NKO, and Educare to obtain their feedback on the concept of an educational model that started at birth. The UEI director of schools and community engagement facilitated the meetings. A total of 38 parents participated: 8 from Donoghue, 10 from NKO, and 20 from Educare. At these meetings, parents were asked to respond to a series of questions such as: “If we create this pathway what would you want? What would high-quality 0-to-12th-grade education look like to you? What would it feel like?” Parents across the three schools responded positively to the concept and expressed similar views about the quality they would expect from such a model and the importance of family participation and opportunities for parent education it should provide. The facilitator of the parent meetings, however, noted that, because of their experience, Educare parents emphasized being a part of the program on a regular basis more than did UCCS parents. This feedback was very illuminating for her: When I talked to [Educare parents] about what if Donoghue or NKO started at birth, they automatically said, “Well, then our extended families and you and all these other people in the schools have to be working together,” because that’s how they raise their children. They would not give up their children to a setting where they’re not there at that age. And I thought, “Of course!” I know they do a lot of the same things we do. Like, they have literacy nights. We have literacy nights. We have math nights. They have math nights. I haven’t actually seen parents there during the day, except drop-off, but that part was really eye-opening. And then our families—one family at NKO said, “Well, you know, it wouldn’t just be schools that would have to change to do this. Our employers would have to change because we would need to be able to go and work with you during the day and have time off from work or have our work schedules adjusted,” which is absolutely true. In addition to the three meetings held to get reactions from parents about an educational model that started at birth, five other events were held to orient parents from Educare to the program at Donoghue and NKO in late winter and spring. In early February, a panel made up of a UCCS teacher, an Educare teacher, and an Educare parent met with about 20 Educare parents to talk about kindergarten readiness. Later that month, the directors of family and community engagement from NKO and Donoghue met with a group of Educare families to talk about their schools and answer parents’ questions. One of the directors told us that the Educare parents “were excited about understanding what this [partnership] was.” In addition, The parents at our school they’re very receptive ’cause they understand. It makes sense to them that we want to start as early as possible to have a group of students that from this whole idea of 0 to 10 makes sense to people that the earlier you start and the earlier our partnership can start. They saw it as something that could really enhance what we’re trying to do.… They were very curious as well as supportive. Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago

41

In late spring, workshops were held for parents of incoming students from Educare, one on reading and one on the Everyday Math and literacy programs. Lastly, in mid-June, UCCS provided transportation to bring a group of Educare families to NKO and Donoghue for school tours, dinner, and conversations with prekindergarten and kindergarten teachers.

Involvement of Community Organizations Most of the work to implement the collaboration between the Ounce/Educare and the UCCS elementary schools occurred at the level of school leaders and teachers, and, secondly, parents, during the first year. Yet the vision of improving the community context for families, children, and the schools and developing partnerships with community organizations remains. As indicated in the introduction, one idea is to work with a local hospital to provide parenting information to new parents on the South Side as a step toward creating a broader community of support for families of young children starting at birth. Initial conversations have been held with Mercy Hospital, which already has a connection with Donoghue. In addition, a few UEI/UCCS staff met with three community development organizations to inform them of their educational model and talk about ways they might work together in the future. One such meeting was held in late February with representatives from the Community Builders, a company that manages the mixed-income housing surrounding Donoghue, to explore how families with young children in the housing complex can take advantage of Educare, as well as how to bring Educare families living elsewhere into the complex: We held a meeting at the development that’s across the street to create another opportunity for them to learn about the neighborhood, to investigate possible housing possibilities. At Donoghue, if you live in the attendance boundary the likelihood of getting in the school is a lot greater, so we wanted to present that as one option. And then we had some cross-organizational sharing, so obviously the developers want people to move in their houses, but then the developers also want to have good places to send kids, so they both did some networking. And so I think there are some new families from Oakwood Shores, which is the development, that will be sending their kids to Ounce, and Ounce in turn is looking at families that are in need of better-quality housing, so it’s kind of a mutually beneficial experience.

Summary and Recommendations In summary, participants in the development of the model during the first year were primarily teachers and school leaders and, secondly, parents. Although there is a vision and plan to engage at least one local hospital and a community development organization, contacts with these potential community partners were limited during the first year. Given the work that needed to be accomplished during the first year to establish the partnership, however, the level of involvement of these two groups seems to be appropriate and realistic. Indeed, in embarking on the relationship with the Ounce/Educare, participants at UEI and


42

the UCCS school understood the importance of clear communication about roles, expectations, curricular philosophies, and the cultures of the two organizations and the importance of both contributing to—or “co-creating,” as one informant put it—the vision, values, and goals that would underlie the model. Because the primary question about the development of the Ounce/Educare and UEI/UCCS model for this first year of the evaluation concerned community involvement, we have not discussed other aspects of the model design here. It is sufficient to say that although a strong foundation has been established in this first year, much of the details and implementation strategies of the actual design will be developed in the coming year. At this point in time, key informants who were involved in or just aware of the work of this past year are very positive about the concept. In the words of one participant: We’re all in this because it presents a tremendous opportunity for kids to start kindergarten at a much different place, and so that’s why people are sacrificing time. It does matter to teachers; teachers have consistently acknowledged kids that come from strong preschool and pre-K programs. There is a visible difference, not just academically but socially—how the kids are able to manage the day—so it matters. Alignment is a big issue, but it’s also getting to a real authentic partnership where we’ve got a set of colleagues that we’re able to have some deeper conversations where we’re not necessarily afraid to step on each other’s toes. And I think that’s a partnership that is not very common in this kind of work but I think that’s what this project is going to dictate to really get it right. I mean organizationally we are very different.… But we see the advantages, and so that’s where the space is for us to make this work. Just two main challenges or concerns were voiced by some of our informants. One is the issue of time mentioned above. One suggestion was to provide a designated staff person to oversee the partnership and the development of the model. In lieu of hiring additional staff, should that not be an option, another recommendation would be to identify one staff person at Educare and the two elementary schools to serve as project liaisons. The second concern is the capacity of UCCS to work with children who have significant developmental needs. Already, in the current year, Donoghue had experienced a larger number of incoming children from Educare with Individual Education Plans (IEPs). Some of these children have severe developmental delays, including autism. A resource teacher told us that whenever children transfer to the school, “We always get a handful of kids with IEPs or kids who need IEPs who have not been identified because they’re looking for something different.” However, she has noticed that in the past year, as discussions about the birth-to-college model were happening, the interest in coming to the school had increased. “So right now we need another teacher. I welcome that, though. I mean I think we have for many years needed to have two instructional classrooms, not because we have so many kids, but because we have kids in multiple grade levels, and you can’t serve kindergarteners and fifth graders in the same room.”


43

Another informant shared her concern about the capacity to serve children with special needs: Other challenges [still to be] addressed began to emerge in the spring.… An increasing number of children with a high level of developmental delays, including autism, are entering the UCCS elementary schools. Space and teacher capacity and the availability of space to serve preschool children with developmental delays [will be challenging]. And we welcome all families. So now we’re getting a critical mass as the first group of children, and we’re not set up for it. So we’re trying to figure out what to do–like if we can submit a request to CPS early [for funding to hire staff, which CPS is required to provide]. She also noted a related issue, which is working with families who do not accept their children’s delays and are not willing to have them assessed so an IEP can be developed. In addition, although NKO has children with developmental delays, the school does not have space to set up a separate classroom for younger children with special needs or staff who are experienced in working with younger children with delays.


44

Summary and Conclusions: Building the Network This report presents findings from the first year of a process evaluation of an emerging model of a highperforming school’s efforts to provide an educational pathway for vulnerable children from birth to college on Chicago’s South Side. The school, the University of Chicago Charter School (UCCS), currently consists of four campuses serving children from prekindergarten through high school and is operated by the university’s Urban Education Institute (UEI). During the 2009–2010 school year, funding from the Kellogg Foundation provided support for developing the model in four primary areas: to enhance the quality and availability of extended learning opportunities at the school, particularly for children who are struggling academically; to enhance social supports for students through a cross-campus Student Support Team made up of a nurse, school counselor, and psychologist; to develop and implement a staff-led plan to improve the transition from elementary school to middle school for students and their families; and to establish a partnership with the Ounce of Prevention’s Educare Center to incorporate education and other services for children from birth to age 3. Additionally, an overarching goal of these efforts was to enhance communication, networking, and collaboration among staff and to align policies and practices across the four campuses. Thus, the development and implementation of these four components involved a team of staff members from UEI and the four UCCS campuses. The purpose of the first year of the evaluation was to assess the process of developing and implementing the four components of the model listed above. We also were asked to report on students’ academic progress, participation in extended-day activities funded by the Kellogg Foundation, and receipt of social services from the SST. Below we summarize our key findings and recommendations, based on an analysis of data drawn from meetings, key informant interviews, initiative documents, and student records.


45

Academic Progress Overall, 66 percent of students in grades K–5 at Donoghue and 84 percent of students at NKO Elementary were reading at or above grade level at the conclusion of the 2009–2010 school year as measured by the STEP assessment. At Donoghue, a higher proportion of students were reading at or above grade level in kindergarten, first, and second grades as compared to students in third, fourth, and fifth grades. Interestingly, this pattern was reversed at NKO. A higher percentage of students in grades 2 through 5 were reading at or above grade level as compared to students in kindergarten and first grade. Looking only at 2 years of STEP data, the biggest drop-off occurred at both Donoghue and NKO between cohorts of students who were in kindergarten in 2008–2009 and in first grade in 2009–2010. Student performance during the transition from kindergarten reading to first-grade reading may therefore be an area for future investigation. It may also be useful to examine more closely the longitudinal performance of student cohorts from kindergarten through fifth grade to determine where students begin to fall below grade level and to identify where interventions could be most effective, using both STEP data for all students and ISAT data for students in grades 3 through 5. Enhancing Extended Learning Opportunities Across all four campuses, students were provided with a variety of opportunities to receive additional learning time during the 2009–2010 school year. Though not funded by Kellogg, the extended learning time model at Donoghue is the most developed. Additional programs to support student learning and development occur before school, after school, on Saturdays, in the summer, and during the school day. Almost all students participate in one of the many programs that extend the learning day and increase the intensity of attention students receive from teachers and the opportunity for individualized support. At the other three campuses, the extended learning time model is growing. As the result of Kellogg support, almost a third of students at NKO receive additional learning time through the extended-day program that takes place daily after school; at CGW Middle School, 14 percent of students participate in an afterschool tutoring program, and 27 percent of students participate in summer school; and at UCW, more than half of students participated in tutoring, freshman study hall, ACT preparation, or tutored middle school students, 25 percent attended summer school, and 17 percent attended 9th- and 11th-grade credit recovery programs after school. As part of an effort to enhance the extended learning time models at NKO, CGW, and UCW to resemble more closely the Donoghue model of extended learning time while also meeting the needs and interests of the students at each campus, a cross-campus Extended-Day Team was created. During the first year of the cross-campus team, progress was made in understanding the concept of a comprehensive extended learning time program targeted to students’ needs and interests, as well as some of the challenges


46

involved in trying to create a cross-campus program and coordinated data system. Work to articulate the cross-campus vision, goals, and strategies of the program and to address some of the data, financial, and logistical challenges will continue in the year ahead. One important outcome of the work of the crosscampus team of extended learning staff is the formation of a cohesive group across the four UCCS campuses. There was a real commitment to and participation in the group process to improve the variety and quality of, and access to, extended learning opportunities and, over time, an increasing understanding and ownership of the goals within the group. As the facilitator suggested, the meetings have “built momentum” and the cross-campus communication process has “taken a life of its own.” As a result, by the end of the first year, there was much greater clarity about what the extended-day program might look like across the schools, although more work has yet to be done. In light of the number of new staff members in the 2009–2010 year, and because some of the schools have only been operating for 4 or 5 years, this seems like important progress. Through discussions documented in minutes of the monthly or bimonthly meetings, it appears that the group took substantial steps toward developing goals and a vision for extended learning time at the four campuses. Decisions made in terms of aligning job descriptions, developing common training, and sharing costs of transportation (i.e., costs of insurance if UCW goes ahead with purchasing or leasing a bus), all suggest a network with stronger ties than existed at the beginning of the year. Again, respondents felt positive about the work that had been done but particularly about the group process—this despite the additional time it took from their other day-to-day responsibilities. Based on these early findings, we make the following recommendations for the continued work of the cross-campus extended-day group: 

First, in terms of the group process and structure, thought should be given to sharing responsibilities for group facilitation and documentation—although we also recognize the value of consistency in this role.



Second, with regard to the development of the programmatic approach to extended learning opportunities at some of the schools, we respect the goals to implement comprehensive supports for students academically and socially. As the group reviews the programming currently in place at each of the schools, however, we recommend examining the developmental value of some of the fee-based programs currently in place at NKO and CGW. There may be a place for some of these programs in a system of supports for students, especially if they are accessible to a broader range of students on a sliding fee or no-cost basis.



Finally, over time, we expect to see stronger connections between the extended-day staff and the Student Support Team and, perhaps, other social support staff. It would have been premature to have


47

included developing these connections as an explicit goal of the first year’s work, given that both the SST and the cross-campus extended-day group were new. However, the extended-day program is just part of a menu of social and academic supports provided to students. As the goals and strategies of the SST and extended learning time groups become clarified, the two groups might look for opportunities to collaborate. Additional information about the extended-day opportunities at each of the schools should also be provided to the social workers and other social support staff at the individual campuses so that they, too, can have more interaction with extended-day staff and programming beyond providing referrals to one another. This kind of connection might also be important in the next phase of developing a data system for planning and measuring outcomes in that it would be useful to track the range of school-based supports individual students receive.

The Student Support Team During the first year of implementation, the SST provided direct services or indirect support to students across the four campuses usually on an individual, group, or classroom basis. Because of the nature of her work, the nurse probably saw the largest number of students. In addition to the six to eight students she saw on a daily basis at NKO, she also provided classroom health and nutrition activities to 250 to 300 upper elementary, middle, and high school students, and she presented one schoolwide event to 300 students at NKO. The school counselor occasionally consulted at other schools but had most of his contacts with students at CGW; he mentioned providing support to at least 124 students on “supervised status” in the spring as well as individual counseling to 10 students and homework support and sex education to small groups of students. He also was charged with following the current sixth-grade students in their classrooms and observing their transition to seventh grade in the fall. The psychologist, who was based at Donoghue, worked at the classroom level with two fourth grades and two fifth grades. She also provided assessment and other services to support about 25 individual students across the four campuses. In addition, as a group, the SST made substantial progress in establishing goals, communicating a vision, and becoming integrated in the UCCS network. Respondents felt strongly about the need for the SST and positive about the year-1 learning curve and possibilities for year-2 implementation in the 2010–2011 school year. Four areas of recommendations are the result of the extensive data collected on SST activities: 

First, we recommend that the SST continue to work toward effective communication with school administrators as well as staff at each school site. Some respondents identified communication as one of the biggest challenges in strengthening the network, and the SST is well positioned to support that effort. Integrating the SST into other existing meetings is important—specifically the special-


48

education team, the social work team, and the school directors meetings, as well as other relevant meetings. Considering who should attend SST meetings regularly (beyond SST members) may also be useful in working toward increased communication. One respondent suggested that bringing together representatives from all four campuses to brainstorm ways in which the SST could be most helpful would be a way to get “on the same page” across the network. 

Second, we recommend that the SST review its structure and consider whether having a more centralized leadership approach to tasks would be more efficient than a distributed leadership. Because many new tasks came up every week, some were not completed; some were done but the group did not know; some were not done, and so on. It might be useful to assign a point person responsible for coordinating the weekly team-based activities of the SST.



Third, we have two recommendations related to access to student data and health action plans. Because of the way the CPS IMPACT data system is set up, SST staff cannot access online data for all four schools at the same time and must instead rely on other school-based personnel to access student records. Providing SST members with access to data seems crucial if they are to do their jobs efficiently. Another suggestion made by one of our informants is for the nurse to help collect and provide information to substitute teachers about health concerns and action plans to ensure the health and safety of students, especially when regular personnel are not present.

The Transition Team The Transition Team, which was created through the new Innovation Incubator process, was also implemented for the first time in 2009–2010. Because at the time of our data collection it was focused on a transition yet to occur (i.e., between the 2009–2010 and the 2010–2011 school years), it is a little early to assess the impact of the Transition Team’s work on students, families, and teachers. Nonetheless, important process outcomes were observed. These include the different levels of involvement in the work and support for it from all levels of staff, including administrators, teachers, and support staff—even though it meant time away from other duties and, in the case of sixth-grade teachers, an earlier start date. To continue learning, staff recognize the importance of documenting the experiences of children, families, and teachers during the transition to the middle schools in the fall and conducting interviews or surveys to collect information on the perspectives of staff and families about the transition. Furthermore, there is a sense that people involved in planning the activities are more aware about transitions in general. In addition, it will be important to observe if and how this increased awareness and strategies for easing the elementary to middle school transition are shared with staff working with children at other levels and applied to other transitions, for example, middle school to high school, prekindergarten to kindergarten.


49

Community Involvement in the Birth-to-College Model Development A key component of the UCCS educational model is support and programming for children in the first 5 years of life and their families. Currently, the school cannot provide services for children under 4. Thus, in the spring of 2009, UEI and UCCS leaders and staff began meeting with the Ounce of Prevention Fund’s leadership and the staff of its Educare early childhood center, which serves children from 6 weeks to 5 years and their parents. These meetings continued throughout 2009–-2010—occurring at least twice a month, on average—for the purpose of developing a plan for a “seamless transition” in programming from infancy to prekindergarten/kindergarten that would include guaranteed admission for children coming from Educare to one of the UCCS elementary schools. These meetings, although intense, were very productive. Interview informants were very positive about the growing relationships between the two organizations as well as the groundwork for the partnership that had been achieved—“a real authentic partnership,” as one participant described it. By the end of the year, the working group had produced a document outlining the mission, vision, core values, and goals of the partnership, and work was continuing to identify strategies for each of the goals. One goal in the process of developing the model is to involve community members, particularly parents, but also Educare and UCCS teachers and other staff in the process. Participants in the development of the vision of the model and its core values and goals during the first year were primarily teachers and school leaders. However, a small group of parents from UCCS and from Educare were also engaged in a visioning process and providing feedback on the concept of an educational model that begins at birth. Other events were held to orient Educare parents to the UCCS schools, including a panel on kindergarten readiness, workshops on math and literacy approaches at the elementary schools, and a visit to NKO and Donoghue with opportunities to meet with kindergarten teachers there. In time, UEI also has plans to develop relationships with other community organizations, including a local hospital and a community housing agency, to discuss other ways the community can be involved in the development of the model. The primary research question about the development of the Ounce/Educare and UEI/UCCS model for this first year of the evaluation was about community involvement in the process. In our view, given the work that needed to be done to establish the partnership with the Ounce, the respective levels of involvement of staff and families seem both appropriate and realistic. With respect to family engagement, we should also note an important outcome of the process that emerged in our analysis of the interview data and our observation of one of the parent visioning meetings. That is, some of the UEI and UCCS staff in particular seem to have a somewhat broader view of what family involvement in the educational model might mean in the first 5 years of life; for example, the idea that parents would be more intimately


50

involved in their children’s daily educational activities during the course of the day or have more interaction with teachers and support staff than they might with older children. In embarking on the relationship with Ounce/Educare, participants at UEI and UCCS understood the importance of clear communication about roles, expectations, curricular philosophies, and the cultures of the two organizations and the importance of both contributing to the design of the model. This was, again, a time-consuming and intense process, but the result appears to be a strong foundation for the work ahead to develop the strategies and logistics of implementing the plan. Those who have been and will continue to be involved in the next stage of developing the plan are also aware of significant challenges ahead, including ensuring sufficient time and staffing to devote to the plan and that UCCS has the capacity in terms of facilities and staff to handle the expected increase in the number of children with special needs.

Conclusions Four questions guided this evaluation, but, at heart, they all ask the extent to which Kellogg funding has helped to strengthen the UCCS network of schools and their ability to support increased academic learning in the past year. In our view, although it was the first year of implementation in a long process of development, substantial efforts took place during the 2009–2010 school year that provide a strong foundation for future progress. Notably, three cross-campus teams (Extended-Day, Student Support, and Transition teams) were established to improve communication and coordination across UCCS campuses for staff, students, and families; psychological first-aid training was provided to staff at all campuses to support the socio-emotional needs of children; and first steps were taken to develop a partnership with the Ounce to establish a birth-to-college model of seamless learning for children. In addition, there appears to be an increased awareness among UCCS administrators and staff about the resources of each other’s schools and more thinking about how what happens at one school influences the other schools in the network. Given the data collected in this process evaluation, the UCCS schools seem well positioned to build on their experiences from the 2009–2010 school year and extend their efforts and influences on student experiences even further in the years ahead.


51

References Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as context for human development: Research perspectives. Developmental Psychology, 22, 723–142. Brooks-Gunn, J., Duncan, G. J., & Aber, J. L., eds. (1997). Neighborhood Poverty: Context and Consequences for Children. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Eamon, M. J. (2001). The effects of poverty on children’s socioemotional development: An ecological systems analysis. Social Work, 46, 256–266. Heckman, J. J. (2006). Investing in disadvantaged children is an economically efficient policy. Paper presented at the Committee for Economic Development/Pew Charitable Trusts/PNC Financial Services Group Forum on Building the Economic Case for Investments in Preschool. Hill, N. E. & Craft, S. A. (2003). Parent-school involvement and school performance: Mediated pathways among socioeconomically comparable African American and Euro-American Families. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 74–83. Hoglund, W. L. & Leadbeater, B. J. (2004). The effects of family, school, and classroom ecologies on changes in children’s social competence and emotional and behavioral problems in first grade. Developmental Psychology, 40, 533–544. Meisels, S. (2007). Accountability in early childhood: No easy answers. In R.C. Pianta, M.J. Cox, & K. Snow (Eds.), School readiness and the transition to kindergarten in the era of accountability (pp. 31-48). Baltimore: Brookes. NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (2001). Nonmaternal care and family factors in early development: An overview of the NICHD study of early child care. Applied Developmental Psychology, 22, 457–492. Raver, C. & Knitzer, J. (2002). Ready to learn: What research tells policymakers about strategies to promote social and emotional school readiness among three- and four-year-old children. (Promoting the Emotional Well-Being of Children and Families Policy Paper No. 3). New York: Columbia University. Rauh, V., Lamb-Parker, F., Garfinkel, R. S., Perry, J., & Andres, H. F. (2003). Biological, social, and community influences on third-grade reading: Levels of minority Headstart children: A multilevel approach. Journal of Community Psychology, 31, 255–278. Spielberger, J., Baker, S., Winje, C., & Mayers, L. (2009). Getting ready for school: The early childhood cluster initiative of Palm Beach County, Florida: Program implementation and early outcomes: Year 3. Chicago, IL: Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago. Spielberger, J., Haywood, T., Schuerman, J., Michels, L., & Richman, H. (2005). Evaluation of the children’s behavioral health initiative, Palm Beach County, Florida: Final report. Chicago, IL: Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago. Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago

52


53

Appendix A: Research Questions Table A-1. Research Questions for UCCS Birth-to-College Educational Model Evaluation Model Component

Year-1 Research Questions

Related and Long-Term Research Questions

Extended-day Program

To what degree do students at the charter schools receive extended learning time through the extendedday, weekend, and summer school program? To what extent do students receive supportive services through the cross-campus team and/or other schoolbased supports?

Were enhancements to the extended-day program implemented as planned? For example, are students at NKO in need of extended-day services able to access enhanced programs at their own school or at Donoghue? What are the characteristics of these students and their families? How are students chosen? What types of activities do they participate in and how frequently? Is a cross-campus team of, for example, a nurse, psychologist, and social worker, implemented as planned? What are the characteristics and presenting needs of students receiving these services and/or environmental factors prompting their need for supportive services? What is the process for connecting students to these services? How well are these services integrated into the school setting? For students below the expected levels, what progress has been made during the year? What are the characteristics of students who are on grade level versus those who are not (e.g., demographic characteristics, participation in extended-day and supportive services, length of time in charter schools, etc.)? What are the trends in reading scores over time?

Supportive Services

Academic Progress

Community Involvement

Charter School Network

To what extent are students reading at or above grade level from kindergarten through fifth grade [e.g., as indicated by STEP and ISAT scores]? How effectively are community members [including parents of children at the charter schools and Educare] involved in the design of the 0–10 model?

In what ways does this project strengthen the network of the University of Chicago schools?


What are their understandings and perceptions of the overall design of the model and specific components of the model? To what extent do they understand the importance of continuity in educational approach across the preschool years and into elementary school? Are there differences in the characteristics and views of Educare and charter school parents? What value do parents of current 0-to-5 children in the Educare center place on the opportunity to enroll their children in the charter schools? To what extent do parents of children in the Educare center think it likely that they would enroll their children at the charter schools if given the opportunity? Were these components of the model implemented as planned and are these resources being used and shared across the schools as intended? Are current teachers in the charter schools aware and supportive of this effort, including the plan to build out the model through the partnership with Educare?

54

Appendix B: Key Informants UEI Director of Schools and Community Engagement UEI Director for Strategic Initiatives UEI Project Manager UEI Director of Design School Director, Donoghue School Director, North Kenwood-Oakland School Director, Carter G. Woodson School Director, UC Woodlawn SST Nurse SST Psychologist SST School Counselor Director of Community and Family Engagement, Donoghue Director of Community and Family Engagement, North Kenwood-Oakland Coordinator of Academic and Social Services, Carter G. Woodson Extended-Day Coordinator, UC Woodlawn Middle School Social Worker/Counselor, UC Woodlawn High School social Worker, UC Woodlawn Family Support Counselor, Donoghue Resource Teacher, Donoghue Social Worker, Donoghue


55

About Chapin Hall Established in 1985, Chapin Hall is an independent policy research center whose mission is to build knowledge that improves policies and programs for children and youth, families, and their communities. Chapin Hall’s areas of research include child maltreatment prevention, child welfare systems and foster care, youth justice, schools and their connections with social services and community organizations, early childhood initiatives, community change initiatives, workforce development, out-of-school time initiatives, economic supports for families, and child well-being indicators.

1313 East 60th Street Chicago, IL 60637

T: 773.256.5100 F: 773.753.5940

www.chapinhall.org