CCLC

Executive Summary (no more than 2 pages)

The McKinley Complex received a CCLC grant in October of 2014 to provide services in three schools: Likelike Elementary Kaiulani Elementary and Central Middle School. Each of these schools were classified as “Continuous Improvement” in the Hawaii Strive Hi Performance system in 2014. The area is characterized by high poverty and low educational attainment. Each of the schools had more than 82% of their students eligible for free/reduced lunch. Two of the schools did not start programming until summer of 2015 but one school, Central Middle School did provide programming throughout the school

 year. The current evaluator was contracted at the end of the school year so evaluation results are limited to demographic information, student grades and whole school results. Data on student achievement of individual participants and the teacher survey were not collected due to the lack of an evaluator during the school year. However, meetings have been held with site coordinators and evaluation collection tools made available so that data from summer of 2015 on will be collected and compiled in the future.

Project goals are:

  •   Goal 1: The McKinley Complex will provide academic, artistic and cultural enrichment opportunities for students, grades K-8, who are enrolled in three high- poverty and low performing schools

  •   Goal 2: The McKinley Complex will provide academic, artistic and cultural enrichment opportunities for students, grades K-12, who are enrolled in three high-poverty and low performing schools.

    The grant objectives addressed to continue the After School 

    Some information about the CCLC program provided is:

  • All Stars (ASAS) programs; create STEM programs; provide homework assistance; engage students in activities that improve STEM skills and knowledge; engage students in enrichment activities; refer students for tutoring and/or remediation that supports daily classroom instruction; cultivate partnerships with com

  • munity experts in fields including sports, culture, hobbies, arts, citizenship and others; introduce families to post secondary opportunities and engage families activities; and offer daily afterschool programming for 3 hours a day/5 days each week.

  •   Over 81% of all participants as well as regular attendees are low-income (eligible

    for free/reduced lunch)

  •   64.1% of participants were regular attendees (attended for 30 days or more)

  •   A total of 181 students participated in CCLC services.

  •   64.1% of participants attended for 30 days or more

  •   44.2% of students who had room to im

  • prove had improved grades in math

  •   Of the 80 students that had room to improve in language arts, 17.5% had

    improved grades.

  •   The program was provided for three hours a day, five days a week

Each school maintains its classification as “continuous improvement.”

Despite only partial implementation, everything is in place for the 2015-16 school year including a site coordinator at each site, a project director at the complex to provide oversight and an evaluator to provide data collection tools and evaluation guidelines so that a more comprehensive set of data are available in the coming year. Based on the information available, the following recommendations are made:

  1. Insure that each school has fully implemented the CCLC program at their site

  2. Ensure that data are being collected including the academic assessment data for

    regular attendees, teacher surveys for regular attendees parent and student

    surveys.

  3. Provide and document parent i

  4. nvolvement at each CCLC

  5. Target students with low academic achievement and focus interventions to

    address areas of need.

  6. Continue the meetings started to review data needs and provide guidance on a

    quarterly basis.

Program Description (approximately 5 pages) A. Origin of the program

The McKinley Complex grant application was submitted on behalf of three schools, Kaiulani Elementary School, Likelike Elementary School, and Central Middle School. The schools are characterized by high poverty with more than 82% at each school eligible for free/reduced lunch. Each of the schoo

ls were in the classification of “continuous improvement.” All three schools were below the state standard in two indicators of attendance, which are average daily attendance and average daily absences. Each of the schools previously had a CCLC program and found value in having the services. The grant application proposed to serve elementary and middle school students, while providing support and referral services to their parents and families.

The project proposed to target elementary and middle school youth who face one or more challenges indicating they are “at-risk.” The schools saw a need for positive after-school alternatives, and improved academic performance. The project proposed to have afterschool programming in partnership with After-School All-Stars Hawaii at Central Middle School and STEM Programs at Likelike and Kaiulani Elementary School and indicated that one or more afterschool programs will take place for three hours per day, five days a week during the school year.

B. Goals of the program

Program goals were developed based on the needs identified and include:

C.

  

Goal 1: The McKinley Complex will provide academic, artistic and cultural enrichment opportunities for students, grades K-8, who are enrolled in three high- poverty and low performing schools
Goal 2: The McKinley Complex will provide academic, artistic and cultural enrichment opportunities for students, grades K-12, who are enrolled in three high- poverty and low performing schools.

Goal 3: The McKinley Complex will 

provide academic, artistic and cultural enrichment opportunities for students, grades K-12, who are enrolled in three high- poverty and low performing schools

Clients involved in the program:

Central Middle School was the only school that provided programming during the 2014- 15 school year. Services were provided by After School All Stars on the Central Middle School campus. The demographic information about participants is in the following table:

Central Middle School Demographic Information CCLC Participants

Demographic Category

Number All Students

Number Regular Attendees

Am. Indian/AK Native

0

0

Asian/Pacific Islander

158

102

Black/African American

8

5

Hispanic

3

2

White

8

4

Mixed

3

3

Special Education

16

8

LEP

33

19

Free/Reduced Lunch

148

95

Male

102

66

Female

79

50

Grade 6

66

43

Grade 7

52

34

Grade 8

63

39

There were a total of 181 students served. The percentage of those eligible for free/reduced lunch was 81.8%. LEP students were 18.2% of the population served and
8.8% were in special education. The majority of students are in the category of Asian/Pacific Islander (87.3%).

There were 116 students that were regular attendees which represents 64.1% of the total number of participants. The percentage of regular attendees that were eligible for free/reduced lunch was 81.9%; those in special education is 6.9%; LEP students were 16.4%. The majority of students (88%) are in the category of Asian/Pacific Islander.

D. Characteristics of the program materials and resources:

Program materials included instruction supplies, computer software, sports equipment and STEM programs.

Resources used by the program included the use of the school classrooms, sports fields and computer lab (in-kind). Grant funds paid for the After School All Stars program that included personnel and supplies.

Activities offered included tutoring, academic enrichment in reading, math, social studies, arts, technology, science and health/nutrition, homework help in reading, math, social studies, science, recreation and mentoring.

Procedures followed were based on information provided by Dan Williams of the Hawaii Department of Education (HIDOE) as well as ASAS requirements. The student data collected was compiled on the form provided by HIDOE.

Administration of the program was done by After School All Stars at the site level with David Asato providing overall program supervision and Joanne Lobendahn and Britini

Ronolo providing coordination and site supervision. At the complex level, Ron Nomura is the Project Director who will oversee all three CCLC sites and monitor the CCLC progress and data collection.

E. Staff and others involved in the program:

The number of staff are indicated in the following table:

Central Middle School CCLC Staffing for 2014-15

School Year 2014-15

Summer 2015

Type of Staff Member

Paid

Volunteer

Paid

Volunteer

School-day teachers (include former and substitute teachers)

2

8

Center administrators and coordinators

1

1

Youth Development workers or other non school- day staff with a college degree or higher

2

4

2

Other nonteaching school-day staff (e.g., librarians, guidance counselors, aides)

1

Other community members (e.g., business mentors, senior citizens, clergy)

3

14

Other nonschool-day staff with some or no college

9

2

4

2

Staff worked during the CCLC hours which was 3 hours per day, 5 days per week. The coordinator provided scheduling and assignment of staff. The teachers provided individual and group instruction and homework help. Youth development workers and other non school-day staff provided academic enrichment and recreational activities.

Program monitoring was done by the ASAS coordinator and overseen by the Project Director. Technical support was provided by HIDOE that included webinars and resources.

Partners ASAS was the partner that provided services and the CCLC activities. They were contracted by the complex to provide all CCLC services.

Evaluation Design and Results (approximately 8 pages) A. Purposes of the evaluation

The purpose of the evaluation was written to include a process and outcome evaluation with the intent to measure project effectiveness. Since there was not an evaluator during the first year, the only data available was information about participants, staff, activities student grade changes in language arts and math and data for the whole school. For the 2015-16 school year, a coordinator meeting was provided and the current evaluator

reviewed requirements and provided data collection instruments. The purpose will be as originally intended.

B. Evaluation plan

The intent of the implementation plan was to determine if services were implemented on time, identify barriers and resolution, and provide information about any areas that could be improved.

The outcome evaluation plan was to address academic achievement gains using teacher reports on classroom behaviors and academic performance measure program effectiveness using data on participants and survey results.

C. Evaluation Schedule

The data were to be collected quarterly. ASAS collected daily student data on attendance and obtained student grades for first and fourth quarter for comparison. Other than grades individual student achievement results and surveys were not collected but will be in the 2015-16 school year. Surveys will be sent out in April for students and parents and teacher surveys will be distributed in May for regular attendees. Student achievement data for regular attendees will be collected in the summer as results are made available. The evaluator will collect the data and analyze it. A report will be provided in Fall of 2016 and yearly thereafter.

D. Results of the implementation evaluation:

There were three schools in the grant application. After School All Stars had previously provided CCLC services at Central Middle School which allowed for a smooth transition and implementation in the 2014-15 school year. The grant award was made after the start of the school year so the other two sites opted to wait until the 2015-16 school year to begin services as it is hard to find staff when you are in the midst of the school year. The elementary schools are feeders for the middle school and will be providing services this year. ASAS continues as a partner. Other partnerships working with the schools include Earthworks, Dr. Sustainability and the clay project.

The plan to ensure effective program implementation in the 2015-16 school year included designating Ron Nomura as a project director, contracting with an evaluator who has provided a training on data collection needs and instruments, quarterly monitoring of progress and quarterly meetings with site coordinators and the project director.

E. Results of the outcome evaluation

The outcome evaluation serves to address the following program performance indicators, established by the U.S. Department of Education for the 21st CCLC program:

Central Middle School Grade Changes-30 Day Students

Of the 77 students that had room to improve grades in math, 44.2% had improved grades in math. In reading, of the 80 students that had room to improve in language arts, 17.5% had improved grades. The grant has focused on STEM which may reflect the better results in math but students in need of English/language arts support could benefit from some extra help as well.

For the school as a whole, the following are the results on the Smarter Balanced Assessment that was given for the first time in the 2014-15 school year. Although two of the schools had not yet started CCLC, the scores can serve as a baseline for the coming school year.

McKinley Complex CCLC Schools % Proficient on Smarter Balanced Test 2014-15

The following table provides the proficiency in English and Math compared to the complex as a whole as well as the state proficiency. Since Central is the only middle school, their scores are the same as the complex as a whole.

McKinley Complex-SBA- % Met/Exceeded Achievement Standard

English

Math

Improved

14

34

Stayed Same

25

23

Went down

41

20

Did not need to improve

16

20

N/A

18

18

English

Math

Science

Central Middle School

23%

17%

11%

Likelike Elementary

41%

44%

37%

Kaiulani Elementary

22%

18%

29%

School

Complex

State

English

Math

English

Math

English

Math

Central Middle

6

17.6%

11.8%

17.6%

11.8%

47%

38%

7

31.3%

18.8%

31.3%

18.8%

44%

38%

8

22.2%

22.6%

22.2%

22.6%

47%

39%

Ka’iulani

3

8.8%

14.7%

39.7%

28.5%

46%

50%

4

22.7%

19.6%

43.9%

43.8%

48%

46%

5

35.5%

18.3%

55.9%

42.2%

54%

42%

Likelike

3

29.8%

45.6%

39.7%

28.5%

46%

50%

4

40.6%

53.8%

43.9%

43.8%

48%

46%

5

51.6%

32.7%

55.9%

42.2%

54%

42%

Scores are below the state average at all grades and content area and in math except for Likelike grade 4 and 5. Since this is the first year of this test, this year will serve as a baseline for future years. The Strive Hi designation and index scores are in the following table:

McKinley Strive HI Classification and Index Score

All schools have maintained the same Strive Hi classification but only Likelike has shown improvement over previous years. The index for this year will be compared in future years as one indicator of growth.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Only one of the three schools in CCLC implemented services in the 2014-15 school year but the other two have implemented services for the 2015-16 school year. After School All Stars had provided CCLC services in the previous year and was able to continue into the 2014-15 school year without interruption. Their experience with the school and CCLC provided for a smooth transition.

Not having an evaluator at the start of the grant as well as knowing that the previous system for collecting annual performance data was changing probably contributed to not having all the data specified in the grant but data were kept on student participation as well as student grades for first and fourth quarter and demographic data. There was good participation with 181 total students attending and of those, 64.1% were regular attendees which would seem to indicate that students saw a benefit to the services and activities. The majority (over 81%) were considered low income students which was one target population for the grant.

This year was the start of a new assessment system so comparison to previous test scores would not be appropriate. For the current year, scores at each site are below the state average at all grades and content areas except for Likelike grade 4 and 5 math scores. These scores will serve as the baseline in coming years for comparison. Each school continues to have the classification of “continuous improvement.” The StriveHi index scores for the 2014-15 school year will also be compared in future years as one indicator of progress.

Despite the fact that surveys were not distributed and academic assessment data were not available for last year, everything is in place for the 2015-16 school year and data are being collected. Academic instruction and enrichment activities are being provided at each site. A site coordinator has been designated at each site and a project director for the complex has been identified to provide guidance and accountability for program implementation.

School

Strive HI Classification

Index Score

2013

2014

2015

2013

2014

2015

Kaiulani El.

Continuous Improvement

Continuous Improvement

Continuous Improvement

166

132

131

Likelike El.

Continuous Improvement

Continuous Improvement

Continuous Improvement

129

195

327

Central Middle

Continuous Improvement

Continuous Improvement

Continuous Improvement

211

96

91

Recommendations

  1. Insure that each school has fully implemented the CCLC program at their site

  2. Ensure that data are being collected including the academic assessment data for

    regular attendees, teacher surveys for regular attendees parent and student

    surveys.

  3. Provide and document parent involvement at each CCLC

  4. Target students with low academic achievement and focus interventions to

    address areas of need.

  5. Continue the meetings started to review data needs and provide guidance on a

    quarterly basis. 


Policy 101-14

POLICY 101-14
FAMILY AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT/PARTNERSHIP

In setting expectations and creating a climate conducive to effective engagement/partnership implementation, the Board acknowledges the importance of administrative leadership at all levels, including its own. Therefore, the Board directs the Department to establish an organizational culture characterized by practices and programs that build and sustain positive and engaged relationships with families and communities by:

Building the capacity of staff and families to engage in partnerships;

Aligning with school achievement goals and connecting families to the teaching and learning goals for the students;

Taking a comprehensive and coordinated approach to family school engagement and community partnerships;

Addressing family school engagement/partnership in strategic planning processes;

Assigning formal responsibility, accountability and necessary authority for engagement/partnership implementation to appropriate staff at the State, Complex Area and School levels;

Embracing the diverse cultures, languages, strengths and needs of all families;

Providing adequate and appropriate time, resources and opportunities to include families in the design, implementation, evaluation and oversight of all relevant programs and services.

Establishing statewide standards, administrative guidelines, associated metrics/indicators, timelines and reporting requirements that support the implementation, monitoring and evaluation of family and community engagement/partnerships based upon national evidence-based best practices including, but not limited to:

Standard 1: Welcoming all families into the school community—Families are active participants in the life of the school and feel welcomed, valued, and connected to each other, to school staff, and to what students are learning and doing in class.

Standard 2: Communicating effectively—Families and school staff engage in regular two-way, meaningful communication about student learning.

Standard 3: Supporting student success—Families and school staff continuously partner to support students’ learning and healthy development both at home and at school, and have regular opportunities to strengthen their knowledge and skills to do so effectively.

Standard 4: Speaking up for every child—Families are empowered to be advocates for their own and other children, to ensure that students are treated fairly and have access to learning opportunities that will support their success.

Standard 5: Sharing power—Families and school staff are equal partners in decisions that affect children and families and together inform, influence, and create policies, practices, and programs.

Standard 6: Engaging/partnering with community—Families and school staff engage/partner with community members to connect students, families, and staff to expanded learning opportunities, community services, and civic participation.

Rationale: The Board of Education (“Board”) recognizes that a child’s growth and educational success are responsibilities and goals shared by the Department of Education (“Department”), communities, schools and families. It follows that achievement of these goals depends on the establishment of a broad array of informed partnerships among stakeholders that address the strengths and needs of all students.

[Approved: 06/16/2015 (as Board Policy 101.14); amended: 06/21/2016 (renumbered as Board Policy 101-14)]

Former policy 2403 history: approved: 05/03/2001; revised: 09/18/2003 


1618 Palama Street Honolulu, HI 96817 Phone: (808) 832-3370 Fax: (808) 832-3374 Principal: Mr. Kelly Bart