1718wccusd finalreport v4 · harold dichoso administrative technician public profit evaluation team...

EXPANDED LEARNING West Contra Costa Unified School District

2017-2018 Annual Findings Report

WCCUSD Expanded Learning Programs 2017-18 Evaluation Findings | December 2018

2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The WCCUSD Expanded Learning Program Evaluation requires active participation from many partners

throughout the year. We would like to express our gratitude to the students, families, and Expanded

Learning Program staff for contributing to this evaluation and report.

WCCUSD EXPANDED LEARNING PROGRAMS OFFICE

KATHARINE SULLIVAN

Expanded Learning Coordinator

ALICIA AZCARRAGA

Program Assistant

HAROLD DICHOSO

Administrative Technician

PUBLIC PROFIT EVALUATION TEAM

STEPHANIE KONG

Research Associate

HANNAH PICKAR

Research Assistant

DA’SHON CARR

Project Assistant

JOSEPH MONARDO

Graduate Intern

COREY NEWHOUSE

Founder and Principal


3

WCCUSD EXPANDED LEARNING 2017-2018

ABOUT EXPANDED LEARNING PROGRAMS IN WCCUSD

28 Programs

3 Lead Agencies

$5.6M In Partner Investments

3,484 Youth Participants

Programs served a higher proportion of Latino and African American students than their host schools in the District, the County, and the State.

47% of particpants were English Language Learners

Programs served a high proportion (47%) of English Language Learners. ELL participants who attended 100 days or more of program were significantly more likely to be reclassified (13%) than their peers who attended fewer than 100 days (9%).

Participants attended 112 days of program, on average. Participants also attended the school day at a higher rate than non-participants (95% and 93%, respectively) and were less likely to be chronically absent from school than their non-participant peers.

!

Latino 60%

African American

23%

Asian 10%

White6%

Other1%

120

68

Overall Average

days attended

112

ES MS


4

FOCUS ON QUALITY

•! Overall, program quality improved across sites at both the elementary and middle

school levels from fall to spring, as demonstrated by higher program quality assessment

scores. In both fall and spring, elementary and middle school programs scored greater

than 4.50 in the safety domain which indicates that Expanded Learning Programs were

particularly strong when it comes to providing an emotionally and physically safe

environment for their youth. Middle school sites in particular increased scores in the

engagement domain over the course of the year.

•! Corroborating evidence from survey data demonstrated that youth and their families feel

their Expanded Learning Programs provide a very safe and supportive environment.

Furthermore, youth reported increases in engagement compared to the previous year.

The majority of youth reported that the adults in the program listen to what they have to

say (83%), an increase from last year (77% in 2016-17). While less than half of youth felt

they get to choose what they do or how they do it during program activities (48%), this

was an improvement over last year when just 37% of youth agreed.

SCHOOL DAY AND DISTRICT GOAL ALIGNMENT

•! The majority of Expanded Learning Programs have strong relationships with their host

schools and are willing to cooperate with one another. However, only 57% of staff

reported that the program’s curriculum and instruction reinforce concepts taught during

the school day.

•! Participants that attended 100 days or more of program were significantly more likely

to be reclassified as English proficient in 2017-18 (13%) than their peers that attended

less than 100 days (9%).

•! Participants attended an average of 95% of school days enrolled, compared to an average

of 93% among non-participants, which translates to approximately four more days of

academic instruction. Related, program participants were significantly less likely than

their non-participant peers to be chronically absent from school. In particular,

Black/African American participants have a relatively high chronic absence rate, but the

chronic absence rate for Black/African American participants was significantly lower

than for Black/African American non-participants (25% compared to 39%, respectively). !


5

TABLE OF CONTENTS

About Expanded Learning in WCCUSD 6

WCCUSD Expanded Learning Participants 13

Expanded Learning Programs Support School Day and District Goals 21

Recommendations 38

Appendices 40

!


6

ABOUT EXPANDED LEARNING IN WCCUSD WCCUSD EXPANDED LEARNING VISION

Youth in West Contra Costa Unified School District (WCCUSD) have access to positive youth

development experiences that help youth thrive and become successful in school and

beyond. In order for youth to thrive, they need to feel safe, have positive relationships

with caring adults, feel that they belong, and experience appropriate and engaging

challenges aligned with their interests. Expanded learning programs can provide these

very elements for youth in the critical hours after school.1

WCCUSD’s Expanded Learning Office promotes program quality using a continuous quality

(CQI) improvement framework, seeking to ensure that positive youth development

practices are driving success for youth in and out of the classroom. WCCUSD Expanded

Learning Programs are open to all students2 at 28 schools at no cost to families.3

Community Youth who live in under-resourced communities, who may be living in poverty, or for

whom English is not their first language, may face barriers to academic achievement and

school success. These are the students most in need of high quality developmental

experiences.4 WCCUSD is one of several school districts within Contra Costa County and

the gaps between the District and the County communities are noticeable. The majority of

WCCUSD students are eligible for free and reduced-priced meals (70%), far above Contra

Costa County as a whole (39%).5 Furthermore, 34% of students in WCCUSD are English

Language Learners, far more than the County (17%).6 Given these discrepancies, it is clear

that the youth in WCCUSD are in need of additional supports to ensure they have

opportunities and experiences that place them on track with their peers in the broader

community.

1 Gambone, M.A., Klem, A.M., and Connell, J.P. (2002). Finding Out What Matters for Youth: Testing Key Links in a Community Action Framework for Youth Development. Philadelphia: Youth Development Strategies, Inc., and Institute for Research and Reform in Education. 2 Host schools determine specific criteria for priority student enrollment, such as low academic performance or social needs. 3 Per grant legislation, school-based 21st Century and After School Education and Safety programs may charge a fee but may not turn away youth for inability to pay. 4 Afterschool Alliance (2016). America After 3PM Special Report: Afterschool in Communities of Concentrated Poverty. 5 Education Data Partnership, 2016-17 Student Demographics for Contra Costa County and West Contra Costa County Unified School District. 6 Ibid.


7

Partners WCCUSD contracts with community organizations that have expertise in youth

development and out of school time programming to operate its 28 ASES/21st Century after

school programs. These community-based organizations work in close partnership with the

WCCUSD Expanded Learning Office and the school community to design and implement

high quality programs for WCCUSD students. Each Expanded Learning Program offers

academic support, enrichment activities, and hot supper five days per week throughout

the school year. In addition to its three lead partners, Bay Area Community Resources

(BACR), Love. Learn. Success. (LLS), and the YMCA of the East Bay, the Expanded Learning

Office convenes quarterly collaborative meetings with all stakeholders to inform and

coordinate services and efforts across the Expanded Learning Programs in WCCUSD. The

goal of the collaborative meetings is to share the program’s mission, vision, goals, and

program outcome data. These collaborative partners include leadership from local

government, philanthropy, and organizations who specialize in visual and performing arts,

mentoring, sports, and STEAM programming.

Funding The District’s Expanded Learning Programs are funded through a mix of state and federal

dollars, supported by a local match of funding from each of the lead agencies and

additional community partners. All 28 sites are funded by the state’s After School

Education and Safety (ASES) grant. One elementary school site was also funded by the 21st

Century Community Learning Center federal grant to provide school year and summer

programming. Through the combination of these funding streams, along with community

partners, WCCUSD continued to make a significant financial investment in its Expanded

Learning Programs (Figure 1).

Figure 1. WCCUSD and partners invest $5.6 million in expanded learning

State:

ASES

$3,711,260

Federal: 21st

CCLC

$122,850

Community

Agencies

$1,484,084

WCCUSD

$XXXX

$5,620,694

Total Investment

$302,500


8

EVALUATION APPROACH

The WCCUSD Expanded Learning Office continued its partnership with Public Profit to

evaluate its Expanded Learning Programs in 2017-18. We used a mixed-methods approach

to the evaluation, collecting data on program participation, program quality, school day

alignment, and program effectiveness through the District, surveys, and observations, in

alignment with the District’s theory of action. This report contains the results of the 2017-

18 evaluation and includes information about:

•! WCCUSD’s commitment to quality Expanded Learning Programs and program staff;

•! Program participation and attendance;

•! Stakeholder reports of program quality; and

•! Alignment with the school day and District goals.

!


9

INVESTMENT IN QUALITY

Participation in an expanded learning program can lead to positive outcomes for youth,

however, program quality is a critical hinge in that pathway. Research suggests that

regular participation in high quality programs is correlated with improved grades, school

day attendance, study habits, task completion, and communication skills.7 The WCCUSD

Expanded Learning Office continued to define and measure program quality using the

Weikart Center for Youth Program Quality framework. Understanding program quality is

the key to youth’s subsequent success. Therefore, the Expanded Learning Office has

developed a rigorous schedule for the continuous professional development of staff. In

collaboration with its community-based partners, WCCUSD annually facilitates over 100

hours of professional development for direct service staff.

The Expanded Learning CQI Cycle and Activities The District supported all sites in the CQI cycle throughout the year to assess their

programs and gather data, set academic and quality improvement goals based on that

data, and make plans to achieve those goals (Figure 2).

Figure 2. CQI activities in 2017-18

!

7 Durlak, J.A., & Weissberg, R.P. (2007). The impact of after-school programs that promote personal and social skills. Chicago, IL: Collaborative for Academic Social, and Emotional Learning.

Summer 2017

•August Institute•Program profile data review

Fall 2017

•Site self-assessment•Site Visits•Quality improvement goal setting

•Quarterly reports•Ongoing professional development and technical assistance

•Facilitation of Professional Learning Communities (PLCs)

Winter 2017

•Planning with Data (PQA)

•Quality improvement goal setting

•Quarterly reports•Ongoing professional development and technical assistance

•Facilitation of Professional Learning Communities (PLCs)

Spring 2018

•Site Visits•Quarterly reports•Ongoing proffesional development and technical assistance

•Facilitation of Proffesional Learning Communities (PLCs)


10

Program Quality Assessment The WCCUSD Expanded Learning Office promoted a culture of observation and feedback to

support high quality practices in its Expanded Learning Programs. The Expanded Learning

Office staff conducted fall and spring site visits of each program, using the Youth and

School-Age Program Quality Assessment (PQA) tools.8

Before the WCCUSD Expanded Learning Office Staff conducted their observations, each

program conducted a self-assessment. Program staff (usually a team of leaders and

frontline staff) observed their own program and scored using the PQA rubrics. Staff then

used their notes and scores to identify strengths and areas for growth in the program to

provide specific coaching and feedback to frontline staff. The PQA scores provided a

snapshot of program quality at the time of the observation.

In addition to the self-assessment, District staff – all certified as reliable assessors by the

Weikart Center – conducted formal program observations in the fall and spring. Over time

and across individual sites in a network or school district, these observations can provide a

District-level view of program quality as experienced by youth participants.

PQA Data Findings

WCCUSD Expanded Learning Programs improved their program quality scores between fall

and spring. Elementary school programs’ overall PQA score increased from 3.40 to 3.69, a

+0.29 difference. Middle school programs’ overall PQA score increased from 2.83 to 3.03,

a +0.20 difference. In both fall and spring, elementary and middle school programs scored

greater than 4.50 in the safety domain which indicates that Expanded Learning Programs

were particularly strong when it comes to providing an emotionally and physically safe

environment to their youth. Elementary programs had great improvement in the

supportive environment domain (+0.30) and interaction domain (+0.44). Middle school

programs did not make any improvement in the interaction domain with a steady score of

2.15. Although programs scored lower in the engagement domain compared to other

domains, elementary and middle school programs increased their score from 2.52 to 2.81

(+0.29) and 1.46 to 2.08 (+0.62), respectively, demonstrating an investment in the

continuous cycle of quality improvement.9

!

8 These tools are site observation rubrics that provide reliable data on which programs are implementing high quality practices. 9 For more detailed Program Quality Scores for fall and spring by site, see Appendix B.


11

Figure 3. Throughout the year elementary programs improved their scores across all domains

Source: District site visits, SAPQA 2017-18. Elementary school program site visits were conducted by WCCUSD Expanded Learning Office District staff with the School-Age Program Quality Assessment Tool in the fall 2017 and spring 2018, n=24.

Figure 4. Middle school programs scored low in the engagement domain, but continued to increase their score throughout the year

Source: District site visits, YPQA 2017-18. Middle school program site visits were conducted by WCCUSD Expanded Learning Office District staff with the Youth Program Quality Assessment Tool in the fall 2017 and spring 2018, n=4.

!

4.62

3.343.14

2.52

3.40

4.72

3.64 3.58

2.81

3.69

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

Safety Supportive Interaction Engagement Overall

Fall Spring

4.55

3.16

2.15

1.46

2.83

4.56

3.31

2.08

3.03

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

Safety Supportive Interaction Engagement Overall

Fall Spring


12

INVESTMENT IN STAFF

The District employs a youth development framework that places responsibility on its

youth workers to create an environment that is conducive to student learning and their

success. Therefore, the Expanded Learning Office makes an investment in program staff

through year-round support and professional development opportunities which ultimately

benefits students.

The Expanded Learning Office convened monthly training in the Youth Work Methods, a

series of professional development workshops on high quality staff practices for Site

Supervisors, group leaders, and certificated lead teachers. This multi-tiered professional

development opportunity builds content knowledge and leadership skills at all levels at a

program site. The Youth Work Methods are also aligned with the practices described in the

Program Quality Assessment tool used for observations.

The WCCUSD Expanded Learning Office also organized its sites into Professional Learning

Communities (PLCs). The PLCS were guided by the core values of integrity,

professionalism, and competency. Each PLC consisted of seven sites that met monthly to

analyze data, discuss challenges, share best practices, and provide peer support. The PLCs

were organized by area of interest identified by the Site Supervisors. The areas of focus

for the 2017-18 PLCs were supporting English Language Learners, developing and retaining

high quality staff, social and emotional learning, and family engagement.

Coaching and technical assistance was also provided by the District’s Expanded Learning

staff to sites throughout the year. These supports were tailored based on site needs, in

order to meet each site where they were at.

Finally, each of the three lead agencies was responsible for meeting with their program

staff prior to the start of the school year for a minimum of 20 hours. This time was used to

develop curriculum, review classroom management and pedagogical strategies, and

discuss safety protocols and program policies. Each lead agency also provided their own

professional development and coaching to their staff throughout the school year.

!


13

WCCUSD EXPANDED LEARNING PARTICIPANTS YOUTH SERVED

In 2017-18, WCCUSD’s Expanded Learning Programs served 3,484 youth at 24 elementary

schools and 4 middle schools. Program participants represented 25% of all youth at the

host schools. WCCUSD served a population of students and participants in the Expanded

Learning programs that reflected diversity.

During the 2017-18 school year, most WCCUSD students resided in Richmond and San

Pablo, where more than one in five youth live in households below the federal poverty

level.10 Within the 28 school sites that hosted Expanded Learning Programs, 85% of

students were eligible for free or reduced-price meals, an indicator of family poverty.11

Figure 5. Most expanded learning participants live in Richmond and San Pablo

Source: Cityspan Attendance System for attendance records (August 21, 2017 – June 7, 2018) (N=3,484).

10 The poverty rate among children in households for whom poverty status is determined below the poverty level for the core zip codes served by WCCUSD ranges from 22%% to 33% compared to 22% for the state of California and 13% for Contra Costa County as a whole. The median income is far below the state median. In these three zip codes (94801, 94804, and 94806), median income for families ranges from $46,105 to $58,254, compared to $72,952 for the state and $98,983 for the county. Finally, while only 18% of children in the county live in households that receive public assistance, 26-41% of children in these three zip codes do so. Source: 2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. 11 Source: California Department of Education DataQuest, retrieved September 2018.


14

Notably, these youth resided in communities where more than half of the residents speak

a language other than English. Further, roughly half of those residents do not speak English

very well.12 Among the student body at these 28 school sites, 47% of youth started the

2017-18 academic year as English Language Learners.13 Similarly, within Expanded

Learning Programs, 47% of participants started the 2017-18 academic year as English

Language Learners, ranging from 14% to 73% at different sites; 12% of these participants

were reclassified to fluent English proficient by the end of the year (for more information

on reclassification rates, see page 30).14

WCCUSD Expanded Learning Programs served primarily Latino and African American

students, and at slightly different proportions than that of the regular school day. While

Latino students made up 55% of the host schools’ total student populations, they

represented 60% of youth in the expanded learning programs. Programs also served a

higher proportion of African Americans compared to the host schools (23% compared to

16%). White youth — who made up 10% of the District’s population — represented just 6%

of program participants. Similarly, Asian and Pacific Islander youth accounted for 16% of

the District’s total student count but just 10% of program participants. Programs served

roughly the same proportion of boys and girls as the District: after school youth were 49%

female and 51% male, while the District was 48% female and 52% male.

Figure 6. Programs primarily serve Latino/Hispanic and African American youth

Source: Cityspan Attendance System for attendance records (August 21, 2017 – June 7, 2018) (N=3,484).

12 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates 13 Source: WCCUSD demographic records (August 21, 2017 – June 7, 2018) 14 Source: WCCUSD demographic records; matched to participants (August 21, 2017 – June 7, 2018) per program attendance records

Latino/Hispanic, 60%Black/African American, 23%

Asian/Pacific Islander, 10%

White, 6% Other, 1%


15

ATTENDANCE

The Expanded Learning Programs run every day that school is open, 180 days a year. One

way to gauge regular attendance is to look at the average days attended per student.

Elementary youth are expected to attend five days a week. Middle school students are

expected to attend at least three days a week. Accordingly, we expect to see fewer days

attended, on average, among middle school youth (See Figure 7).

Another way is to look for the proportion of youth who attended 100 days or more, as

research suggests that youth gain additional benefits after roughly that amount of

consistent program participation.15

Figure 7. Average days attended exceeded 110 days per student

Source: Cityspan Attendance System for attendance records (August 21, 2017 – June 7, 2018) (N=3,484). For more measures of program attendance, including measures tracked to comply with grant guidelines, see Table 5 in the Appendix.

15 Huang, D., La Torre, D., Leon, S., Duong, N. and Hodson, C. (2011) “Supporting Student Success in Middle Schools: Examining the Relationship between Elementary Afterschool Program Participation and Subsequent Middle School Attainments” National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST), University of California, Los Angeles. Retrieved from https://www.cse.ucla.edu/downloads/files/Huang.etal.AERA.paper.pdf.

120

68

ES (N=2,590) MS (N=894)

Overall Average: 112


16

YOUTH AND FAMILY FEEDBACK

Program Quality

Safe environment

Youth and families alike reported that their Expanded Learning

Program was a safe place, a foundational component of a high quality

program. A strong majority of students felt safe in the program (91%),

and all families agreed that the Expanded Learning Program is a safe

place for their child (100%). Slightly fewer youth reported that an

adult in the program asks for their ideas on how to solve conflicts

(78%) or that conflicts are resolved without anyone getting hurt (79%).

The staff is friendly and helpful. My daughter feels

safe and open to trying new things in the program.

- Family Member

Supportive environment

Youth and families also felt that the program was a supportive

environment with caring adult relationships. A strong majority of

youth felt there is an adult who cares about them in the program

(91%) and there is an adult who wants them to do their best (93%).

Families overwhelmingly agreed that their child feels comfortable

with the Expanded Learning Program staff (99%) and that there is an

adult in the program that their child can talk to about problems (97%).

What I like about this program is that when I need help

with something there is an adult that would be there

for me.

- Youth Participant

The staff are kind and caring. The kids respect the

adults and have a great time.

- Family Member

91% of youth

reported feeling

safe in the

program.

91% of youth felt

there is an adult

who cares about

them.

99% of families

agreed their child

feels comfortable

with the program

staff.


17

Interactive

Youth generally reported that they have positive interactions with

their peers in the program. The majority of youth reported that they

have a friend who really cares about them (88%). Slightly fewer youth

reported that they feel like they belong in the program (80%),

however, this is an increase from last year (75% in 2016-17). Students

also reported that they get to help other students in the program

(76%). A strong majority of families agreed that their child has

opportunities to develop leadership skills in the program (97%).

One thing I like best about this program is my friends.

You always make at LEAST one new friend here. If you

are in the same grade, you get to spend a lot of time

with them and the teachers embrace it.

- Youth Participant

What I really like about after school program is that I

can learn more about how to be a better person and

because I have teachers that really care about me.

- Youth Participant

What I like best about this program is that we get to do

fun activities, we can help each other with problems,

and that there are adults who care about all of us.

- Youth Participant

What I like best in the after school program is that I

got to hang out with one of the school’s teacher and

got to do projects with my teacher like build a

community for my schools and complete projects in

independent groups. I WAS GROUP LEADER!

- Youth Participant

!

97% of families

agreed their child

has opportunities

to develop

leadership skills.

83% of youth felt

the adults in the

program listen to

what they have to

say.

88% of youth said

they have a friend

who really cares

about them.


18

Engaging

Youth generally reported that they found the program engaging. The majority of youth

reported that the adults in the program listen to what they have to say (83%), an

increase from last year (77% in 2016-17). Less than half of youth felt they get to choose

what they do or how they do it during program activities (48%), however, this is an

improvement over last year when just 37% of youth agreed. Nearly all families said

their child has the opportunity to try new things (98%) and that the program’s activity

offerings meet their child’s interests and talents (95%).

My child has had the opportunity to extend his

instructional day in a supportive, caring environment

that emphasizes critical thinking and collaboration with

others.

- Family Member

This breadth [of activities] expands their skills,

interests, awareness of possibilities and willingness to

try something new. I think this can be very empowering

for children of all personalities. There is a diverse

group of program instructors, all who are friendly and

greet the families daily with respect. They are always

open to ideas. I really appreciate the program and all

that it offers to our daughter, and look forward to

enrolling my son next year

- Family Member


19

Family Engagement and Satisfaction

The majority of families reported that family engagement in the

program was welcomed. Families overwhelmingly agreed that staff

recognize them when they visit the Expanded Learning Program (99%)

and that staff listen to families’ questions or comments (99%). Slightly

fewer, though still a strong majority, of families felt that there are

opportunities for family participation in the program (94%). Beyond

engagement in the program, fewer families reported knowing more

about their child’s school day (90%) or being more involved in their

child’s school (88%).

Overall, nearly all families were satisfied or very satisfied with the

program (98%). Nearly all families reported that their child says good

things about the program (98%). Furthermore, the program serves an

important need for families; an overwhelming majority of families said

that they can go to school or work because their child is in the program

(98%).

I love the fact that the staff are very friendly and

approachable. I am able to talk to my son’s teacher

one-on-one about any concerns or questions I may have.

My son always has great things to say about the

Expanded Learning Program.

- Family Member

Student Outcomes

Social Emotional Skills

Most youth reported developing social emotional skills as a result of

their participation in the program. About three-quarters of youth felt

that the program helps them learn how to work out problems (78%),

listen to others (78%), and make friends (76%), all improvements over

last year.

I like that the adults in this program help me solve

problems and do my best at things I like to do.

- Youth Participant

98% of families

were satisfied with

the program.

78% of youth said

the program helps

them learn how to

work out problems.

99% of families felt

the program staff

listen to their

questions or

comments.


20

Academic Behaviors

Most youth also reported developing academic skills through their

participation in the program. About three-quarters of youth said being

in the program helps them feel like a part of their school (79%), learn

things that help with school work (77%), and enjoy learning (75%).

Fewer youth felt more confident talking in class because of

participation in the program (65%). The strong majority of families

agreed that the program teaches skills that will help their child succeed

in school (97%) and that their child’s attitude towards school has

improved since coming to the program (93%).

What I like best about this program is that I get to have

fun with math and learn things that I didn't know before.

- Youth Participant

New Skills and Experiences

Most youth learned how to do something new in the program (82%),

though fewer youth learned new information about topics that interest

them (69%).

If I need help with something, I can get help from one of

the instructors. I can try out new things I haven’t tried

before.

- Youth Participant

Sense of Mastery

Most youth felt proud of something they have done in the program (85%)

and reported that participating in the program helps them work hard

towards their goals (79%). Slightly fewer felt that they are better at

something that they used to think was hard (73%).

Ever since I got motivation I started to get better and

better. I have been in the afterschool program for

more than 5 years and I'm on top of my game. I'm proud

to be in this afterschool program.

- Youth Participant

93% of families said

their child’s attitude

toward school has

improved since

coming to the

program.

82% of youth

learned how to do

something new in

the program.

85% of youth felt

proud of something

they have done in

the program.


21

EXPANDED LEARNING PROGRAMS SUPPORT SCHOOL DAY AND DISTRICT GOALS SCHOOL DAY ALIGNMENT

Expanded learning programs can support school day success when the two are aligned.

Strong relationships and frequent communication about important topics between the

expanded learning and school day staff reinforces the efforts on both sides, ultimately

supporting positive student outcomes. In order to measure the extent to which

Expanded Learning Programs support the school day in WCCUSD, school staff completed

a survey about the perceived relationships and communication with the Expanded

Learning Program on site.

Relationships Staff were asked to rate their level of agreement with a series of statements about the

relationship between the Expanded Learning Program and the host school. Three

quarters (75%) of staff agree that there is a strong partnership between the Expanded

Learning Program and the school (Figure 8). As part of this strong partnership, roughly

three-quarters of staff agree that Expanded Learning Program staff and school day staff

are willing to collaborate (74%). Despite this willingness, fewer staff agree that the

Expanded Learning Program’s staff reach out to teachers to identify student needs

(60%) or that the program’s curriculum and instruction reinforce concepts taught during

the school day (57%).

I would like to see a stronger connection with the ELP Program and the

school day teachers. I would be happy to inform them about the concepts

we are studying in the classroom, so that they may align their program

with what is going on in the classroom during the school day. I would be

more than happy to provide supplemental materials for this as well.

- Staff

The staff work hard to align classroom curriculum to the lessons that they

teach during the Expanded Learning Program hours. Many create their own

curriculum and seek guidance from school teachers and staff in terms of

how to improve lessons and/or instruction.

- Staff


22

Figure 8. Staff are willing to collaborate, but are less positive about actual practice of coordination between the program and school day staff

Source: Staff survey, spring 2018 (n=475).

!

55%

57%

60%

63%

64%

68%

70%

71%

73%

74%

74%

75%

26%

15%

23%

12%

20%

7%

9%

9%

14%

5%

8%

15%

19%

27%

17%

25%

16%

25%

21%

20%

13%

21%

17%

9%

The expanded learning program has enoughcapacity to serve all interested students.

Curriculum and instruction in the expandedlearning program reinforce concepts taught during

the school day.

Expanded learning program staff reach out toteachers to identify the needs of students.

Expanded learning program staff transmitimportant information about children and parents

to appropriate school staff in a timely fashion.

School staff are encouraged to visit the program.

Expanded learning program staff follow throughwith the commitments they make to school staff.

The program is well coordinated with other afterschool activities at the school.

The Site Supervisor keeps administration informedof important decisions and issues related to

program policy.

Expanded learning program staff take care of thespace the school provides for the program.

Expanded learning program staff are responsive toideas and suggestions from school staff.

Teachers are willing to collaborate with theexpanded learning program staff.

There is a strong partnership between theexpanded learning program and the school.

Agree Disagree I don't know


23

Surveyed staff who visited their school’s Expanded Learning Program had very positive

views of the program.16 For example, 90% of frequent visitor staff agreed that the

Expanded Learning Program staff are responsive to ideas and suggestions from school

staff, compared to only 54% of staff who had not visited (Figure 9). Notably, a large

proportion of staff who had not visited the program responded “don’t know” for many

of the survey items.

Figure 9. Staff who have visited the program frequently are more positive than those who have never visited

Source: Staff survey, spring 2018 (n=475). Represents the proportion who responded “Agree” or “Strongly Agree”.

!

16 For full staff survey results by frequency of visits to the Expanded Learning Program, see Appendix C.

46%

43%

50%

54%

75%

82%

85%

90%

School staff are encouraged to visit the program.

Expanded learning program staff follow throughwith the commitments they make to school staff.

The Site Supervisor keeps administration informedof important decisions and issues related to

program policy.

Expanded learning program staff are responsive toideas and suggestions from school staff.

Have visited at least 5 times Have not visited


24

Communication Principals, Expanded Learning Lead Teachers, and Site Supervisors were also asked to

report how often administrators talk with the Site Supervisor about various topics.

Across all three roles, staff reported that administrators most frequently talk about

student discipline issues and policies (55% reported communication at least 2-3 times a

month) and the needs or progress of individual students (47% reported communication

at least 2-3 times a month; Figure 10). Staff reported that administrators communicate

less frequently about enrollment and registration levels and policies (24% reported

communication at least 2 to 3 times a month), or planning program content (20%

reported communication at least 2 to 3 times a month). Notably, school day staff

reported communicating more often with Expanded Learning Program staff more often

than in 2016-17; a larger proportion of staff indicated that they communicate at least

2-3 times a month about all the topics listed.

The Site Coordinator is extremely involved with all classes and makes sure

to communicate with teachers, administrators and ELA/ELD coach about

student needs and goals.

- Staff

I would like to see a joint effort between the school day and extended

learning. There is very little communication between regular school day

and extended learning, so we do not know what the program entails which

in turn leads us to not make a connection with the program.

- Staff

!


25

Figure 10. Staff communicate most frequently about student discipline

Source: Staff survey, spring 2018 (n=66). Only includes staff who are in a leadership position (Principal, Site Supervisor, Expanded Learning Lead Teacher) and have visited the program 5 or more times.

!

21%

9%

18%

11%

9%

9%

5%

5%

18%

30%

32%

35%

29%

20%

23%

20%

41%

36%

23%

21%

29%

32%

26%

21%

20%

24%

27%

33%

33%

38%

47%

55%

Planning program content

Enrollment/Registration levels and policies

Staffing of program

Homework assignments

Curriculum concepts being taught in school

Issues related to classroom/shared space

The needs or progress of individual students

Student discipline issues/policies

Never 1 to 2 times a semester Once a month At least 2 to 3 times a month


26

DISTRICT ALIGNMENT

Expanded Learning Programs in WCCUSD also support the District’s vision. In October

2017, the District presented three community campaigns to help ensure that more

WCCUSD students are prepared for their futures: Early Literacy, Reclassification, and

A-to-G Requirements. These community campaigns feed into the District’s larger

commitment to the Roadmap 2022, a five-year plan for improving student outcomes

across the District. Expanded Learning Programs in the District help to support both the

community campaigns and the Roadmap 2022 goals with their focus on improving

academic outcomes, engaging students and their families, and providing experiences to

help them prepare for their futures.

Community Campaigns

Early Literacy

Reading at grade level by 3rd grade is crucial for future academic and career success

particularly for low income students and students of color.17 Literacy development

begins well before third grade however, with early literacy experiences starting at

birth. In WCCUSD, early literacy centers around reading comprehension, fluency,

vocabulary, phonemic awareness, and writing in Pre-K through 2nd grade. Expanded

learning programs can play an important role in developing students’ literacy skills by

incorporating literacy into the programs’ existing activities in order to support the

school day reading curriculum.18

Throughout the year, several literacy assessments were administered to students.

Kindergarteners were assessed using the Kindergarten Foundational Skills assessment;

1st grade students were assessed using the STAR Early Literacy assessment; and 2nd

through 6th graders were assessed using the STAR Reading assessment.19

17 The Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2010). Early warning! Why reading by the end of third grade matters. Baltimore, MD: Fiester. Retrieved from http://www.aecf.org/m/resourcedoc/AECF-Early_Warning_Full_Report-2010.pdf 18 Rasco, C. H., Cheatham, J. B., Cheatham, S. H., & Phalen, E. M. (2012). Using Afterschool and Summer Learning to Improve Literacy Skills. In T. K. Peterson (Ed.), Expanding minds and opportunities: Leveraging the power of afterschool and summer learning for student success. Washington, DC: Collaborative Communications Group. Retrieved from http://www.expandinglearning.org/expandingminds/article/using-afterschool-and-summer-learning-improve-literacy-skills 19 For more detailed assessment data results, see Appendix D.


27

Kindergarten Foundational Skills Assessment

Expanded Learning Program participants were more likely to meet or exceed the

standards on the Kindergarten Foundational Skills Assessment (94%) than non-program

participants (84%; Figure 11).20

Figure 11. Kindergarten Foundational Skills Assessment: Participants are more likely to meet or exceed standard

Source: Kindergarten Foundational Skills Assessment. Participants (n=52), non-participants (n=660).

Within program participants, those who attended 100 days or more of program were

slightly more likely to meet or exceed the standards (96%) than participants who

attended less than 100 days (92%; Figure 12).21

Figure 12. Kindergarten Foundational Skills Assessment: Program participants that attended 100+ were more likely to meet or exceed the standards

Source: Kindergarten Foundational Skills Assessment. Participants that attended less than 100 days (n=24), participants that attended 100 days or more (n=28).

20 Kindergarten Foundation Skills Assessment: The difference between participants and non-participants is not statistically significant. 21 Kindergarten Foundation Skills Assessment: The difference between participants who attended 100 days or more and participants who attended less than 100 days is not statistically significant.

5% 11%

6%

84%

94%

Non-participants

Participants

Needs intervention Approaching standard Meets or exceeds standard

8%

4%

92%

96%

<100 days

100+ days

Needs intervention Approaching standard Meets or exceeds standard


28

STAR Early Literacy Assessment

Expanded Learning Program participants’ achievement levels on the STAR Early

Literacy Assessment were similar to those of their non-participant peers (Figure 13).22

Both participants and non-participants improved their scores on the STAR Early Literacy

Assessments from fall to spring. Participants’ growth on this assessment (improvement

by 169 points) was lower than their non-participant peers (improvement by 180

points).23

Figure 13. STAR Early Literacy Assessment: Participants match their non-participant peers

Source: STAR Early Literacy Assessment Achievement Level, spring 2018. Participants (n=76), non-participants (n=170). Within program participants, participants that attended 100 days or more of program

were more likely to exceed the standards (38%) than participants who attended less

than 100 days (20%; Figure 14).24

Figure 14. STAR Early Literacy Assessment: Program participants that attended 100+ days were more likely to exceed the standards

Source: STAR Early Literacy Assessment Achievement Level, spring 2018. Participants that attended less than 100 days (n=15), participants that attended 100 days or more (n=61).!

22 STAR Early Literacy Assessment: The difference between participants and non-participants is not statistically significant. 23 STAR Early Literacy Assessment: The difference in the amount of improvement in scores from fall 2017 to spring 2018 between participants and non-participants is not statistically significant. 24 STAR Early Literacy Assessment: The difference between participants who attended 100 days or more and participants who attended less than 100 days is not statistically significant.

38%

29%

19%

26%

11%

11%

32%

34%

Non-participants

Participants

Needs intervention Approaching standard Meets standard Exceeds standard

47%

25%

27%

26%

7%

11%

20%

38%

<100 days

100+ days

Needs intervention Approaching standard Meets standard Exceeds standard


29

STAR Reading Assessment

Similar to the STAR Early Literacy Assessment, Expanded Learning Program

participants’ achievement levels on the STAR Reading Assessment were similar to their

non-participant peers (Figure 15).25 Both participants and non-participants improved

their scores on the Reading Assessments from fall to spring. Participants’ growth on

this assessment (improvement 69 points) was similar to their non-participant peers

(improvement by 68 points).26

Figure 15. STAR Reading Assessment: Participants match their non-participant peers

Source: STAR Reading Assessment Achievement Level, spring 2018. Participants (n=535), non-participants (n=1,031).

Further analyses showed participants who attended 100 days or more were less likely to

be classified as needing urgent intervention (49%) than their peers that attended less

than 100 days (65%; Figure 16).27

Figure 16. STAR Reading Assessment: Program participants who attended 100+ days were less likely to be classified as needing urgent intervention

Source: STAR Reading Assessment Achievement Level, spring 2018. Participants that attended less than 100 days (n=157), participants that attended 100 days or more (n=378).!

25 STAR Reading Assessment: The difference between participants and non-participants is not statistically significant. 26 STAR Reading Assessment: The difference in the amount of improvement in scores from Fall 2017 to Spring 2018 between participants and non-participants is not statistically significant. 27 STAR Reading Assessment: The difference between participants who attended 100 days or more and participants who attended less than 100 days is statistically significant, p<.05.

57%

54%

14%

14%

19%

22%

8%

9%

2%

1%

Non-participants

Participants

Urgent Intervention Intervention Needed On Watch Meets Benchmark Exceeds Benchmark

65%

49%

11%

15%

17%

25%

8%

9% 2%

<100 days

100+ days

Urgent Intervention Intervention Needed On Watch Meets Benchmark Exceeds Benchmark


30

Reclassification

English Language Learners (ELL) are a diverse, growing demographic in public schools

across the nation who may struggle academically, socially, and culturally if they are

not proficient in the English Language.28 The District has set a goal to ensure that all

ELL students reclassify from English Language Learner to Reclassified Fluent English

Proficient by 6th grade. This reclassification is pivotal in a student’s ability to achieve

academic proficiency and academic persistence; expanded learning opportunities are

primed to provide additional support to meet ELL student needs, particularly around

literacy skills.29 Analysis of reclassification rates amongst WCCUSD students indicate

that Expanded Learning participants and non-participants are reclassified as English

Proficient at similar rates (12% and 10%, respectively).30 Further, participants that

attended 100 days or more of program were more likely to be reclassified in 2017-18

(13%) than their peers that attended less than 100 days (9%).31

Table 1. Participants who attended 100+ days were more likely to be reclassified than participants who attended less than 100 days

Reclassification Rate

Participants 12%

100+ days 13%

<100 days 9%

Non-Participants 10% Source: WCCUSD demographic records; matched to participants (August 21, 2017 – June 7, 2018) per program attendance records; Participants (n=1,625), non-participants (n=5,441), participants that attended less than 100 days (n=596), participants that attended 100 days or more (n=1,029). Percentages only include students who started the school year classified as an English Learner.

!

28 Afterschool Alliance. (2017). Afterschool providing key literacy supports to English language learner students. Retrieved from http://afterschoolalliance.org/documents/issue_briefs/issue_ELL_literacy_69.pdf 29 Ibid. 30 For more detailed English Learner and reclassification rate results, see Appendix E. 31 English Language Reclassification: The difference between participants who attended 100 days or more and participants who attended less than 100 days is statistically significant, p<.05.


31

A-to-G Requirements

A-to-G requirements are a sequence of several courses that the University of California

(UC) and the California State University (CSU) systems have approved as a way to

prepare students in high school for post-secondary opportunities. Students are required

to complete these courses in order to be eligible to apply to the UC and CSU systems.

The District’s goal is to graduate students who are college-ready and prepared to

succeed in any post-secondary option they choose. Although there were no high school

Expanded Learning Programs in 2017-18, programs focused on early literacy skills,

reclassification of English Language Learners, and building math skills to successfully

complete algebra in 9th grade; foundational steps to prepare students to successfully

complete A-to-G requirements.

Expanded Learning Programs in WCCUSD supported elementary and middle school youth

with learning how to read and developing English Language skills, which may improve

high school graduation rates and completion of A-to-G courses. While elementary and

middle school programs were not explicitly tasked with college and career readiness

program offerings, several programs tied in college and career themes throughout the

year. For example, students at YMCA programs went through a 4-week curriculum

where they explored their interests and strengths and how that can be connected to a

potential career. Using that information, students researched post-secondary options

and how to achieve success in that career. Students in 5th through 8th grade researched

potential colleges and students in 7th and 8th grade learned about A-G requirements.

Taken together, Expanded Learning Programs in WCCUSD are working hard to support

the District’s three community campaigns, engaging students and their families in

promoting early literacy, reclassification, and making strides toward A-to-G course

completion.

!


32

Roadmap 2022 Roadmap 2022 is the District’s five-year plan to becoming a District with achieving

students, engaged communities, and invested employees. The District envisions a

school community where 80% of its high school graduates are college ready, where

families and students report high levels of satisfaction, and where 80% of their

employees stay with the District for at least five years. The District’s Expanded

Learning Programs made progress toward these goals over the past year.

First, Expanded Learning Programs may be especially helpful in guiding WCCUSD

students on a path to achieve college readiness. In addition to focusing on early

literacy and reclassification, Expanded Learning Programs likely contribute to

strengthened youth academic outcomes, including school day attendance, grade point

average, and standardized test scores, especially for participants who attend more

than 100 days of programming.

Second, the surveys from WCCUSD Expanded Learning Programs indicated that students

and their families are highly satisfied with their programs afterschool, which may have

carry over effects to the school and the District so that families and students view the

District more positively.

Finally, the Expanded Learning Office has prioritized professional development for

expanded learning staff, which may help to reduce turn-over rates and increase the

tenure of program staff.

School Day Attendance

Expanded learning programs can build positive relationships between youth and

program staff and their peers, provide engaging enrichment activities, and provide

much needed support for struggling students, all of which give students another reason

to come to school. Youth who participated in the District’s Expanded Learning

Programs attended school at a higher rate than their non-participant peers.

Participants attended an average of 95% of school days enrolled, compared to an

average of 93% among non-participants, which translates to approximately four more

days of academic instruction.32,33

32 School day attendance: The difference between participants and non-participants is statistically significant, p<.01. 33 For more detailed school attendance and chronic absenteeism results, see Appendix F.


33

In addition to exploring school days attended, it can also be useful to look at the

proportion of students who are frequently or chronically absent, meaning they missed

10% or more school days. Research has shown that when youth are chronically absent,

their academic achievement suffers.34 A smaller proportion of WCCUSD Expanded

Learning participants were chronically absent (18%), compared to their non-participant

peers (26%; Figure 17), aligned with the previous finding that participants attend school

at higher rates.

Figure 17. Participants attend more school than their peers and are less likely to be chronically absent

Source: WCCUSD attendance records; matched to participants (August 21, 2017 – June 7, 2018) per program attendance records; Participants (n=3,482), non-participants (n=11,499). Chronic absence defined as an absent rate of 10% or higher of the total days enrolled.

!

34 Chang, H. & Romero M. (2008). Present, engaged, and accounted for: The critical importance of addressing chronic absence in the early grades. National Center for Children in Poverty

95% 93%

Participants Non-participants

Average Attendance Rate

18%26%


Chronic Absence Rate


34

Further analyses show that chronic absence rate differs between participants and non-

participants within racial/ethnic categories. In particular, Black/African American

participants have a relatively high chronic absence rate (25%; Figure 18). However, this

was significantly lower than for Black/African American non-participants (39%).35

Figure 18. Chronic absence rate between participants and non-participants differed within racial/ethnic categories

Source: WCCUSD attendance records; matched to participants (August 21, 2017 – June 7, 2018) per program attendance records; Participants (n=3,482), non-participants (n=11,499). Chronic absence defined as an absent rate of 10% or higher of the total days enrolled.

!

35 Chronic absence rate : The difference in chronic absence rate between Black/African American participants and Black/African American non-participants is statistically significant, p<.01. For more detailed chronic absenteeism results by race/ethnicity, see Appendix F.

26%

8%

25%18% 15%

28%16%

39%26%

19%

Alaska Native/American Indian

Asian/Pacific Islander

Black/African American

Latino/Hispanic

White



35

Grade Point Average

GPA measures a range of academic behaviors and skills that standardized tests, focused

more exclusively on content and concepts, can miss. Therefore, GPA can better predict

student achievement, including graduating high school and enrolling and staying in

college.36 Expanded learning programs may be in a unique position to support academic

behaviors and skills such as supporting homework, promoting study habits, and

promoting collaboration and small group work. Participants achieved a slightly lower

average GPA than non-participants (2.52 compared to 2.58).37 Across all students who

had two years of GPA data, average GPA declined in 2017-18. The decline in GPA for

Expanded Learning participants was similar to their non-participants (Table 2).38

Further analyses show that participants that attended 100 days or more of program had

a significantly higher cumulative GPA in 2017-18 (2.68) than their peers that attended

less than 100 days (2.44; Table 2).39

Table 2. Participants' GPA decreased less compared to peers over two years

Grade Point Average for Middle School Students

Average Cumulative GPA in 2017-18

Average Change from 2016-17

Participants 2.52 -0.09

Non-Participants 2.58 -0.10 Source: WCCUSD GPA records; matched to participants (August 21, 2017 – June 7, 2018) per program attendance records; Participants (n=567), non-participants (n=2,322). Students with two years of GPA data; participants (n=239) and non-participants (n=1,147).

!

36 Allensworth, E.M., Gwynne, J.A., Moore, P., and de la Torre, M. (2014). Looking Forward to High School and College: Middle Grade Indicators of Readiness in Chicago Public School. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Consortium on Chicago School Research. 37 GPA: The difference between participants and non-participants is not statistically significant. 38 GPA: The difference in GPA change between 2016-17 and 2017-18 between participants and non-participants is not statistically significant. 39 GPA: The difference between participants who attended 100 days or more and participants who attended less than 100 days is statistically significant, p<.01.


36

English Language Arts and Math Assessments

Students in 3rd grade and up take the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC),

a computer-based assessment that measures content knowledge linked to the Common

Core State Standards in English Language Arts (ELA) and Mathematics. The test provides

an achievement level (not meeting, nearly meeting, meeting, or exceeding the

standard), based on the scale score (overall numerical score based on the total number

of correct answers) and the student’s grade level. Designed primarily for school

accountability, the tests can be an indicator of relative success among sub groups

within a school or district, such as the relative academic performance of expanded

learning participants and their non-participant peers.

Expanded Learning participants’ achievement levels follow the pattern of their non-

participant peers in both the SBAC ELA and math assessment. Overall, the majority of

all students did not meet ELA or math standards. The proportion of WCCUSD students

(both participants and non-participants) who did not meet the ELA or Math standard

was considerably higher than the state, where 28% of students did not meet the ELA

standard and 35% did not meet the math standard (Figure 19).

Figure 19. Participant achievement levels follow the peers’ patterns

! Standard Not Met ! Standard Nearly Met ! Standard Met ! Standard Exceeded

Source: WCCUSD SBAC records; matched to participants (August 21, 2017 – June 7, 2018) per program attendance records; Participants with ELA Scores (n=2,238), non-participants with ELA Scores (n=6,443), participants with math scores (n=2,270), and non-participants with math scores (n=6,521); Statewide comparisons drawn from the 2018 SBAC Results, includes scores from students in 3rd-11th grade, retrieved from https://caaspp.cde.ca.gov/sb2018/.

23%

22%

22%

28%

49%

56%

29%

20%

15%

21%

9%

7%

State

Non-Participants

Participants

ELA

26%

25%

24%

35%

56%

60%

20%

11%

12%

19%

7%

5%

State

Non-Participants

Participants

Math


37

Further analyses showed that participants that attended 100 days or more of program

scored better on both the SBAC ELA and math assessment than those that attended less

than 100 days.40,41 About a quarter of participants who attended more than 100 days

met or exceeded the ELA standard (24%), compared to 19% of their peers who attended

less than 100 days. Scores on the SBAC Math followed the same pattern: 17% of

participants that attended 100 days or more met or exceeded the Math standard,

compared to 14% of their peers that attended less than 100 days. In particular, more

Asian/Pacific Islander, Black/African American, and Latino/Hispanic students in grades

4-6 that attended 100 days or more met or exceeded the ELA and Math standards than

their peers from the same ethnic category that attended less than 100 days.42

!

40 SBAC ELA: The difference between participants who attended 100 days or more and participants who attended less than 100 days is statistically significant, p<.01. 41 SBAC Math: The difference between participants who attended 100 days or more and participants who attended less than 100 days is statistically significant, p<.01. 42 For more detailed SBAC assessment data results by ethnic category, see Appendix D.


38

RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the data collected in 2017-18 and the District-wide goals set forth in its Community

Campaigns and Roadmap 2022, we present the following recommendations:

In 2017-18, Expanded Learning Programs at elementary and middle schools ensured a

safe environment for participating youth. Continue to reiterate strong practices in the

safe and supportive environment domains, as they are the foundation to high-quality

programs. To continue to improve PQA scores, prioritize and emphasize strong

practices in the interaction and engagement domains. In particular, elementary school

programs should continue to encourage participants to practice school-age leadership

skills; middle school programs should focus their practice on providing opportunities for

youth to act as group facilitators or mentors to other students and partnering with

adults. All sites should include more intentional planning, choice, and reflection

practices.

Eight in 10 youth (82%) reported that they learned how to do something new in their

Expanded Learning Program and nearly 7 in 10 (69%) reported they learned information

about a new topic that interested them. Related to emphasizing practices in the

interaction and engagement PQA domains, programs can deepen their students’

engagement by creating opportunities for all participants to have new experiences and

make authentic and meaningful choices that will allow them to better connect with the

program content. One way to increase the proportion of youth who say they learned

information about a topic that interested them is to solicit input from youth on topics

that interest them and design program activities that relate to those topics. Youth may

not realize that they are learning new skills and information, even when this is the

case. The District and Agency Directors, along with Site Supervisors should encourage

program line staff to lead participants in reflection after activities about whether they

just learned something new.

Continue to focus on sustaining or improving PQA scores in all four domains of quality.

Cultivate authentic youth voice and choice experiences to broaden horizons and deepen program engagement.


39

Participants who attended 100 days or more of programming experienced greater

benefits than participants who attended less than 100 days, including:

•! higher reclassification rates for ELL participants;

•! higher GPA;

•! higher school day attendance and lower chronic absence rates;

•! and they were more likely to meet or exceed standards across standardized

assessments.

The average elementary school participant attended 120 days of programming,

however, the average middle school participant attended only 68 days. While program

models and attendance expectations differ between school levels, the demonstrated

value of attending program more frequently is clear. Middle school programs should

develop strategies to engage students and increase their retention rates with the goal

of increasing the average number of days attended.

Relative to the other items on the staff survey, some of the lower rated items on the

staff survey included:

•! the curriculum and instruction in the Expanded Learning Programs reinforce

concepts taught during the school day;

•! program staff reach out to teachers to identify needs of specific students;

•! and that program staff communicate importation information about children

and parents to the appropriate school days staff in a timely manner.

Meanwhile, about 1 in 5 surveyed leadership staff reported that they never

communicate about planning program content. However, surveyed staff who frequently

visited the program held much more positive views of the program compared to those

who had not visited the program. Increasing the program’s visibility with the school day

staff and broader school community can help make others more aware of what the

program does. The more staff and community members come into contact with the

program, the more likely they are to understand its benefits, including the ways in

which it is aligned with the school day. Program, school, and District leadership,

alongside any identified expanded learning champions on site, should focus on

encouraging school day staff to visit the program.

Encourage higher retention rates, especially for middle school participants.

Increase the visibility of Expanded Learning Programs on school campuses to better align with the school day.


40

APPENDICES APPENDIX A. PROGRAM SITES, LEAD AGENCIES, AND COLLABORATIVE PARTNERS

The District partnered with three community-based lead agencies to run 28 Expanded Learning

Programs for the 2016-17 school year: Bay Area Community Resources, Love. Learn. Success., and

YMCA of the East Bay (Table 3). Across these three agencies, Expanded Learning Programs were funded

through a mix of state and federal funds. All sites, regardless of lead agency, were open 5 days per

week after school until 6:00pm and offered their participants academic support, enrichment, and

recreational activities on-site. Each site was run by a Site Supervisor who managed a set of group

leaders employed by the lead agency at the site. Each site was also supported by the District’s

Expanded Learning Office, its lead agency’s program manager, and school staff (especially the principal

and designated lead teacher).

Table 3. Expanded Learning Sites and Lead Agencies Bay Area Community Resources Love. Learn. Success. YMCA of the East Bay

Bayview Lincoln Fairmont Coronado

Chavez Mira Vista Ford Crespi

DeJean Nystrom Grant Downer

Dover Riverside King Murphy

Korematsu Stege Lake Peres

Helms Washington Montalvin Sheldon

Highland Wilson Verde Tara Hills

Additionally, the District facilitated quarterly collaborative meetings with community partners in an

effort to inform and coordinate services across the 28 Expanded Learning. These quarterly meetings

provided the opportunity for stakeholders to share information with one another, increase alignment

between the District and its partners, and continue with efforts to support a cycle of continuous

quality improvement.

!


41

Table 4. Enrollment, Attendance, and Retention by Program

Lead Agency /Program

Total Youth Served

Average Daily Attendance Youth Participation

Goal Actual % Progress

Toward Annual Goal*

Average Days Attended

Average Attendance

Rate

Average Enrollment

Rate

Bay Area Community Resources

Bayview 108 83 69 83% 116 64% 87%

Chavez 104 83 73 87% 126 70% 86%

Dover 167 126 99 78% 106 59% 87%

Highland 100 86 73 85% 132 73% 89%

Lincoln 111 83 75 90% 121 67% 93%

Mira Vista 110 83 79 95% 129 72% 91%

Nystrom 117 83 83 100% 128 71% 89%

Riverside 87 83 65 77% 133 74% 91%

Stege 104 83 65 78% 113 63% 87%

Washington 107 83 70 84% 118 65% 84%

Wilson 108 83 74 89% 123 68% 94%

Love. Learn. Success

Fairmont 113 83 82 98% 130 72% 89%

Ford 163 141 117 83% 129 72% 86%

Grant 204 161 110 68% 97 54% 85%

King 112 72 55 76% 88 49% 84%

Lake 182 137 123 90% 122 68% 89%

Montalvin 113 83 72 86% 114 64% 90%

Verde 102 74 58 78% 102 57% 84%

YMCA of the East Bay

Coronado 164 127 96 75% 105 58% 79%

Downer 139 111 94 85% 121 67% 86%

Murphy 103 83 78 94% 137 76% 86%

Peres 96 83 78 94% 146 81% 92%

Sheldon 106 83 76 91% 129 72% 90%

Tara Hills 109 83 81 98% 135 75% 85%

ES Total 118 95 81 85% 120 66% 87%


DeJean 105 49 37 74% 63 35% 79%

Helms 243 111 90 81% 67 37% 65%

Korematsu 133 86 53 62% 72 40% 77%


Crespi 97 51 36 71% 67 37% 72%

MS Total 145 74 54 73% 68 38% 72%

Overall/Average 125 92 77 84% 112 62% 85%

Source: Cityspan Attendance System for attendance records from 8/21/17 through 6/7/18 (N=3,484). * Shading indicates sites that did not meet the 85% threshold aligned with CDE attendance goals. Average Attendance Rate = Average Days Attended / 180 Days Average Enrollment Rate = Average Days Attended / Average Days between First Day Attended and Last Day Attended


42

APPENDIX B. SITE VISIT METHODOLOGY AND THE PROGRAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT TOOL

Site visits provide insight into point of service components that drive program quality. The District

continued to use the Program Quality Assessment Tool (PQA) to define and measure quality in its

Expanded Learning Programs. The PQA includes four domains of program quality:

•! Safe Environment – Youth experience both physical and emotional safety. The program

environment is safe and sanitary. The social environment is safe.

•! Supportive Environment – Adults support youth to learn and grow. Adults support youth with

opportunities for active learning, for skill building, and to develop healthy relationships.

•! Interaction – There is a positive peer culture in the program, encouraged and supported by

adults. Youth support each other. Youth experience a sense of belonging. Youth participate in

small groups as members and as leaders. Youth have opportunities to partner with adults.

•! Engagement – Youth experience positive challenges and pursue learning. Youth have

opportunities to plan, make choices, and learn from their experiences.

These domains are inter-related and build upon one another. Broadly speaking, programs need to

assure that youth enjoy a Safe and Supportive Environment before working to establish high quality

Interaction and Engagement. For example, a program in which young people are afraid to try new

things for fear of being ridiculed by others - an example of an unsupportive environment - is not likely

to be an interactive, engaging place for children.

Research indicates that the foundational programmatic elements of physical and emotional safety

(described in the Safe and the Supportive Environment domains) support high quality practices in other

domains. In general, programs’ ratings will be higher for the foundational domains than for Interaction

or Engagement. The following page visualizes the relationship between each of the PQA quality

domains.!


43

Figure 20. Program Quality Assessment Domains

Source: Adapted from Youth PQA Handbook by High/Scope Educational Research Foundation, 2007.

All observations were conducted using the School-Age Program Quality Assessment (SAPQA) or the

Youth Program Quality Assessment (YPQA), research-based point of service quality observation tools

used by out-of-school time programs nationally. The tool uses a rating system where a score of:

•! 1 indicates that the practice was not observed or did not meet minimum

standards;

•! 3 indicates a basic standard of practice;

•! 5 indicates a strong practice.

WCCUSD Expanded Learning Program Office staff have been certified as statistically reliable raters by

the Weikart Center for Youth Program Quality. Note: we report the fall, spring, and average data from

the District’s site visits in this report.

!


44

Table 5. Fall PQA Scores by Site Level, Grade Level, and Overall Lead Agency/

Program Safe Environment

Supportive Environment

Interaction Engagement Overall PQA Score


Bayview 5.00 2.77 2.83 3.58 3.55

Cesar E. Chavez 4.68 3.56 2.83 2.50 3.39

Dover 4.68 4.09 4.22 3.50 4.12

Highland 4.84 3.87 4.00 3.00 3.93

Lincoln 4.84 4.23 3.89 3.33 4.07

Mira Vista 4.84 3.27 2.67 2.17 3.24

Nystrom 4.68 3.39 3.50 3.00 3.64

Riverside 4.00 2.85 3.00 2.08 2.98

Stege 4.16 2.85 2.83 2.33 3.05

Washington 4.32 3.51 3.08 2.75 3.42

Wilson 4.68 3.09 3.11 2.50 3.35

Love. Learn. Success.

Grant 4.84 3.53 3.33 2.67 3.59

Fairmont 4.92 2.71 3.39 3.25 3.57

Ford 4.80 3.45 3.39 2.00 3.41

King 4.48 3.99 2.94 2.33 3.44

Lake 4.68 2.89 3.28 2.50 3.34

Montalvin 4.48 3.09 2.25 2.00 2.96

Verde 4.84 3.59 2.83 2.50 3.44


Coronado 4.16 2.21 2.92 2.17 2.86

Downer 4.84 3.83 3.28 2.33 3.57

Murphy 4.76 3.00 2.72 2.25 3.18

Peres 4.60 4.07 3.13 3.25 3.76

Sheldon 4.52 3.51 3.58 1.50 3.28

Tara Hills 4.20 2.75 2.29 1.00 2.56

ES Average 4.62 3.34 3.14 2.52 3.40


DeJean 4.52 2.67 2.42 1.33 2.73

Helms 4.36 3.49 1.75 1.50 2.77

Korematsu 4.56 3.23 2.42 1.67 2.97


Crespi 4.76 3.25 2.00 1.33 2.84

MS Average 4.55 3.16 2.15 1.46 2.83

Overall Average 4.61 3.31 3.00 2.37 3.32

Source: District site visits, SAPQA/YPQA scores, fall 2017 (N=28).

!


45

Table 6. Spring PQA Scores by Site Level, Grade Level, and Overall Lead Agency/





Bayview 4.80 3.69 4.00 2.50 3.75

Cesar E. Chavez 4.84 3.60 3.94 3.17 3.89

Dover 4.84 4.45 4.44 4.00 4.43

Highland 4.76 3.67 4.00 3.00 3.86

Lincoln 4.64 4.25 4.06 3.33 4.07

Mira Vista 4.87 3.69 3.67 3.50 3.93

Nystrom 4.64 3.64 3.67 2.50 3.61

Riverside 4.52 3.17 2.78 3.08 3.39

Stege 4.84 3.80 3.00 2.00 3.41

Washington 4.80 3.23 3.33 3.67 3.76

Wilson 4.64 2.85 3.33 1.75 3.14


Grant 4.84 3.39 3.11 2.00 3.33

Fairmont 4.67 3.51 3.33 2.33 3.46

Ford 4.74 3.56 3.33 2.33 3.49

King 4.64 3.37 3.33 2.50 3.46

Lake 4.48 3.28 3.33 1.92 3.25

Montalvin 4.34 2.77 3.11 2.25 3.12

Verde 4.84 3.26 2.89 2.58 3.39


Coronado 4.72 4.13 3.83 3.67 4.09

Downer 4.84 4.09 4.00 2.75 3.92

Murphy 4.42 3.11 3.67 2.33 3.38

Peres 5.00 4.17 3.83 3.50 4.13

Sheldon 5.00 4.72 4.44 3.67 4.46

Tara Hills 4.60 3.96 3.54 3.08 3.80

ES Average 4.72 3.64 3.58 2.81 3.69


DeJean 4.56 3.53 2.29 2.00 3.10

Helms 4.76 3.57 2.58 2.00 3.23

Korematsu 4.76 3.31 1.71 2.33 3.03


Crespi 4.16 2.84 2.00 2.00 2.75

MS Average 4.56 3.31 2.15 2.08 3.03

Overall Average 4.70 3.59 3.38 2.71 3.59

Source: District site visit SAPQA/YPQA scores, spring 2018 (N=28).

!


46

Table 7. Fall and Spring PQA Scores by Site Level, Grade Level, and Overall Lead Agency/





Bayview 4.90 3.23 3.42 3.04 3.65

Cesar E. Chavez 4.76 3.58 3.39 2.83 3.64

Dover 4.76 4.27 4.33 3.75 4.28

Highland 4.80 3.77 4.00 3.00 3.89

Lincoln 4.74 4.24 3.97 3.33 4.07

Mira Vista 4.85 3.48 3.17 2.83 3.58

Nystrom 4.66 3.51 3.58 2.75 3.63

Riverside 4.26 3.01 2.89 2.58 3.19

Stege 4.50 3.33 2.92 2.17 3.23

Washington 4.56 3.37 3.21 3.21 3.59

Wilson 4.66 2.97 3.22 2.13 3.25


Grant 4.84 3.46 3.22 2.33 3.46

Fairmont 4.79 3.11 3.36 2.79 3.51

Ford 4.77 3.50 3.36 2.17 3.45

King 4.56 3.68 3.14 2.42 3.45

Lake 4.58 3.09 3.31 2.21 3.30

Montalvin 4.41 2.93 2.68 2.13 3.04

Verde 4.84 3.42 2.86 2.54 3.42


Coronado 4.44 3.17 3.38 2.92 3.48

Downer 4.84 3.96 3.64 2.54 3.75

Murphy 4.59 3.05 3.19 2.29 3.28

Peres 4.80 4.12 3.48 3.38 3.94

Sheldon 4.76 4.11 4.01 2.58 3.87

Tara Hills 4.40 3.35 2.92 2.04 3.18

ES Average 4.67 3.49 3.36 2.66 3.55


DeJean 4.54 3.10 2.35 1.67 2.92

Helms 4.56 3.53 2.17 1.75 3.00

Korematsu 4.66 3.27 2.06 2.00 3.00


Crespi 4.46 3.05 2.00 1.67 2.79

MS Average 4.56 3.23 2.15 1.77 2.93

Overall Average 4.65 3.45 3.19 2.54 3.46

Source: District site visits, SAPQA/YPQA scores, average of fall 2017 and spring 2018 (N=28).!


47

APPENDIX C. YOUTH, FAMILY, AND STAFF SURVEYS

Survey Methodology Surveys for participating youth, families, and staff were fielded between February 2018 and March

2018, and distributed with the support of Site Supervisors. Surveys for all youth were online. Surveys

for families at elementary schools were online, and surveys for families at middle schools were

provided on paper. Both the youth and family surveys were available in English and Spanish; youth and

families self-selected the language in which they preferred to complete the survey. Staff surveys were

available in English only.

In this evaluation, the youth survey results are used to gather participants’ perspective on the quality

and experience in WCCUSD’s Expanded Learning Programs.

Similarly, family survey results are used in the evaluation to understand the family perspective on the

quality of the Expanded Learning Program their child(ren) attended, gather information regarding the

growth they see in the specified outcome areas described in the report, and to learn about families’

satisfaction with the Expanded Learning Program.

Survey Response Rates

Youth Survey

Site Supervisors were tasked with administering the youth survey to as many program participants as

possible, in grades 3 and higher (in consideration of reading ability). The total survey count (n=1,590)

represents approximately 74% of the 2,159 youth who attended WCCUSD’s Expanded Learning Programs

on the average day, and approximately 46% of the 3,484 total youth served (unduplicated) by the

District’s Expanded Learning Programs during the 2017-18 program year.

Family Survey

Site Supervisors were also asked to administer the family survey to as many families or caregivers of

program participants as possible. Families were asked to complete only one survey, even if they had

multiple children in the program, and they were asked to think about their oldest child when

completing the survey. Unlike the youth survey, families that represented all grades (K-8) were

encouraged to respond. The total family survey count (n=1,447) represents approximately 42% of the

3,484 total youth served (unduplicated) by the District’s Expanded Learning programs during the 2017-

18 program year.


48

Staff Survey

Program staff also distributed the staff survey to staff members at their schools who have interacted

with the Expanded Learning Program, including the school’s principal, school day teachers, the after

school program lead teacher, school counselors, the Site Supervisors themselves, and any others they

felt could offer their perspective on their program. A total of 475 staff members completed a valid

survey, which is an average of 20 staff members per site.


49

Table 8. Youth Survey: Program Quality Results

Program I feel safe in this program.

If I have a conflict, the adults in this program ask for my ideas about how to

resolve it.

In this program, I

resolve conflicts without anyone

getting hurt.*

There is an adult who

cares about me in this program.

In this program,

there is an adult who

wants me to do my best.

I feel like I belong at this

program.

I get to help other

students in this program.

I have a friend in this program who really cares about me.

The adults in this program listen to what I have to say.

During program

activities, I get to choose what to do or how to do it.

Bayview (n=55) 96% 71% 90% 95% 93% 89% 71% 89% 85% 45%

Chavez (n=40) 100% 78% 100% 98% 100% 90% 83% 95% 93% 78%

Coronado (n=64) 83% 75% 71% 92% 94% 67% 82% 89% 85% 41%

Dover (n=68) 85% 58% 89% 88% 86% 75% 78% 88% 72% 46%

Downer (n=71) 97% 85% 94% 94% 97% 89% 83% 93% 93% 46%

Fairmont (n=51) 96% 86% 81% 84% 94% 82% 69% 80% 80% 37%

Ford (n=79) 66% 67% 41% 81% 77% 53% 66% 79% 62% 31%

Grant (n=91) 97% 84% 91% 86% 99% 93% 76% 91% 92% 46%

Highland (n=44) 95% 66% 100% 100% 93% 82% 75% 80% 82% 48%

King (n=33) 82% 76% 73% 85% 91% 70% 53% 88% 73% 44%

Lake (n=91) 91% 78% 76% 91% 92% 77% 75% 88% 79% 45%

Lincoln (n=54) 91% 76% 75% 94% 96% 63% 76% 85% 70% 50%

Mira Vista (n=52) 92% 73% 87% 100% 100% 75% 84% 88% 76% 35%

Montalvin (n=49) 96% 82% 69% 88% 96% 80% 65% 82% 84% 55%

Murphy (n=55) 95% 80% 72% 91% 93% 87% 65% 80% 87% 46%

Nystrom (n=57) 93% 62% 78% 93% 93% 84% 79% 88% 89% 45%

Peres (n=49) 88% 86% 76% 96% 98% 84% 94% 96% 92% 59%

Riverside (n=49) 90% 78% 69% 90% 90% 82% 82% 92% 81% 45%

Sheldon (n=63) 98% 92% 88% 95% 98% 92% 90% 95% 92% 49%

Stege (n=44) 95% 79% 89% 89% 91% 80% 77% 88% 74% 24%

Tara Hills (n=66) 95% 80% 81% 94% 97% 81% 78% 92% 86% 55%

Verde (n=32) 94% 94% 90% 88% 97% 84% 91% 91% 94% 56%

Washington (n=57) 89% 84% 92% 88% 89% 72% 79% 84% 81% 47%

Wilson (n=56) 96% 96% 94% 96% 100% 95% 91% 93% 93% 63%

ES Total 91% 78% 80% 91% 94% 80% 78% 88% 83% 47%

Crespi (n=38) 66% 66% 58% 74% 79% 61% 37% 78% 63% 18%

DeJean (n=34) 91% 82% 73% 88% 94% 76% 68% 91% 88% 53%

Helms (n=94) 97% 79% 84% 96% 95% 90% 76% 90% 93% 76%

Korematsu (n=54) 91% 64% 77% 87% 83% 63% 63% 83% 66% 36%

MS Total 89% 74% 76% 89% 89% 76% 65% 87% 80% 53%

Total 91% 78% 79% 91% 93% 80% 76% 88% 83% 48%

Source: Youth Survey, Feb-March 2018 (N=1,590). Represents the proportion who responded positively. *This item was asked only of youth in 5th grade and up.


50

Table 9. Youth Survey: Direct Outcomes Results

Program This program helps me feel like a part of my

school.

I learn how to do things in this program that help

with my school work.

This program helps me enjoy learning.*

Because of this program, I feel more confident

talking in class.

This program helps me listen to others.

In this program, I learn how to work out my

problems.

Bayview (n=55) 84% 78% 76% 76% 84% 80%

Chavez (n=40) 100% 100% 93% 100% 95% 98%

Coronado (n=64) 81% 79% 71% 61% 79% 84%

Dover (n=68) 81% 80% 70% 58% 71% 70%

Downer (n=71) 94% 92% 92% 70% 90% 97%

Fairmont (n=51) 84% 62% 70% 67% 85% 77%

Ford (n=79) 58% 50% 55% 42% 48% 59%

Grant (n=91) 91% 89% 92% 79% 89% 87%

Highland (n=44) 77% 84% 82% 100% 80% 84%

King (n=33) 75% 64% 79% 73% 73% 67%

Lake (n=91) 81% 72% 72% 61% 77% 79%

Lincoln (n=54) 72% 74% 64% 65% 74% 72%

Mira Vista (n=52) 82% 71% 79% 80% 87% 83%

Montalvin (n=49) 78% 79% 83% 53% 81% 77%

Murphy (n=55) 85% 73% 71% 56% 81% 78%

Nystrom (n=57) 82% 80% 85% 59% 85% 79%

Peres (n=49) 73% 71% 78% 50% 90% 82%

Riverside (n=49) 78% 79% 84% 50% 82% 82%

Sheldon (n=63) 89% 82% 80% 77% 80% 85%

Stege (n=44) 84% 90% 76% 50% 75% 81%

Tara Hills (n=66) 79% 82% 73% 69% 80% 83%

Verde (n=32) 88% 90% 94% 80% 90% 87%

Washington (n=57) 67% 69% 73% 60% 72% 76%

Wilson (n=56) 93% 87% 94% 82% 89% 87%

ES Total 81% 78% 78% 65% 80% 80%

Crespi (n=38) 37% 37% 29% 42% 47% 37%

DeJean (n=34) 74% 91% 62% 73% 85% 74%

Helms (n=94) 82% 85% 72% 78% 76% 77%

Korematsu (n=54) 42% 50% 40% 47% 37% 48%

MS Total 63% 69% 55% 63% 63% 62%

Total 79% 77% 75% 65% 78% 78%



51

Table 10. Youth Survey: Direct Outcomes Results (Continued)

Program This program helps me

to make friends.

In this program, I learned how to do something new.*

In this program, I learned new information

about a topic that interests me.

I am better at something I used to think was hard.

This program helps me work hard toward my

goals.

I feel proud of things I’ve done in this program.

Bayview (n=55) 80% 82% 81% 71% 80% 91%

Chavez (n=40) 95% 100% 100% 95% 95% 95%

Coronado (n=64) 73% 84% 65% 76% 81% 81%

Dover (n=68) 73% 79% 74% 68% 77% 76%

Downer (n=71) 93% 93% 87% 82% 96% 94%

Fairmont (n=51) 89% 87% 81% 66% 77% 89%

Ford (n=79) 56% 51% 45% 51% 57% 69%

Grant (n=91) 79% 92% 94% 84% 90% 98%

Highland (n=44) 81% 86% 100% 79% 86% 93%

King (n=33) 70% 75% 73% 63% 72% 94%

Lake (n=91) 80% 76% 62% 77% 78% 82%

Lincoln (n=54) 60% 81% 68% 68% 74% 79%

Mira Vista (n=52) 77% 83% 67% 71% 84% 94%

Montalvin (n=49) 85% 85% 60% 77% 85% 89%

Murphy (n=55) 76% 82% 52% 63% 78% 83%

Nystrom (n=57) 73% 80% 77% 69% 89% 91%

Peres (n=49) 77% 92% 63% 71% 78% 92%

Riverside (n=49) 73% 88% 67% 67% 82% 83%

Sheldon (n=63) 79% 89% 73% 77% 80% 98%

Stege (n=44) 71% 83% 76% 90% 83% 93%

Tara Hills (n=66) 75% 89% 69% 82% 85% 82%

Verde (n=32) 81% 100% 70% 84% 90% 94%

Washington (n=57) 62% 80% 72% 65% 73% 73%

Wilson (n=56) 93% 83% 76% 87% 87% 94%

ES Total 77% 83% 71% 74% 81% 87%

Crespi (n=38) 51% 43% 47% 37% 37% 50%

DeJean (n=34) 76% 97% 76% 71% 76% 82%

Helms (n=94) 84% 85% 76% 79% 84% 89%

Korematsu (n=54) 70% 57% 45% 52% 46% 56%

MS Total 74% 73% 64% 64% 65% 73%

Total 76% 82% 69% 73% 79% 85%



52

Table 11. Family Survey: Direct Outcomes and Academic Behavior Results

Program This ELP is a safe

place for my child.

My child feels comfortable with

the ELP staff.

There is an adult in this program

my child can talk to about her or his problems.

In this program, my child has

opportunities to try new things.

This program provides activities

that meet my child’s interests

and talents.

In this program, my child has

opportunities to develop

leadership skills.

This program teaches skills that help my child in

school.

My child's attitude toward school has

improved since coming to this

program.

Bayview (n=49) 100% 98% 94% 98% 100% 100% 100% 96%

Chavez (n=94) 100% 100% 100% 100% 91% 98% 97% 97%

Coronado (n=66) 100% 97% 97% 100% 97% 98% 95% 88%

Dover (n=48) 100% 96% 95% 100% 100% 95% 98% 98%

Downer (n=57) 100% 100% 96% 98% 100% 100% 100% 91%

Highland (n=50) 100% 100% 98% 100% 98% 98% 100% 98%

Fairmont (n=31) 97% 90% 96% 94% 93% 96% 97% 90%

Ford (n=41) 100% 100% 95% 100% 100% 97% 100% 100%

Grant (n=78) 100% 99% 94% 100% 97% 96% 97% 96%

King (n=18) 100% 94% 100% 100% 100% 100% 94% 100%

Lake (n=45) 100% 100% 95% 100% 100% 98% 98% 98%

Lincoln (n=64) 100% 100% 98% 100% 98% 98% 98% 100%

Mira Vista (n=55) 100% 100% 100% 94% 89% 94% 98% 90%

Montalvin (n=51) 96% 96% 92% 98% 96% 96% 94% 90%

Murphy (n=57) 100% 100% 98% 98% 98% 96% 98% 96%

Nystrom (n=67) 100% 98% 98% 100% 98% 100% 100% 97%

Peres (n=48) 100% 98% 93% 98% 96% 98% 96% 89%

Riverside (n=53) 100% 100% 100% 100% 98% 100% 100% 98%

Sheldon (n=62) 97% 97% 97% 97% 93% 97% 94% 95%

Stege (n=63) 100% 98% 98% 95% 83% 97% 84% 81%

Tara Hills (n=53) 100% 100% 100% 100% 98% 100% 98% 98%

Verde (n=38) 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 97% 100% 100%

Washington (n=64) 98% 97% 93% 91% 73% 85% 90% 82%

Wilson (n=54) 100% 100% 100% 96% 94% 100% 98% 91%

ES Total 100% 99% 97% 98% 95% 97% 97% 94%

Crespi (n=22) 100% 95% 89% 90% 76% 83% 83% 68%

DeJean (n=34) 100% 97% 96% 97% 91% 89% 97% 86%

Helms (n=42) 100% 100% 97% 95% 95% 92% 98% 83%

Korematsu (n=43) 100% 100% 97% 100% 97% 94% 97% 89%

MS Total 100% 99% 96% 96% 92% 91% 95% 83%

Total 100% 99% 97% 98% 95% 97% 97% 93%

Source: Family Survey, Feb-March 2018 (N=1,447). Represents the proportion who responded “Agree” or “Strongly Agree”. The response option “I don’t know” was excluded from analysis. Actual survey items said “expanded learning program” instead of “ELP”.


53

Table 12. Family Survey: Engagement and Satisfaction Results

Program At least one ELP staff recognizes me when I visit.

The ELP staff members listen to me when I have a

question or comment.

There are opportunities for

family participation in this program.

Because my child is in this ELP, I am more involved at my child’s school.

Because my child is in this ELP, I

know more about what goes on in the school day.

My child tells me good things about

this ELP.

Because my child is in this program, I can go to school

or work.

How satisfied are you with this

expanded learning program?

Bayview (n=49) 98% 98% 100% 98% 98% 98% 100% 96%

Chavez (n=94) 100% 100% 97% 89% 87% 99% 100% 100%

Coronado (n=66) 97% 97% 96% 84% 85% 97% 100% 95%

Dover (n=48) 96% 98% 90% 90% 93% 98% 98% 98%

Downer (n=57) 100% 100% 96% 80% 86% 96% 96% 100%

Highland (n=50) 100% 100% 98% 94% 94% 100% 96% 100%

Fairmont (n=31) 97% 90% 93% 87% 86% 86% 90% 90%

Ford (n=41) 98% 100% 94% 89% 95% 100% 100% 97%

Grant (n=78) 97% 97% 95% 97% 96% 97% 100% 99%

King (n=18) 100% 100% 100% 88% 93% 100% 100% 100%

Lake (n=45) 98% 100% 90% 91% 93% 100% 95% 100%

Lincoln (n=64) 100% 100% 98% 100% 98% 98% 100% 100%

Mira Vista (n=55) 100% 100% 93% 77% 87% 96% 100% 100%

Montalvin (n=51) 96% 98% 94% 88% 88% 96% 96% 100%

Murphy (n=57) 100% 100% 98% 93% 91% 100% 98% 100%

Nystrom (n=67) 100% 100% 97% 95% 97% 100% 100% 98%

Peres (n=48) 98% 98% 98% 91% 91% 98% 100% 98%

Riverside (n=53) 100% 100% 98% 96% 92% 100% 98% 100%

Sheldon (n=62) 97% 97% 95% 90% 95% 97% 97% 97%

Stege (n=63) 100% 100% 73% 80% 76% 95% 100% 100%

Tara Hills (n=53) 100% 100% 100% 81% 90% 100% 100% 100%

Verde (n=38) 100% 97% 97% 91% 100% 100% 97% 97%

Washington (n=64) 100% 100% 87% 71% 74% 95% 100% 94%

Wilson (n=54) 98% 100% 98% 85% 89% 100% 100% 98%

ES Total 99% 99% 95% 89% 90% 98% 99% 98%

Crespi (n=22) 100% 100% 88% 71% 76% 85% 100% 95%

DeJean (n=34) 97% 97% 92% 76% 83% 97% 97% 97%

Helms (n=42) 100% 100% 91% 82% 85% 100% 86% 98%

Korematsu (n=43) 93% 98% 93% 74% 86% 98% 98% 100%

MS Total 97% 98% 91% 76% 84% 96% 94% 98%

Total 99% 99% 94% 88% 90% 98% 98% 98%

Source: Family Survey, Feb-March 2018 (N=1,447). Represents the proportion who responded “Agree” or “Strongly Agree”. The response option “I don’t know” was excluded from analysis. Actual survey items said “expanded learning program” instead of “ELP”.


54

Table 13. Staff Survey: Number of Responses by Site and Lead Agency

Lead Agency/ Program Site

Supervisor Principal

Lead Teacher

School Day

Teacher

School Counselor

Group Leader

Other


Bayview (n=7) 1 1 1 2 0 0 2

Chavez (n=12) 1 1 0 10 0 0 0

DeJean (n=12) 1 1 1 8 0 0 1

Dover (n=31) 1 1 1 21 2 0 5

Helms (n=25) 1 1 0 17 2 0 4

Highland (n=16) 1 1 1 10 0 1 2

Korematsu (n=21) 1 0 0 19 0 0 1

Lincoln (n=14) 1 1 1 6 0 1 4

Mira Vista (n=13) 1 1 1 7 0 1 2

Nystrom (n=23) 1 1 0 15 0 5 1

Riverside (n=10) 1 0 1 3 0 5 0

Stege (n=9) 1 0 0 5 0 0 3

Washington (n=9) 1 1 1 5 0 0 1

Wilson (n=26) 1 0 1 21 0 1 2


Fairmont (n=11) 1 1 1 6 0 0 2

Ford (n=11) 1 1 1 7 0 0 1

Grant (n=31) 1 1 1 21 0 6 1

King (n=15) 1 1 1 11 0 0 1

Lake (n=24) 1 1 1 16 0 0 5

Montalvin (n=24) 1 1 1 11 2 4 4

Verde (n=3) 1 1 0 1 0 0 0


Coronado (n=18) 1 1 1 10 1 0 4

Crespi (n=23) 1 1 1 18 0 0 2

Downer (n=23) 1 1 1 20 0 0 0

Murphy (n=13) 1 1 1 10 0 0 0

Peres (n=14) 1 1 1 4 0 1 6

Sheldon (n=16) 1 1 1 9 0 3 1

Tara Hills (n=21) 1 1 1 16 0 0 2

Total 28 24 22 309 7 28 57

Source: Staff survey, Feb-March 2018 (N=475).!


55

Table 14. Staff Survey: Number of Visits to the Expanded Learning Program

Lead Agency/ Program % Who visited at

least 5 times % Who visited less

than 5 times % Who did not visit % Don't Know


Bayview (n=7) 43% 14% 43% 0%

Chavez (n=12) 45% 27% 18% 9%

DeJean (n=12) 42% 42% 17% 0%

Dover (n=31) 40% 27% 33% 0%

Helms (n=25) 42% 29% 29% 0%

Highland (n=16) 56% 25% 19% 0%

Korematsu (n=21) 38% 29% 33% 0%

Lincoln (n=14) 50% 36% 14% 0%

Mira Vista (n=13) 69% 23% 8% 0%

Nystrom (n=23) 70% 17% 9% 4%

Riverside (n=10) 89% 11% 0% 0%

Stege (n=9) 56% 22% 22% 0%

Washington (n=9) 44% 22% 22% 11%

Wilson (n=26) 35% 35% 31% 0%


Fairmont (n=11) 55% 18% 27% 0%

Ford (n=11) 55% 36% 9% 0%

Grant (n=31) 42% 23% 35% 0%

King (n=15) 73% 13% 13% 0%

Lake (n=24) 46% 42% 13% 0%

Montalvin (n=24) 43% 35% 22% 0%

Verde (n=3) 100% 0% 0% 0%


Coronado (n=18) 56% 25% 19% 0%

Crespi (n=23) 14% 36% 50% 0%

Downer (n=23) 27% 18% 36% 18%

Murphy (n=13) 50% 25% 25% 0%

Peres (n=14) 38% 23% 38% 0%

Sheldon (n=16) 69% 6% 25% 0%

Tara Hills (n=21) 52% 19% 29% 0%

Total 48% 26% 25% 2%

Source: Staff survey, Feb-March 2018 (N=475).


56

Table 15. Staff Survey: Relationship Between School and Expanded Learning Program

Lead Agency/ Program

There is a strong partnership between the

ELP and the school.

The Site Supervisor keeps administration informed of important decisions and issues related to

program policy.

Teachers are willing to collaborate with the ELP

staff.

ELP staff are responsive to ideas and suggestions

from school staff.

ELP staff reach out to teachers to identify the

needs of students.

School staff are encouraged to visit the

program.


Bayview (n=7) 57% 71% 43% 57% 57% 71% Chavez (n=12) 75% 67% 92% 75% 58% 67% DeJean (n=12) 92% 83% 75% 92% 92% 83% Dover (n=31) 81% 84% 81% 84% 55% 74% Helms (n=25) 84% 72% 72% 76% 56% 64% Highland (n=16) 94% 94% 88% 94% 81% 81% Korematsu (n=21) 48% 33% 48% 52% 33% 48% Lincoln (n=14) 71% 86% 79% 79% 71% 79% Mira Vista (n=13) 92% 85% 85% 85% 77% 77% Nystrom (n=23) 91% 74% 87% 87% 87% 83% Riverside (n=10) 100% 90% 100% 100% 80% 90% Stege (n=9) 100% 100% 56% 89% 89% 100% Washington (n=9) 89% 89% 89% 100% 67% 89% Wilson (n=26) 65% 54% 62% 58% 54% 32% Love. Learn. Success.

Fairmont (n=11) 73% 91% 64% 91% 64% 82% Ford (n=11) 100% 91% 91% 73% 45% 73% Grant (n=31) 94% 77% 81% 77% 68% 81% King (n=15) 73% 73% 87% 73% 60% 40% Lake (n=24) 83% 92% 83% 75% 58% 88% Montalvin (n=24) 67% 63% 79% 63% 54% 46% Verde (n=3) - - - - - - YMCA of the East Bay

Coronado (n=18) 76% 67% 72% 83% 50% 56% Crespi (n=23) 39% 48% 65% 39% 45% 43% Downer (n=23) 43% 35% 41% 43% 22% 22% Murphy (n=13) 38% 23% 69% 62% 46% 23% Peres (n=14) 64% 71% 50% 64% 36% 71% Sheldon (n=16) 81% 75% 75% 81% 81% 63% Tara Hills (n=21) 90% 86% 95% 90% 76% 62% Total 75% 71% 74% 74% 60% 64%

Source: Staff survey, Feb-March 2018 (N=475). Represents the proportion who responded “Agree” or “Strongly Agree”. Other response options were “Disagree”, “Strongly Disagree” and “I don’t know”. Actual survey items said “expanded learning program” instead of “ELP”. Data not provided for sites with 5 or fewer responses to maintain confidentiality. !


57

Table 16. Staff Survey: Relationship Between School and Expanded Learning Program (Continued)

Lead Agency/ Program

ELP staff follow through with the commitments they make to school

staff.

ELP staff transmit important information

about children and families to appropriate school staff

in a timely fashion.

ELP staff take care of the space the school

provides for the program.

Curriculum and instruction in the ELP

reinforce concepts taught during the school

day.

The ELP has enough capacity to serve all interested students.

The program is well coordinated with other

after school activities at the school.


Bayview (n=7) 57% 71% 86% 43% 57% 71% Chavez (n=12) 67% 67% 83% 67% 33% 75% DeJean (n=12) 92% 92% 100% 67% 58% 92% Dover (n=31) 77% 65% 74% 68% 55% 80% Helms (n=25) 68% 64% 80% 56% 64% 80% Highland (n=16) 81% 81% 94% 88% 56% 94% Korematsu (n=21) 55% 38% 48% 33% 33% 43% Lincoln (n=14) 79% 79% 93% 50% 64% 64% Mira Vista (n=13) 77% 85% 100% 69% 54% 77% Nystrom (n=23) 82% 70% 78% 74% 52% 83% Riverside (n=10) 90% 80% 100% 100% 100% 90% Stege (n=9) 100% 100% 100% 78% 89% 100% Washington (n=9) 89% 89% 100% 78% 89% 100% Wilson (n=26) 52% 52% 54% 46% 35% 65% Love. Learn. Success.

Fairmont (n=11) 100% 64% 73% 73% 82% 55% Ford (n=11) 82% 73% 91% 55% 80% 100% Grant (n=31) 81% 74% 90% 81% 90% 87% King (n=15) 60% 60% 47% 40% 60% 67% Lake (n=24) 63% 50% 58% 46% 58% 67% Montalvin (n=24) 61% 71% 67% 71% 63% 67% Verde (n=3) - - - - - - YMCA of the East Bay

Coronado (n=18) 67% 44% 44% 39% 44% 56% Crespi (n=23) 35% 35% 65% 30% 65% 43% Downer (n=23) 26% 26% 39% 22% 17% 26% Murphy (n=13) 31% 42% 54% 23% 31% 62% Peres (n=14) 57% 50% 57% 64% 14% 50% Sheldon (n=16) 81% 81% 81% 75% 31% 60% Tara Hills (n=21) 75% 76% 81% 48% 43% 86% Total 68% 63% 73% 57% 55% 70%

Source: Staff survey, Feb-March 2018 (N=475). Represents the proportion who responded “Agree” or “Strongly Agree”. Other response options were “Disagree”, “Strongly Disagree” and “I don’t know”. Actual survey items said “expanded learning program” instead of “ELP”. Data not provided for sites with 5 or fewer responses to maintain confidentiality.


58

Table 17. Staff Survey: Relationship Between School and Expanded Learning Program by Frequency

of Visits to the Expanded Learning Program

Source: Staff survey, Feb-March 2018 (N=475). Represents the proportion who responded “Agree” or “Strongly Agree”. Other response options were “Disagree”, “Strongly Disagree” and “I don’t know”. !

Survey Item Visited at least 5 times

Visited less than 5 times

Did not visit Don't Know if Visited

There is a strong partnership between the expanded learning program and the school. 84% 77% 62% 14%

The Site Supervisor keeps administration informed of important decisions and issues related to program policy. 85% 69% 50% 14%

Teachers are willing to collaborate with the expanded learning program staff. 81% 79% 63% 29%

Expanded learning program staff are responsive to ideas and suggestions from school staff. 90% 66% 54% 43%

Expanded learning program staff reach out to teachers to identify the needs of students. 72% 57% 45% 29%

School staff are encouraged to visit the program. 75% 63% 46% 43%

Expanded learning program staff follow through with the commitments they make to school staff. 82% 68% 43% 29%

Expanded learning program staff transmit important information about children and families to appropriate school staff in a timely fashion.

76% 63% 40% 43%

Expanded learning program staff take care of the space the school provides for the program.

78% 75% 63% 29%

Curriculum and instruction in the expanded learning program reinforce concepts taught during the school day.

69% 53% 41% 29%

The expanded learning program has enough capacity to serve all interested students.

60% 57% 44% 29%

The program is well coordinated with other after school activities at the school.

78% 73% 54% 43%


59

Table 18. Staff Survey: Communication Frequency Between Administrators and Site Supervisors

Source: Staff survey, Feb-March 2018 (n=220). Only includes staff who are in a leadership position (Principal, Site Supervisor, Expanded Learning Lead Teacher) and have visited the program 5 or more times.

!

Topic Never 1-2 times a semester Once a month

At least 2-3 times a month

Planning program content 21% 18% 41% 20%

Enrollment/Registration levels and policies 9% 30% 36% 24%

Staffing of program 18% 32% 23% 27%

Homework assignments 11% 35% 21% 33%

Curriculum concepts being taught in school 9% 29% 29% 33%

Issues related to classroom/shared space 9% 20% 32% 38%

The needs or progress of individual students 5% 23% 26% 47%

Student discipline issues/policies 5% 20% 21% 55%


60

APPENDIX D. ASSESSMENT AND GPA DATA

Table 19. Kindergarten Foundational Skills Assessment: Achievement Level; Participant vs. Non-

participant

Achievement Level Participant Non-participant

Needs intervention 0% 5%

Approaching standard 6% 11%

Meets or exceeds standard 94% 84%

Source: Kindergarten Foundational Skills Assessment Achievement Level. Participants (n=52), non-participants (n=660). Pearson chi-square: X2 (2, N = 712) = 4.320, p = .115.

Table 20. Kindergarten Foundational Skills Assessment: Achievement Level; Less than 100 days vs.

100 days or more

Achievement Level Less than 100 days 100 days or more



Meets or exceeds standard 92% 96%

Source: Kindergarten Foundational Skills Assessment Achievement Level. Participants that attended less than 100 days (n=24), participants that attended 100 days or more (n=28). Pearson chi-square: X2 (1, N=52) = .539, p = .463.

Table 21. STAR Early Literacy Assessment: Achievement Level; Participant vs. Non-participant




Meets standard 11% 11%

Exceeds standard 34% 32%

Source: STAR Early Literacy Assessment Achievement Level, Spring 2018. Participants (n=76), non-participants (n=170). Pearson chi-square: X2 (3, N=246) = 2.416, p = .491.

Table 22. STAR Early Literacy Assessment: Achievement Level; Less than 100 days vs. 100 days or

more




Meets standard 7% 11%

Exceeds standard 20% 38%

Source: STAR Early Literacy Assessment Achievement Level, Spring 2018. Participants that attended less than 100 days (n=15), participants that attended 100 days or more (n=61). Pearson chi-square: X2 (3, N=76) = 3.396, p = .335.


61

Table 23. STAR Early Literacy Assessment: Change in score; Participant vs. Non-participant

Participant Non-participant

Change in scale score from Fall 2017 to Spring 2018 169 180

Source: STAR Early Literacy Assessment change in scale score from fall 2017 to spring 2018. Participants (n=74), non-participants (n=161). Independent samples t-test: t(233) = -.726, p = .469

Table 24. STAR Reading Assessment: Achievement Level; Participant vs. Non-participant


Urgent Intervention 54% 57%

Intervention Needed 14% 14%

On Watch 22% 19%

Meets Benchmark 9% 8%

Exceeds Benchmark 1% 2%

Source: STAR Reading Assessment Achievement Level, spring 2018. Participants (n=535), non-participants (n=1,031). Pearson chi-square: X2 (4, N=1,566) = 4.038, p = .401.

Table 25. STAR Reading Assessment: Achievement Level; Less than 100 days vs. 100 days or more*


Urgent Intervention 65% 49%

Intervention Needed 11% 15%

On Watch 17% 25%

Meets Benchmark 8% 9%

Exceeds Benchmark 0% 2%

Source: STAR Reading Assessment Achievement Level, spring 2018. Participants that attended less than 100 days (n=157), participants that attended 100 days or more (n=378). *The difference between participants who attended 100 days or more and participants who attended less than 100 days is statistically significant: Pearson chi-square: X2 (4, N=535) = 13.159, p = .011.

Table 26. STAR Reading Assessment: Change in score; Participant vs. Non-participant


Change in scale score from Fall 2017 to Spring 2018

69 68

Source: STAR Reading Assessment change in scale score from fall 2017 to spring 2018. Participants (n=477), non-participants (n=879). Independent samples t-test: t(1,354) = .110, p = .912.

!


62

Table 27. SBAC English Language Arts Assessment: Achievement Level; Participant vs. Non-

participant*


Standard Not Met 56% 49%

Standard Nearly Met 22% 22%

Standard Met 15% 20%

Standard Exceeded 7% 9%

Source: SBAC English Language Arts Assessment Achievement Level. Participants (n=2,238), non-participants (n=6,443). *The difference between participants and non-participants is statistically significant: Pearson chi-square: X2 (3, N=8,681) = 40.174, p < .01.

Table 28. SBAC English Language Arts Assessment: Achievement Level; Less than 100 days vs. 100

days or more*






Source: SBAC English Language Arts Assessment Achievement Level. Participants that attended less than 100 days (n=821), participants that attended 100 days or more (n=1,417). *The difference between participants who attended 100 days or more and participants who attended less than 100 days is statistically significant: Pearson chi-square: X2 (3, N=2,238) = 18.936, p < .01.

!


63

Table 29. SBAC English Language Arts Assessment: Achievement Level; Participant vs. Non-

participant by Race/Ethnicity, Grades 4-6

Race/Ethnicity Achievement Level Participant Non-participant

Alaska Native/American Indian (n=24)





Asian/Pacific Islander (n=539)





Black/African American (n=914)





Latino/Hispanic (n=3,115)





White (n=377)





Source: SBAC English Language Arts Assessment Achievement Level. Participants (n=1,286), non-participants (n=3,863). Students in grades 4-6 only.

!


64

Table 30. SBAC English Language Arts Assessment: Achievement Level; Less than 100 days vs. 100

days or more by Race/Ethnicity, Grades 4-6

Race/Ethnicity Achievement Level Less than 100 days 100 days or more




Standard Met 0% 50%










Standard Met 9% 14%


Latino/Hispanic (n=800)





White (n=66)





Source: SBAC English Language Arts Assessment Achievement Level. Participants that attended less than 100 days (n=409), participants that attended 100 days or more (n=877). Students in grades 4-6 only.

Table 31. SBAC Math Assessment: Achievement Level; Participant vs. Non-participant*






Source: SBAC Math Assessment Achievement Level. Participants (n=2,270), non-participants (n=6,521). *The difference between participants and non-participants is statistically significant: Pearson chi-square: X2 (3, N=8,791) = 19.798, p < .01.!


65

Table 32. SBAC Math Assessment: Achievement Level; Less than 100 days vs. 100 days or more*




Standard Met 9% 13%


Source: SBAC Math Assessment Achievement Level. Participants that attended less than 100 days (n=844), participants that attended 100 days or more (n=1,426). *The difference between participants who attended 100 days or more and participants who attended less than 100 days is statistically significant: Pearson chi-square: X2 (3, N=2,270) = 44.466, p < .01. Table 33. SBAC Math Assessment: Achievement Level; Participant vs. Non-participant by

Race/Ethnicity, Grades 4-6

Race/Ethnicity Achievement Level Participant Non-participant














Standard Met 7% 8%


Latino/Hispanic (n=3,115)



Standard Met 9% 11%


White (n=377)





Source: SBAC Math Assessment Achievement Level. Participants (n=1,286), non-participants (n=3,863). Students in grades 4-6 only.


66

Table 34. SBAC Math Assessment: Achievement Level; Less than 100 days vs. 100 days or more by

Race/Ethnicity, Grades 4-6

Race/Ethnicity Achievement Level Less than 100 days 100 days or more




Standard Met 0% 50%










Standard Met 5% 8%


Latino/Hispanic (n=800)



Standard Met 6% 10%


White (n=66)





Source: SBAC Math Assessment Achievement Level. Participants that attended less than 100 days (n=409), participants that attended 100 days or more (n=877). Students in grades 4-6 only.

Table 35. GPA 2018: Participant vs. Non-participant


GPA 2018 2.52 2.58

Source: WCCUSD GPA records; matched to participants (August 21, 2017 – June 7, 2018) per program attendance records; Participants (n=567), non-participants (n=2,322). Independent samples t-test: t(2,887) = -1.347, p = .178.

Table 36. GPA 2018: Less than 100 days vs. 100 days or more*

Less than 100 days 100 days or more

GPA 2018 2.44 2.68

Source: WCCUSD GPA records; matched to participants (August 21, 2017 – June 7, 2018) per program attendance records; Participants that attended less than 100 days (n=376), participants that attended 100 days or more (n=191). *The difference between participants who attended 100 days or more and participants who attended less than 100 days is statistically significant: Independent samples t-test: t(565) = -2.817, p = .005.


67

APPENDIX E. ENGLISH LEARNER AND RECLASSIFICATION DATA

Table 37. English Learner Status: Participant vs. Non-participant


English Learner 41% 43%

Non-English Learner 59% 57%

Source: WCCUSD demographic records; matched to participants (August 21, 2017 – June 7, 2018) per program attendance records; Participants (n=3,477), non-participants (n=11,436). Non-English Learner includes students classified as “English or American Sign Language Only”, “Initial Fluent English Proficient”, or “Reclassified Fluent English Proficient”.

Table 38. English Learner Reclassification Rate: Participant vs. Non-participant


Reclassified in 2017-18 12% 10%

Still an English Learner 88% 90%

Source: WCCUSD demographic records; matched to participants (August 21, 2017 – June 7, 2018) per program attendance records; Participants (n=1,625), non-participants (n=5,441). Percentages only include students who started the school year classified as an English Learner. Pearson chi-square: X2 (1, N=7,066) = 2.434, p =.119.

Table 39. English Learner Reclassification Rate: Less than 100 days vs. 100 days or more*


Reclassified in 2017-18 9% 13%

Still an English Learner 91% 87%

Source: WCCUSD demographic records; matched to participants (August 21, 2017 – June 7, 2018) per program attendance records; Participants that attended less than 100 days (n=596), participants that attended 100 days or more (n=1,029). Percentages only include students who started the school year classified as an English Learner. *The difference between participants who attended 100 days or more and participants who attended less than 100 days is statistically significant: Pearson chi-square: X2 (1, N=1,625) = 6.050, p =.014.

!


68

APPENDIX F. SCHOOL ATTENDANCE DATA Table 40. School Attendance Rate: Participant vs. Non-participant*


Percent of total school days student attended school 95% 93%

Source: WCCUSD attendance records; matched to participants (August 21, 2017 – June 7, 2018) per program attendance records; Participants (n=3,482), non-participants (n =11,499). *The difference between participants and non-participants is statistically significant: Independent samples t-test: t(14,979) = 12.373, p < .01.

Table 41. School Attendance Rate: Less than 100 days vs. 100 days or more*


Percent of total school days student attended school 93% 96%

Source: WCCUSD attendance records; matched to participants (August 21, 2017 – June 7, 2018) per program attendance records; Participants that attended less than 100 days (n=1,310), participants that attended 100 days or more (n=2,172). *The difference between participants who attended 100 days or more and participants who attended less than 100 days is statistically significant: Independent samples t-test: t(3,480) = -12.812, p < .01.

Table 42. School Chronic Absence Rate: Participant vs. Non-participant*


Percent of students who were chronically absent

18% 26%

Percent of students who were not chronically absent 82% 74%

Source: WCCUSD attendance records; matched to participants (August 21, 2017 – June 7, 2018) per program attendance records; Participants (n=3,482), non-participants (n = 11,499). Chronic absence defined as an absent rate of 10% or higher of the total days enrolled. *The difference between participants and non-participants is statistically significant: Pearson chi-square: X2 (1, N=14,981) = 96.198, p < .01. Table 43. School Chronic Absence Rate: Participant vs. Non-participant within Race/Ethnicity*


Alaska Native/American Indian 26% 28%

Asian/Pacific Islander* 8% 16%

Black/African American* 25% 39%

Latino/Hispanic* 18% 26%

White 15% 19%

Source: WCCUSD attendance records; matched to participants (August 21, 2017 – June 7, 2018) per program attendance records; Participants (n=3,482), non-participants (n = 11,499). Chronic absence defined as an absent rate of 10% or higher of the total days enrolled. *Asian/Pacific Islander: The difference between participants and non-participants is statistically significant: Independent samples t-test: t(1,741) = -3.697, p < .01. *Black/African American: The difference between participants and non-participants is statistically significant: Independent samples t-test: t(2,721) = -7.118, p < .01. *Latino/Hispanic: The difference between participants and non-participants is statistically significant: Independent samples t-test: t(9,048) = -7.772, p < .01.


69

Table 44. School Chronic Absence Rate: Less than 100 days vs. 100 days or more*


Percent of students who were chronically absent

31% 10%

Percent of students who were not chronically absent 69% 90%

Source: WCCUSD attendance records; matched to participants (August 21, 2017 – June 7, 2018) per program attendance records; Participants that attended less than 100 days (n=898), participants that attended 100 days or more (n=1,948). *The difference between participants who attended 100 days or more and participants who attended less than 100 days is statistically significant: Pearson chi-square: X2 (1, N=3,482) = 244.550, p < .01.

1718wccusd finalreport v4 · harold dichoso administrative technician public profit evaluation team...

Documents