giving educationally motivating signals grant proposal for masonic home

8/12/2019 Giving Educationally Motivating Signals Grant Proposal for Masonic Home

1/28

Giving Educationally Motivating Signals (G.E.M.S) for Literacy 1

PANEL SUMMARY FOR GRANT PROPOSAL

Principal Investigator:Irby

Title:GEMS proposal

Positive and unique aspects of the proposal:

Well written and constructed proposal. Noticed the attention to detail and good use of citations.

Negative aspects of the proposal:

Would have liked the SMART objectives in that section.

Suggestions for future submission:

This feels ready to go.

Included Parts:-APA Cover PagePerfect-Project SummaryGood summary though a little long-Table of ContentsNicely organized-Background and Significance-Great background-Specific AimsNeed to be SMART Objectives-Program Design and MethodsEasy to follow the different components and how it will work-Evaluation Design and MethodsNice evaluation-SustainabilityGood plan-Appendix A. References - Nice-Appendix B. Biographical Sketches fine-Appendix C. BudgetGreat Budget-Appendix D. Budget JustificationPerfect budget narrative-Appendix E. Program Logic Model Beautiful Logic Model-Appendix F: Timeline / Process Chart

Nice Time Line

Panel Recommendation:

Rating/Score 23 out 25

X FUND Amount: $24,000

_ NOT SELECTED FOR FUNDING


2/28


Masonic Home for Children at Oxford

Giving Educationally Motivating Signals (G.E.M.S) for Literacy

Pre-Proposal

Grant Period: August 2014- July 2016

Cost per Year: $12,463.79

Nafeesha Irby, Masonic Home, Intern3031 Jehossee Street, Apt 309

Raleigh, NC [email protected]

704.804.2043

Kevin Otis, AdministratorMasonic Home for Children at Oxford

600 College StOxford, NC 27565

Phone: 919.693.5111Fax: 919.693.2479

[email protected]
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


3/28


Project Summary

Illiteracy is a common threat to schools, communities, and households throughout our nation.

Recently over 45 states adopted a new curriculum known as Common Core that was designed to push

students to interact with academia differently and infuse literacy in all content areas. Each year, North

Carolinas Department of Instruction releases what is known asNC School Report Cards. This allows for

public view of where children landed in their proficiency in reading, math, and other core content areas.

However, each year, schools, parents, communities, and district leaders are asking questions that push for

answers around what needs to be done to ensure our children are prepared for the future that lies ahead of

them.

Giving Educationally Motivating Signals (G.E.M.S) for Literacy will help to tackle this concern

for children who live in substitute care at the Masonic Home for Children at Oxford (MHCO). The

programs objective is to increase literacy rates and grow reading levels so that children are on grade

level and ignite something in them that pushes them to be excited about reading. It is designed to reach

both children who are struggling to reach proficiency for their grade-level and those who may show signs

of regression in literacy. The program seeks to incorporate home-based literacy support through the use of

tutors, parental partnership, and additional stakeholders. We will do this through scheduled bi-monthly

tutorial sessions, tracking running records of reading growth, creating personal opportunity plans to target

the needs of children, and cross-collaboration between cottages where students reside. Based on data

shared by tutors and from two computer-based learning programs (theReading A-Z andRaz-Kids

programs), children will receive support tailor-made and designed to aid them in reaching their goals.


4/28


Table of Contents

PageProject Description 4

I. Background & Significance 4

II. Goals & Objectives 6

III. Program Design and Methods 9

IV. Evaluation Design and Methods 12

V. Sustainability Plan 13

Appendices

Appendix A: References 15

Appendix B: Biographical Sketch 16

Appendix C: Budget 18

Appendix D: Budget Justification 19

Appendix E: Program Logic Model 23

Appendix F: Program Timeline 24


5/28


Program Description

The mission of the Home is to assist families in need by providing a home -like setting together

with community-based programs and services for children to reunite with their families or achieve

independence. In order to truly see this manifest in a way that prepares children to be active members of

society, we believe there should be an additional emphasis on education and community support.

Giving Educationally Motivating Signals (G.E.M.S) for Literacy is a program designed to

provide educational mentorship through the use of current teachers who will serve as tutors to the children

who live on the Masonic Homes campus. The scope of the G.E.M.S for Literacy program is to provide

scheduled tutorial sessions throughout the duration of the school year and allow students to receive small-

group, differentiated, literacy support that is aligned to their current level of performance and growth

trajectory. The resources that will be used to guide the program areReading A-Z andRaz-Kids computer

programs,both provided by the companyLearning A-Z; a company that has provided a series of literacy

support backed and supported by research. Additionally, these programs are used in the local public

schools in which the students attend which allows for continuity, familiarity, collaboration with teachers,

and consistent support in a mechanism that has been proven to target students greatest needs in literacy

and help them to maintain a positive momentum.

I . Background & Signif icance

Literacy development is a major goal of education and one of the fundamental prerequisites for

academic success and participation in modern society (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998). In todays society,

ones ability to read, write, and comprehend information at a high level speaks to their ability to

participate as a contributing member to the economic well being of society and obtain a career that allows

them to be fiscally stable. Since 1990, the Main National Assessment of Educational Progress has been

administered for children in grades four, eight, and twelve. This assessment helps to determine the

proportion of students who are proficient or on grade level in reading(Reardon, Shores, & Valentino,

2012). According to the most recent Main NAEP, reading assessments that were administered in 2011

reflected that 67% of fourth-graders could not read at a basic level and only 34% percent just hit the mark


6/28


for proficiency (Reardon, Shores, & Valentino, 2012). This demonstrates the high need we have as a

nation to improve literacy for all of our children.

From the experience of educators, we often find that research tells that illiteracy greatly affect

children of the minority. However, we find that poverty is not always attached to a race. In and out of our

schools across the United States, we find that the ability to appropriately fund our public school and

provide our children with a quality education greatly rests in the extent to which a community can afford

to put money into their local schools. We find that here, in rural, Eastern North Carolina, race does play a

role in our educational system, but is not solely attached to race. Illiteracy touches all children.

Local Need

According to the 2008Measure Up report for North Carolina, only 28% of students by the 8th

grade were adequately prepared for education and training beyond high school based on results of the

National Assessment Exam in reading. This was a decrease of three percentage points from the early

1990s. The data reveals a substantial decline in 8thgrade literacy over the past decade (The National

Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, 2008). While this data reflects the proficiency levels of a

population different from those we intend to reach, it speaks to the level of unpreparedness of our children

both during and prior to middle school. Grades K-3 is the time in which students learn to read and grades

4-5 is when children read to learn. If students entering into middle school during grade six are not

provided with such a foundation, it is undeniably true that it will be extremely difficult for them to make

up those lost years of learning.

In the district serving the city of Oxford, literacy proficiency rates by grade level are even lower.

For example, proficiency for the third grade is 60.4%, fourth is 63.0%, and fifth is 68.2%. There is a

strong correlation between these literacy rates in the 4th

grade and high school graduation. The current

graduation rate for the county is 72% and only 51% of high school students were eligible to take the

Scholastic Assessment Test needed to attend college last year (Public Schools of North Carolina, 2012).

When performing a diagnostic assessment on our children at the Home in grades four and five,

one out of the six children tested were proficient or ongrade level. The data shows that those children


7/28


entering the fourth grade struggled the most. Data from the elementary school that the children attend

reflects that the third grade is performing at 50%, fourth grade 49.4%, and fifth grade 52.3% in reading

(Public Schools of North Carolina, 2012). It is clear that those in grades four and five would benefit

greatly from an intervention approach that helps them learn strategies such as how to annotate important

information in a text and timing words read per minute, and those children in grades K-3 would benefit

from a preventative approach such as how to blend sounds and fluency.

While it is evident that the need is great both at the district and school-wide level, by reaching

those students who are highly at risk in literacy, we can begin to build a sense of partnership around

community and schools that will hopefully start a trend to increase and enhance literacy for all kids in our

county. Through the literacy instruction students are receiving in the classroom, they are typically slated

to grow 1 to 1.5 years in reading. However, because many of our students start the school year already

behind in core subject areas such as Reading, it is difficult to guarantee that they will be on grade level

and ready for what North Carolina calls theEnd-of Grade test; which, determines not only proficiency,

but if a child is adequately prepared to move on to the next grade-level.

Best Practices for I mproving L iteracy

As the need continues to grow to ensure our children are prepared to exceed in all phases of their

educational journey, we want to put structures in place to help them approach education comfortably,

confidently, and successfully. Many students leave elementary school at either grades five or six and are

significantly behind. Typically, when a child enters middle school, we find that the potential for them to

catch up to their peers who are proficient by the time they enter high school is scarce. We also find that

situations such as the extent of education received by parents and guardians as well as the habits

employed at the home play a tremendous role in the extent of support received outside of school. Many

studies show positive connections between student outcomes and parental involvement. Additionally,

principals and teachers have indicated the importance of parental involvement in educating students

(Epstein,2001). Through parental involvement, students become more invested, parents become more


8/28


aware of the needs of their child, and teachers can serve as a support in helping both child and parent

grow.

In Jeynes (2005) meta-analysis, of the impact of parental involvement and student achievement

in K-12 students, he found that their achievement results were higher when there was active parental

involvement. This pattern held true for students across all racial and ethnic groups. Additionally, those

parents who invested time in reading and communicating with their children and not solely attending

school functions such as parent-teacher conferences, evidenced greater impact. The idea of helping

parents to create healthy habits at home that supports their child academically has consistently proven to

lead to great results.

One approach to enhance parental involvement is through extending and improving child literacy

experiences outside of school through so-called family literacy programs (Herppich, Kurvers, McElvany,

& Van Steensel, 2010). These programs can be similar in nature to those used in the school setting, but

helps to train an educate both the parent and child about best practices in developing healthy, effective,

and successful habits around all facets of literacy. Epstein (1991) revealed that teacher leadership in

involving parents to work with their child at home contributes to strong reading achievement, regardless

of teacher quality. Parents also reported that through stronger support and communication from teachers,

they were able to be more aware and involved in the instructional programming used in their childs

classroom; hence, the importance of the G.E.M.S for Literacy program serving as a platform for cross-

collaboration between teachers in the community and parents.

I I . Goals & Objectives

The aim of Giving Educationally Motivating Signals for Literacy is to increase literacy rates and

reading levels of children living in substitute care and enrolled in local public schools. There are two

goals that encompass the reoccurring themes in the overarching vision noted above.

Goal I :To significantly increase the literacy rates and Lexile reading levels by at least 1 year of growth

of over 15, elementary-aged children living in substitute care, who demonstrate challenges in reading,

writing and comprehension by providing prevention and intervention support


9/28


Goal II :To establish a measurable and sustainable program that will support house parents1, staff, and

children in developing healthy and effective habits around literacy both in school and at home

We anticipate that by incorporating a research-based literacy program that is comprehensive of

technology and one-on-one, differentiated support, by the end of year one, students would have either met

100% of their individualized growth goals or have shown at least 80% growth. Our bi-monthly tutorial

sessions led by our community teachers will either confirm or deny that the children we serve are

receiving a level of learning, coaching, and guidance that appeals to their needs. We will use theReading

A-Z andRaz-Kidsprogram to work with the children through small group instruction, and allow them to

engage in a variety of targeted and fun learning activities that will track their starting, mid, and end points

in reading, as well as give us data entry points that can be used to make additions and revisions to the

program.

Due to literacy development being an iterative process, it takes time to reach the levels of growth

we aspire to be true. The short-term and long-term outcomes we strive to achieve throughout the duration

of the two-year program are multi-layered and outlined below.

Short-Term Outcomes

Experience academic growth in literacy and overall success in the classroom due to skills taught

Feel confident in their abilities to meet academic outcomes

Develop Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, Timely goals for themselves as it relates to

monitoring their personal progress and outcomes

Clearly articulate their short and long-term goals as it relates to their academic trajectory

Have a desire to grow in their academic abilities; specifically in literacy

Enjoy learning and having fun while doing so

Develop organizational skills and study habits that will increase their ability to read and write

1This term refers to the parents assigned to the cottage in which the child resides. The children at the Home remain under thecustodial care of their biological parent(s), family member, or the states Department of Social Services.


10/28


Long-Term Outcomes

100% of children in grades K-5 (25% of student population) who reside at the home are reading

on grade-level

Continuous community support and involvement in working with the children who reside at the

home

Scheduling of both in-home and out-of-home activities grounded in literacy

Continuity of literacy-based programs and support

0% of children classified as below grade level in reading

100% positive outcomes and experiences for children

100% growth in reading test scores at school to ensure promotion to the next grade with an

appropriate level of preparedness

I I I . Program Design & Methods

Families are important contexts for literacy learning and are the basis for the development of

interventions that have as a primary goal to also teach parents. This holds especially true for those who

are likely to experience literacy delays because of well-known risk factors such as low socio-economic

status or low parental literacy levels (Purcell-Gates, 2000). One of the most important areas to address

when working with children who show signs of struggle in literacy is one-on-one support. Family-based

support provides ample opportunity for targeted teaching and learning with intensive practice and

individualized feedback. Additionally, incorporating this form of support helps to incorporate positive,

healthy habits that creates a culture for learning and teaches the child how to excel academically. Lastly,

through the use of parents, we are able to increase the program sensitivity to the cultural and social

development of the child within the home (Herppich et al., 2010).

Given where our children are currently in their reading, we plan to follow several steps that

research shows will propel our children forward in their literacy growth. We plan to have all adult

participants professionally trained by representatives from theLearning A-Z company, develop


11/28


personalized plans for students that will guide the academic plan they will follow, and run student

performance reports monthly to track progress to goals and make adjustments to the program as

necessary.

Training

We plan to help prepare our parents and tutors for the use of the literacy program of choice by

having them professionally trained. Most programs using professional parent trainers had positive effects

on childrens cognitive and language development, whereas thoseusing semiprofessionals were not

effective (Olds & Kitzman, 1993). The companys professional development trainers will conduct a

training session in the fall of each year the program is active. The training support also includes access to

professionally led webinars that will allow parents, tutors, and staff to have unlimited access to these

trainings during times that work best with their schedules. Real-time support and feedback is also

accessible.

It is once again important to emphasize the need for parents to be professionally trained as well as

tutors. According to a longitudinal study conducted by Dearing, Kreider, and Weiss (2006) of 281 low-

income and ethnically diverse children in grades K-5, literacy achievement and strong parental

involvement are parallel. Out of this study emerged five main findings. First, parent involvement related

positively to student literacy achievement. Second, an increase of student literacy achievement was

witnessed as parental involvement increased. Thirdly, high levels of parental involvement seemed to

override the extent of maternal education. Fourth, parental involvement increased childrens feelings and

experiences with literacy. Fifth, school context predicted parental involvement. All five of these findings

are interconnected to the success of the G.E.M.S program. If parental involvement is not treated and

viewed as pivotal, the results and experiences of the children may not be as transformational.

Student Personal Opportunity Plans

Upon the completion of training, the program will proceed with two meetings per month in which

tutors will first develop a personal opportunity plan for each student they support. This plan will be

based on the childs starting point identified by both their school reports on reading and initial


12/28


performance using the literacy programs. They will then use the provided, scripted, lesson plans that will

serve as a primary source to how to work with the children on a level most appropriate to their needs.

Since the tutors are also teachers, they will have the autonomy to make adjustments to the plans as needed

to maintain the best interest of the child. The incorporation of the parents is equally important to the

incorporation of teacher tutors. By having both forms of support in conjunction with theReading A-Z and

Raz-Kidsprograms, we are able to touch on the pedagogical significance of tutoring such as providing

students with scaffolding and feedback, focusing on specific sub-skills of literacy, tutoring by minimally-

trained tutors (parents), including adolescents with guidance from more experienced practitioners (teacher

tutors), computer tutoring that is well structured in the absence of face-to-face tutoring (Reading A-Z and

Raz-Kids), and providing students with genuine reasons to use literacy (Cumming, Jun, & Ramirez,

2010). The computer-based components of the program gives children access to learning mechanisms on

days that tutorials are held and days they are not; therefore, with support from their parents and home-

based staff, they can continue receiving monitored support that will be indicative of how their tutors

should work with them on a more individualized level.

Small Group Support

Given that there are five cottages that house the children in the grades noted above, the goal is to

have one tutor adopt a cottage and use the program to drive the instruction geared toward the needs of

their particular children. By dividing these students into small groups, it allows for a 1:4 tutor to student

ratio in addition to having house parents present to be guided on how to structure habits within the home

that will sustain the work tutors are doing with their children. During their scheduled sessions, tutors will

use student test data, anecdotal data collected by cottage house parents and classroom teachers, as well as

data from the previous months session (which will be entered into the childs personal opportunity plan)

to work with them in key areas.

Data

At the close of each month, tutors and potentially house parents will meet with the tutor

coordinator to pull reports of student progress and overall reading growth as well as anecdotal records


13/28


from house parents. Students will be asked to keep a reading log that will be updated daily indicating the

books they have read, time allotted to reading, the number of pages, and a brief summary about their

readings. Tutors will need to record the Lexile level of the books to ensure that they are a) aligned to the

students current reading level and b) telling of growth made by the student as a result of the literacy

program and intervention support.

During this data analysis meeting, the tutors will serve as a focus group that will assess to what

extent is the program meeting our goals, what students have made significant or expected growth and

why, and what students have not and why. Based on the information gathered, if there is a need to adjust

the design, program, and/or methods, the tutor coordinator will raise these concerns during our focus

groups quarterly evaluation meetings addressed below.

Staffing

Nafeesha Irby will serve as the Program Coordinator for the G.E.M.S for Literacy program. She

is a former Special Education high school teacher who entered the education field through the non-profit

organization Teach For America. She worked for the organization as a teacher coach for grades K-12 and

served teachers and students in Granville County for two years. Through her work, she became

acquainted with the MHCO in hopes to help create an opportunity for newly recruited Teach For America

teachers placed in this county to partner more with local community organizations. Currently, she is a

graduate student in the Northeast Leadership Academy at North Carolina State University pursuing her

Masters of School Administration. She will soon serve as a school administrator in Granville County.

All tutors, including the tutor coordinator, will be recruited from current Teach For America

teachers (corps members) who aspire to integrate themselves into the community more and serve the kids

of the MHCO. These teachers have been recruited through one of the most rigorous teacher preparation

programs in the nation and are typically graduates of the top of their class. Teach For America is a highly

selective organization only accepting 10% of applicants. They have undergone intense training, typically

outperform teachers who matriculate in the field through traditional lateral entry programs, and are

committed to serve in their placement schools for at least two years (Bastian et al.,2010).


14/28


I V. Evaluation Design & Methods

The evaluation design and methods consists of several steps that will allow us to evaluate the

overall effectiveness of the program. These processes include a data analysis of reports ran after each

quarter to assess trends and analyze growth, developing comprehensive student profiles that indicate the

ending point for their reading abilities and Lexile levels, qualitative survey analysis to capture

experiences of stakeholders and participants of the program, and drafting of mid-year and end-year

reports.

To build off what is discussed in the monthly tutor meetings, every six to eight weeks, the

program coordinator will host a meeting with the tutor coordinator and MHCOs administrator to discuss

data after the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4thquarters of implementation. It is at this meeting where a further analysis

of the evaluation process is conducted. The tutor coordinator will arrive at the meeting with running

records from the previous tutor meeting in addition to their discussed analysis of what the data reflects.

Prior to this meeting, each tutor will be asked to complete and submit a student profile that outlines where

the students started in reverence to their reading level, the dates and length of time of the that quarters

meetings, the type of support provided, and any notes taken about the students performance. This will be

completed for each child the tutor has worked with.

Using this data, we can then begin to conduct case studies about the growth our students are or

are not making. For instance, based on what we know, a 3rdgrade student who scores below the 25th

percentile of readers may read at a Lexile level of 330L, however, a 3rdgrader who scores above the 75th

percentile of readers may fall at a 700L. This means that this 3rdgrade student can begin the G.E.M.S for

Literacy program barely reading grade-level appropriate texts and end ready for 5thgrade. If we see

negative growth, we will be able to act accordingly. According to the Common Core State Standards for

English, students leaving the 3rdgrade are expected to read between a 520L and an 820L to be college and

career ready by grade 12 (MetaMetrics, Inc, 2013). Currently, some of the entering fourth graders at the

Home are not yet where they should have been leaving the third grade. Ultimately, this is the kind of


15/28


growth we would like to see and will measure against for the kids we work with over the course of this

two-year program.

For a more qualitative measure, program surveys will be sent out three times throughout the year

to monitor early, middle, and ending success and satisfaction. We will ask that students, volunteers, and

house parents complete the surveys so that we hear the perspectives from all involved. We believe that a

positive culture conducive to learning is equally important to academic gains and want to ensure that

those we are serving and working with are proud to be a part of this effort. The surveys will ask questions

such as, How often were you able to meet with your tutor? What are the goals you and your tutor set

and have they been reached? Have you enjoyed your experience with your tutor? Why or Why not?

What would you like to change and what would you like to stay the same? Similar qu estions will be

asked to house parents and tutors to ensure that everyone is aware of the experiences of program

particpantsparticipants.

Based on the results of the above surveys, we can draft mid-year and end-year reports that are

distributed to the Homes executive board, administration, funders, house-parents, classroom teachers,

and tutors. These reports would contain information about the population of students we serve, number of

tutorial sessions conducted to date, intervention and preventative measures taken to support children in

literacy initiatives, and starting, mid, and end-point data about student growth. The end-year report will

serve as a driving factor in how we create a foundation for success and future sustainability of the

G.E.M.S for Literacy program moving forward.

V. Sustainabili ty Plan

Careful steps have been taken to ensure that the G.E.M.S for Literacy program can be sustained

over time. To start, we chose a literacy program that is designed to support teachers, parents, and other

individuals with a non-education background in helping students increase literacy skills.Reading A-Z and

Raz-Kids are computer-based programs that will be operated using refurbished computers from a local


16/28


community organization. Software updates are automatically provided through theLearning A-Z

Company and all technical support needs will be funded by the Home using their current tech team.

Reading A-Z is comprised of direct instruction which can be given to the child by parent, student,

or volunteer through the use of scripted and pre-planned lesson plans in addition to computer-facilitated

components; whereas,Raz-Kids is primarily computer-based and provides a plethora of activities

designed to challenge and track their reading, writing, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension skills.

Running records can be pulled by the parent, tutor, or volunteer at any time to reveal how the child has

performed both in the moment and over the course of time. Running records are automatically provided

through the programs and can be viewed or printed for each child individually and for all children

collectively without complication. During the training sessions, learning how to run reports of student

data will be provided so that if at any time, a parent wants to pull data, they can do so with ease. Running

records highlight areas of strength and weakness and can be used as a guide when communicating

progress to schoolteachers and/or for the planning of direct or small-group instruction.

In addition, our tutors, as mentioned in thestaffing section, are beginning teachers affiliated with

Teach For America. This non-profit organization has supplied Granville County with teachers for over 20

years. Every year, a cluster of teachers are brought into the county to teach in high need schools, many in

which the students at MHCO attend. By having a guarantee pool of highly qualified, tutor candidates

enter into the county and school each year, it increases our chances of still having community support. It

is also our goal, that throughout time, we are able to include additional volunteers who have, in the past,

inquired about assisting the Homes children to broaden our community collaboration.

During the beginning phase of implementation, the training opportunity covering how to use both

theReading A-ZandRaz-Kidsprogram is mandatory for all house-parents and extended to other home-

based staff and volunteers that may serve as an educational support for the children. This is to certify that

in the absence of tutors, may it be long-term or short-term; staff can effectively support their children as

they strive to continuously enhance their literacy skills. Once again, we know that when parental


17/28


involvement is present, it helps to create a culture conducive to learning, and in this case, literacy

achievement both at home and in the school; another key component to the focus of our program.

The literacy programs we plan to use cost approximately $80.00/year for a maximum of 36

student participants. If successful in our first two years, we will present to the Homes executive board, an

opportunity to use funding currently allotted for educational experiences to purchase additional years of

program licensing. We have been fortunate to receive an insurmountable amount of financial support

from current donors that has been contributed to research-based initiatives for our children. With this in

mind, after the first two years of implementation, problem-solving, evaluation, and evidenced student

growth, it will be possible sustain the G.E.M.S for Literacy program at a scale still suitable for meeting

the needs of the Masonic Home for Children at Oxford.


18/28


APPENDIX A: REFERENCES

Bastian, K., Fortner, K., Henry, G., Kershaw, D., Purtell, K., Thompson, C., et al. (2010). Portal report:teacher preparation and student test scores in north carolina.Center Institute for Public Policy, 1-18.Retrieved fromhttp://publicpolicy.unc.edu/research/Teacher_Portals_Teacher_Preparation_and_Student_Test_Scores

_in_North_Carolina_2.pdf/view

Cumming, A, Jun, S, & Ramirez, G. (2010). Tutoring adolescents in literacy: a meta-analysis.McGillJournal of Education, 45, 219-234.

Dearing, E., Kreider, H., Simpkins, S., & Weiss, H.B. (2006). Family involvement in school and low-

income childrens literacy performance: Longitudinal associations between families within families.Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 653-664.

Epstein, J.L. (2001). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and improvingschools. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Herppich, S., Kurvers, J., Mc Elvany, N., & Van Steensel, R. (2011). How effective are family literacyprograms?: results of a meta-analysis.American Educational Research Association & SagePublications, 81, 69-96.

Jeynes, W.H. (2005).Parental involvement and student achievement: A meta-analysis. Retrieved July 30,2013 from University, Harvard Family Research Project. http://www.hfrp.org/publications-resources/browse-our-publications/parental-involvement-and-student-achievement-a-meta-analysis

MetaMetrics, Inc. (2013). The lexile framework for reading. Retrieved from http://lexile.com/about-lexile/grade-equivalent/grade-equivalent-chart/

Olds, D.L., & Kitzman, H. (1993). Review of research on home visiting for pregnant women and parents

of young children.Future of Children, 3, 53-92.

Public Schools of North Carolina, D. O. E. (2012).NC school report cards. Retrieved fromhttp://www.ncreportcards.org/src/servlet/srcICreatePDF?pSchCode=312&pLEACode=390&pYear=2011-2012

Purcell-Gates, V. (2000). Family literacy. In M. L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson, & R. Barr(Eds.),Handbook of reading research, 3, 853-870.Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Reardon, S., Shores, K., Valentino, R. (2012). Patterns of literacy among U.S. students.The Future ofChildren, 22, 17-32.

Snow, C.E., Burns, M.S., & Griffin, P. (1998).Preventing reading difficulties in young children.Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. (2008). The national center for public policyand higher education.Measuring Up: The State Report Card for Higher Education, Retrieved fromhttp://www.eric.ed.gov.prox.lib.ncsu.edu/PDFS/ED503561.pdf


19/28


APPENDIX B: BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Nafeesha Janell I rby3031 Jehossee Street, Apt 309, Raleigh, NC 27616

Phone: (w) 646.530.2888; (c) 704.804.2043Email: [email protected]

EDUCATIONNortheast Leadership Academy at North Carolina State University Fall 2012-PresentMaster of School Administration Raleigh, NC

North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University December 2008Bachelor of Science in Journalism and Mass Communication Greensboro, NCSumma cum laude

EXPERIENCE

GRANVILLE COUNTY SCHOOLS August 2013- PresentG.C. Hawley Middle School Creedmoor, NC

Principal Intern

Serve the students, faculty, and staff under the mentorship of the current school principal Assist principal with direct and indirect supervision of all personnel Assist wit the developing and implantation of policies, program, curriculum, and budget

Provide instructional coaching and professional development to faculty Evaluate student progress and overall school-wide data to assist principal performance

monitoring

Develop and contribute to positive school environment with emphasis on teaching and learning

Assist wit the coordination and handling of schedules

Assist with defining and disseminating school discipline policies and procedures Facilitate organizational efficiency

TEACH FOR AMERICA March 2012-July 2012Summer Institute Tulsa, OK

School Director, Hamilton Elementary School Closely monitor key factors at the school site by actively gathering and analyzing data from the

school related to corps member proficiency, student achievement, and school culture Lead corps members and staff toward instructional outcomes by leading school-wide learning

experiences, observing and coaching instructional staff, and guiding staff to provide effectivedifferentiation based on corps member needs

Ensure strong school operationsby managing School Operations Managers execution of

operations at the school site, based on the vision for school operations I have created Partner with principals and faculty advisors to build and maintain relationships that result in

needed investment and support for our work at the school

Create a culture of excellence founded on Teach For Americas core values, that builds a cultureof respect, trust, and partnership between and among corps members and staff at your school

Observe and coach individual corps members, curriculum specialist, and literacy specialist to theirVisions of Excellence


20/28


TEACH FOR AMERICA-EASTERN NORTH CAROLINA June 2011 to August 2013

Granville, Vance, & Warren Counties Durham, NCManager, Teacher Leadership Development

Coach, manage, and support 25 corps members in their leadership and instructional developmentin grades K-12 and all content areas

Oversee the regional operations of corps member development in three rural counties in the ENC

region Operate as the direct support for the Science content area for the region Coordinate and plan select All Corps Conferences Utilize data to track progress toward regional and cohort goals Build and maintain partnerships with counties and school-sites to perpetuate relationships

acquired within the region

Work amongst a program team of eight colleagues to strategically set goals and visions for theregion to tackle educational inequities in ENC

TEACH FOR AMERICA June 2011 to July 2011

Summer Institute Los Angeles, CACorps Member Advisor

Supported a group of eight corps members in high school setting Observed and coached corps members in their planning and classroom execution Provided feedback to corps members through the use of the Teaching As Leadership rubric,

Academic Impact Model, and Observation-Debrief Cycle making direct connections to studentand teacher actions and outcomes

Lead group learning experiences and advisory sessions to provide instructional support andinsight as well as differentiated support for corps members

Collaborated with school-team to pinpoint significant gains, trends, and areas of improvement incorps members and team approaches

Reviewed lesson plans to check for effective instructional practices within the Five-Step LessonPlan

Monitored and tracked progress of student performance using the Student Achievement Toolkitand Tracker

CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG SCHOOLS August 2009 to June 2011West Charlotte High School Charlotte, NCSpecial Education Teacher/Case Manager

Draft student lessons and assessments Monitor and track student progress toward growth goals Execute curriculum-aligned lessons reflecting 21stcentury learning

Manage a caseload of approximately 20 exceptional students Prepare Individualized Education Plans for EC students & conduct IEP meetings

Differentiate lessons for student comprehension Provided staff within the Biology department with strategies to support students with special

needs

AWARDS

Honors:Alpha Kappa Mu Honor Society, Alpha Chi Honor Society, Phi Kappa Phi Honor Society UNC in Washington Scholar Thurgood Marshall College Fund Scholar


21/28


APPENDIX C: BUDGET

TWO YEAR BUDGET FOR MASONIC HOME FORCHILDRENSG.E.M.SFOR L ITERACY PROGRAM

Account Description Overall Budget Donated Budget *Requested Budget

Program Coordinator $13,000 $3,000 $10,000

Tutor Services $9,840 $0 $9,840

Program Materials & Training $3,323.80 $0 $3,323.80

T-Shirts $375 $0 $375

Laptop Computers (Refurbished) $600

$0

$600

Nutrition Services $1,250 $950 $300

Direct Costs $24,438.80 $0 $24,438.80

Indirect Costs @ 2% $488.78 $0 $488.78

Total Costs $24,927.58 $3,950 $24,927.58

*Above budget includes costs for two years


22/28


APPENDIX D: BUDGET JUSTIFICATION

2-Year Budget Narr ative

A. Personnel

Name / Position Computation CostNafeesha Irby, Program Coordinator $25x 260 x 2 years $10,000

Nafeesha Irby, Administrator at G.C. Hawley Middle School in Granville County, NC, will beresponsible for overseeing the tutor coordinator, assessing program effectiveness through data evaluation,and ensuring the students are meeting outcomes and expectations of Literacy Program.

The salary for Nafeesha Irby is calculated at $25 per hour times 5 hours per week times 52 weeks timestwo years. Given that this programs coordinator will not be her full -time role and due to the assistance ofthe tutor coordinator (noted below), she will, on average, designate five hours per week overseeing theweekly operations of the program. Of the hours required, 24 weeks ($3,000) will be donated time. Thereis not a need for fringe benefits.

Personnel Total $10,000

B. Tutoring Services

Tutors Computation Computation CostTutor Coordinator (1 volunteer coordinator for 10 months= 1 x $920 x 2 years) $1,840Tutors (5 x $800 x 2 years) $8,000

The program will be designed to support students who reside in a total of five (5) cottages. To ensure thatwe are adequately reaching a targeted group of students with enriched one-on-one support, each tutor will

adopt a cottage and be assigned to no more than four (4) students to work with. Each tutor will beexpected to dedicate four (4) hours per month providing literacy support to the students of their cottagefor a total of 40 hours within a 10-month period. Therefore, the tutors are paid at a rate of $20/hour times4 hours per month times 10 months. The tutors will carry the responsibility of using both theReading A-ZandRaz-Kidsprogram to support students with illiteracy prevention and intervention.

The tutor coordinator will serve as a floater tutor working with students who need additional support,creating and monitoring tutor hours, and working with the Program Coordinator to ensure effectiveness ofthe program and structure. Thus, the tutor coordinator is paid at a rate of $25/hour times 4 hours permonth times 10 months.

Contracts Total $9,840


23/28


C. Materials & Training

Supply Items Computation CostCertified Training and Development 1 Training x $1,500 x 2 years $3,000

Reading A-Z Program License 1 license x $161.90 (2 years) $161.90

Raz-Kids Program License 1 license x $161.90 (2 years) $161.90

Reading A-Z andRaz-Kids are programs designed by the curriculum delivery program,Learning A-Z. TheReading A-Zprogram itself covers all areas of the literacy spectrum including phonological and phonemicawareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, comprehension, leveled reading, and alphabet. These twoprograms in particular were designed to support students who are anywhere between the developmentalreading stages to advanced. The cost for a two-year license for both components of the program runs at arate of $161.90 and is designed to accommodate up to 36 students. Because we intend to reach apopulation smaller than 36, one license will suffice.

Reading A-Z andRaz-Kids are both computer and teacher facilitated. Through a comprehensive program,students are able to receive support geared toward their reading level with running records of starting,mid, and endpoints, in addition to support from teachers who can skillfully help them develop apersonalized plan that will drive their work. We intend to have all house parents and tutors professionallytrained on these programs by a company representative. This will allow room for all stakeholders to havewell-developed knowledge about how to best support the children they will work with and help tomaintain sustainability in the absence of tutors.

Materials & Training Total $3,323.80

D. T-Shirts

Supply Items Computation CostT-shirts for GEMS (25 children x $15.00/shirt) $375

The G.E.M.S program will require that children are removed from either their physical living space orfrom the Homes campus for matters such as field trips to the library and we find it extremely importantfor them to be unified in appearance. Additionally, we genuinely want the children to get excited aboutthe program and about reading, so giving them the opportunity to build their identity around literacy willboost their morale.

The T-Shirts will be ordered for the children and tutors if possible. They will have the front of the shirts

will say G.E.M.S for Literacy, the back will have a graphic of stacked books, and the sleeve will havethe initials of the Masnic Home, MHCO. These shirts can be worn on days the groups meet and must beworn when leaving campus for additional activities. The cost of the shirts plus shipping averages $15.00per child. We will order additional shirts to prepare for the possibility of new students being admitted tothe home within our 2 years of executing the program.

Shirts Total $375


24/28


E. Technology Resources

Supply Items Computation CostRefurbished Computers 10 x $60 $600

The added value of being able to purchase the licenses for bothReading A-Z andRaz-Kids is that both

programs have a computer-based delivery component that allows room for children to engage in leveledreading and activities appropriate to their individualized growth plan and keeps record of theirperformance. The benefit of this surely serves great purpose during days in which tutors are not scheduledto visit the home and work one-on-one with their assigned children or in the absence of a house parentsability to work with all children in a differentiated manner. By purchasing refurbished laptop and/ordesktop computers, we will be able to maximize the use of the program. These programs will not worksuccessfully if the technology is not readily accessible to the children and their families.

Technology Total $600

F. Nutrition Services Food Purchases

Food Items Computation CostSnacks during Celebratory Nights 3 x $50 x 2 years $300

Given the nature of the Home, tutorials will take place on the campus either in a designated space or inthe cottages where the children reside with their house parents (2 adults). To ensure that tutorials are acollaborative effort, snacks will be provided to sustain student energy and increase parent involvement.There are 19 scheduled tutorial days. In addition, there are three nights during the year that have been setaside to celebrate the growth students have made in reading.

Of the above needed food purchases, all snacks during tutorials will be provided by the home. This meansthat the total donated by the home will be 19 nights x $25/night x 2 years for a total of $950. We are only

requesting funding for food purchases on the 3 celebratory nights per year. This breakdown consists of 3celebratory nights x $50/night x 2 years for a total of $300.

Nutrition ServicesFood Purchases $300.00

Total Direct Costs $24,438.80

G. Indirect Costs

Description Computation Cost

F & A 2% x $24,438.80 $488.78

Indirect Total $488.78

Total Costs $24,927.58


25/28


Budget Summary:

Budget Category Amount_

A. Program Coordinator $10,000

B. Tutor Services $9,840

C. Program Materials & Training $3,323.80

D. T-Shirts $375

E. Laptop Computers (Refurbished) $600

F. Nutrition Services $300

Total Direct Costs $24,438.80

G. Indirect Costs $488.78

TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $24,927.58


26/28


27/28


APPENDIX F: PROGRAM TIMELINE

T a s k s & M o n th

Week 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3

E ducationally M otiv ating S ig nals (G.E .M .S ) 4 L ite racy P rog ram

a n d d i s c u ss p l a n s w i t h H o m e a d m i ni s t r a to r s a n d p a r t n e r s

an d request shi pmen t o fl i t eracy pro g ram mat eri al s an d t echn o l o g y devi ces

i t men t , sel ect i o n , and screen i n g o fvo l un t eers

t o ry shi pped i t ems; pro g ram an d co n n ect al l t echn o l o g y devices t o n et wo rk

i n at e pro fessi o n al devel opmen t (P D )/t rai n i n g wo rksho p wi t h co mpan yrepresen t at i ve

uct dayl o n g pro fessi o n al devel o pmen t o f pro g ram purpo se, use, an d i mpl emen t at i o n

uct i n t ro duct i o n an d o vervi ew of pro g ramt o chi l dren who wi l l part i cpat e

u c t 2 0 - w e e k p r o g r a m f o r c h i l d r e n i n g r a d e s K - 5 ( 2 s c h e d u le d m e e t i n g s p e r m o n t h ) H oliday4 t h : 1 / 2D a y

11th:Ho lida y

2 6 - 2 8 : N oSchool

19th: 1/ 2D a y H o l i d a y H o l i d a y

1 - 2 : N oSc ho o l

19

Ho

uct pro g ram eval uat i o n /Run repo rt s(run n i n g reco rds)

rs u p d a t e s t u d e n t p r o f i le s / f e e d ba c k s u r v e y s a r e a d m i n i s t e re d

g ro up meet st o co n duct dat a an al ysi s o f pro g ram an d chl dren 'spro g ress

ci pat e i n 1st t rai n i n g suppo rt Webi n ar fo rvo l un t eers an d part n ersfo r furt her P D

n i ze g ro wt h o f st uden t readi n g abi l i t i est hro ug h fo rmal /i n fo rmal cel ebrat i o n s

Ye a r R e p o r t

T a s k s & M o n th

Week 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3

E ducationally M otiv ating S ig nals (G.E .M .S ) 4 L i t e r ac y P r o g r a m , C o n t ' d .

u c t 2 0 - w e e k p r o g r a m f o r c h i l d r e n i n g r a d e s K - 5 ( 2 s c h e d u le d m e e t i n g s m o n t h) 27t h :1/ 2 Da y B re a k B re a k6th: No Scho o l;

9th: 1/2 Day

18th:

Ho lida y Holiday

uct pro g ram eval uat i o n /Run repo rt s(run n i n g reco rds)

rs u p d a t e s t u d e n t p r o f i le s / f e e d ba c k s u r v e y s a r e a d m i n i s t e re d

g ro up meet st o co n duct dat a an al ysi s o f pro g ram an d chl dren 'spro g ress

n i ze g ro wt h o f st uden t readi n g abi l i t i est hro ug h fo rmal /i n fo rmal cel ebrat i o n s

i pat e i n 2n d t rai n i n g suppo rt Webi n ar fo r vo l un t eersan d part n ers fo r furt her P D

cpat e i n 3rd t rai n i n g suppo rt Webi n ar fo r vo l un t eers an d part n ersfo r furt her P D

of - Y e a r r e p o r t

J an uary

Februa ry March Apri l May J une J uly

Au g ust Sep tember O ct ober N ovember D ecember


28/28


giving educationally motivating signals grant proposal for masonic home

Documents