EDUCARE FACT SHEET (w-Svcs) REV 10-18-11

EDUCARE FACT SHEET (w-Svcs) REV 10-18-11.docx EduCare Foundation Tel: (805) 379-0736 www.educarefoundation.com

EDUCARE FOUNDATION FACT SHEET

1 of 4

EduCare Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)(3) educational foundation dedicated to inspiring, motivating, and empowering schools, school districts, youth-serving agencies, governments, teachers and parents to better serve our world's youth and prepare them to lead healthy, fulfilling and successful lives.

Year Founded 1990; incorporated as a 501(c)(3) non-profit educational foundation

People Served Approximately 50,000 youth Approximately 30,000 teachers and parents Over 400 school & youth-serving organizations worldwide

Programs and Services Students

o After School Programs Management o ACE 3-Day Program (Achievement and Commitment to Excellence) o ACE 1-Day Workshop o ACE Leadership Institute o 9th Grade Student Transition Workshops

Administrators, Teachers & Classified Personnel o Educators Institute for Teaching and Learning o Higher Ground: Teaching Conflict Management o Honoring and Teaching the Whole Child Workshop o Teambuilding and Communication Workshop

Parents o Parenting Workshops o Parent Empowerment Workshops

★ Custom programs are available for all groups ★

Organizations & Schools Served Corporate & Funding Sponsors • Beyond the Bell • Bell Senior High • Lincoln Senior High • Jordan Senior High • Jordan New Tech @ Jordan Senior High • San Fernando Senior High • YWCA of Greater Los Angeles • Boys and Girls Club of Echo Park – Los Angeles • Crossroads School - Santa Monica, California • Israeli Ministry of Education- Haifa, Israel • Los Angeles Unified School District – California

o 1995-2000: LEARN Reform training provider for over 70 LAUSD schools and children centers

o 2004-current: 21st Century Community Learning Centers training provider for high school after-school services

• Philadelphia School District- Philadelphia, Pennsylvania • Project Grad / Los Angeles

• Amgen Foundation • Annenberg Foundation

(passed-through grant) • Apple Computer, Inc. • ARCO Foundation • Capital Group Charitable Foundation • City National Bank • Dwight Stuart Youth Foundation • Entertainment Industries Foundation • Goldman-Sachs and Co.

(passed-through grant) • Larry King Foundation • Southern California Edison • Shell Oil Company • Target Stores • Vons Companies Charitable Foundation

“To inspire and empower young

people to become responsible

citizens, compassionate

leaders, and live their dreams.”

EduCare Foundation’s Mission Statement

ACE Workshop Participants


2 of 4

Programs & Services

ACE PROGRAM (Achievement and Commitment to Excellence) The ACE Program is a comprehensive three-day student success, youth empowerment, and character-building program focusing on: Character development - positive decision-making & constructive choices Personal management - study skills, verbal skills, project & time management Emotional intelligence - managing anger, fear, rejection and peer pressure Interpersonal skills - communication, conflict resolution and team building

The ACE Student Program is designed to assist youth in creating more successful and constructive lives. Through their involvement, students:

• Experience greater self-worth and motivation • Develop skills for decision making and problem-solving as it relates to both school

and personal life • Recognize and reform negative attitudes that continually interfere with creating

academic and personal success • Learn teambuilding and conflict resolution skills as they develop the ability to use

conflict in a positive rather than destructive way • Develop greater empathy and understanding for others • Bridge the gap between diverse groups

Focus areas include conflict resolution, service learning, staff development, parent and family involvement, and classroom curriculum. Serves 100 students per group/track. Grades 6-12. Includes: 18 hours (3 days) of student workshops. 6 hours (1 day) of professional development & an ACE Family Evening. ACE Student One-Day Workshops are fun and experiential days of learning filled with interactive teambuilding, self-esteem building, and communication activities designed specifically for large numbers of students. The purpose of the ACE Student Workshop is:

• To build positive relationships, trust, and connections (students-student, student-teachers) that will be a foundation for ongoing healthy school relationships and school success

• To develop greater self-esteem, self-motivation, and wise decision-making skills that assists in increased school achievement

• To increase the new 3Rs- Respect (self and others), Resiliency (skills for self-esteem and wise decision-making), and Responsibility

• To assist in creating a more positive school climate

Excellent for including in middle school and high school orientations and transition program or building positive relationships in Small Learning Communities (SLCs). The ACE Workshop establishes a foundation for developing a safe and friendly school community for large group of incoming students. Serves 100-250 students per group. Grades 6-12. Includes: 6 hour student workshop; preceded by a 2-hour staff orientation. Students are accompanied by adults (ratio 10:1) from the school or agency that are trained by the EduCare staff and serve as activity group leaders.

for Students


3 of 4

Programs & Services Honoring and Teaching the Whole Child Workshop In this inspiring and practical workshop, educators learn how to honor and teach the whole child — integrating cognitive, emotional, social, and real world / achievement skills.

Key topics: • Principles and practices of character development education • Creating classrooms, schools, and learning communities based on a youth-

centered approach

Serves 100 educators. 6 hours of training.

Teambuilding and Communication Workshop Teambuilding and communication are two vital qualities necessary for developing a positive work environment and a high performing team. EduCare’s Teambuilding Workshop involves participants in developing tools and techniques for more effectively managing on-the-job relationships, communication, and problem-solving skills.

Key topics: • Improving communication and listening skills • Building trust and respect • Developing flexibility as a key for creative decision-making


Higher Ground: Teaching Conflict Management A workshop available to schools, colleges, churches/synagogues, youth organizations, educators, and community leaders in win-win approaches to violence prevention, tolerance-building, conflict resolution, and peer mediation. Focus areas include: • Approaches for teaching students the skills of tolerance-building and conflict-

resolution • Methods for assisting youth in expressing their feelings appropriately and

managing anger • Activities for increasing understanding and acceptance of differences • Techniques for integrating conflict resolution into classroom management and

disciplinary strategies • Curriculum materials for teaching global ethics, moral courage and wise-decision-

making skills


for Educators


4 of 4

Programs & Services

Parenting Workshops EduCare’s Parenting Workshops teach strategies for parenting with greater confidence, effectiveness, and personal fulfillment. Through interactive processes, the workshops provide parents and guardians with tools for:

• Building self-esteem in the home • Motivating and inspiring children (preventive discipline) • Improving communication and listening skills (conflict resolution) • Shifting stress to success • Fostering cooperation and positive attitudes • Increasing personal self-esteem • Creating a climate for positive and rewarding family relationships • Developing greater parental school involvement

Serves 150 parents. 2 1/2 hours of training.

Parent Empowerment Workshops Parent Empowerment Workshops provide effective training for parents groups teaching tools for:

• Motivating parents and family members to become more active in the school community

• Developing communication, listening, and rapport building skills • Learning how to plan, design, and facilitate Parenting Workshops for their

school or agency • Building facilitating skills for presenting parent workshops • Assisting parents in building their skills for developing their ability to

communicate and assist their children

Serves 150 parents. 2 1/2 hours of training.

For more information on these and other programs, please contact our office at (805) 379-0736

or e-mail us at [email protected]

We look forward to serving you!

for Parents

© 2011 Educational Resource Consultants EduCare Foundation -- 2/27/2012 1

EduCare Foundation After School Program Report Card for 2010-2011

This report describes the participants, participation levels, and outcomes of the 2010-2011 high school after school

program operated by EduCare Foundation. Participant data includes the gender, ethnicity, English Learner (EL)

status, and grade level of students. Outcomes measured include students’ changes in regular school day attendance

when compared with the previous year, performance on the English-Language Arts (ELA) and Math portions of the

California Standards Test (CST) and the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE), graduation rates and

percentages of students Redesignated as Fluent English Proficient (RFEP). Relationships between after school

program attendance and these key outcomes are examined.

Section 1: Participation Demographics

During the 2010-2011 school year, a total of 8,849 high school students participated in the after school program for at

least one day. Participation levels are reported and compared by grade level in the next section of this report.

Gender and Ethnicity

Figure 1 Figure 2

Grade Level and English Learner (EL) Status

Figure 3 Figure 4

51.0%

49.0%

54.1%

45.9%

Male Female

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f St

ud

en

ts

Gender Composition 2010-2011

After School Participants Non-After School Participants

5.9% 3.3%

90.1%

0.8% 0.5% 5.2% 2.5%

91.4%

0.9% 0.4%

Asian Black Hispanic White Other

Pe

rce

nta

ge O

f St

ud

en

ts

Ethnic Composition 2010-2011


29.1% 25.5%

23.9% 21.5%

42.2%

23.6% 19.8%

14.3%

9th 10th 11th 12th

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f St

ud

en

ts

Grade Level Composition 2010-2011


23.2%

76.8%

33.7%

66.3%

EL Non-EL

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f St

ud

en

ts

English Learner Composition 2010-2011



Section 2: After School Program Attendance

Percentage of Students in Each Program Attendance Category

Figure 5 shows the percentage of students who fell within each of

five attendance categories for the after school program (1-2 days, 3-

5 days, 6-13 days, 14-31 days, or 32-232 days).

Students were grouped into five quintiles based on the number of

days they attended the after school program. Quintile groupings

were determined by assigning each EduCare Foundation after

school participant a percentile rank and dividing them into five equal

percentile groups (1st-19th, 20th-39th, 40th-59th, 60th-79th, 80th-99th).

These quintiles, or “program attendance categories”, are used in the

analysis of measurable outcomes throughout this report.

Figure 5

Number of Days Students Attended the After School Program The average after school participant attended the program for approximately 16.6 days. The mean number of days that students attended the after school program is disaggregated by grade level in Figure 6.

Figure 6

27.4%

18.0%

19.0%

19.9%

15.6%

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

1-2 (n=2,428)

3-5 (n=1,589)

6-13 (n=1,684)

14-31 (n=1,765)

32-232 (n=1,383)

Percentage of Students

Day

s A

tte

nd

ed

Percentage of Students by Program Attendance Category Overall, 2010-2011

11.8

16.8

19.4

19.7

16.6

0 5 10 15 20 25

9th (n=2,421)

10th (n=2,125)

11th (n=1,992)

12th (n=1,792)

Overall (n=8,330)

Mean Number of Days Attended

Gra

de

Le

vel

Mean Number of Days Students Attended the After School Program By Grade Level, 2010-2011

● After Scool Participants 8,849

● Total Student Population 12,878

● After School % of School(s) Population 68.7%

Particpant Composition

● Male 4,250 ● EL 1,933

● Female 4,083 ● Non-EL 6,382

● Not Reported 516 ● Not Reported 534

● 9th 2,421 ● 1-2 2,428

● 10th 2,125 ● 3-5 1,589

● 11th 1,992 ● 6-13 1,684

● 12th 1,792 ● 14-31 1,765

● Not Reported 519 ● 32-232 1,383

Student Totals

Grade Days Attended

Gender EL Status


Section 3: Regular School Day Attendance

Mean Change in Regular Day Attendance by After School Attendance Category

The line graph in Figure 7 shows the relationship between change in regular school day attendance and attending the after school program. Changes in attendance from the baseline year are shown for each of five attendance categories. Changes represent the difference (+ or -) in the mean number of regular school days after school participants attended in 2010-2011 when compared with the previous year.

The green line indicates mean changes in regular day attendance for after school participants. Similar data is shown in blue for non-after school participants.

Figure 7

Mean Number of Regular School Days Attended by After School Attendance Category The bar graph in Figure 8 shows the relationship between regular school day attendance and attending the after school program over the past three school years. Mean numbers of regular school days attended by students are shown for each of five after school attendance categories, with a zero category added for non-participants. Three differently colored bars are shown within each attendance category to represent means for different school years.

Figure 8

-2.65

-1.98 -1.67

-0.90

-0.26

-3.12 -3.50

-3.00

-2.50

-2.00

-1.50

-1.00

-0.50

+0.00

1-2 (n=2,167)

3-5 (n=1,484)

6-13 (n=1,554)

14-31 (n=1,623)

32-232 (n=1,320)

Day

s

Days Attended the After School Program

Mean Change in Regular School Day Attendance After School Participants vs. Non-Participants, 2010-2011

After School Participants (n)=8849 Non-After School Participants (n)=4029

15

1.8

15

6.4

15

7.9

15

7.7

15

6.1

16

1.8

14

0.1

14

9.9

15

0.2

15

1.4

15

1.9

15

0.9

14

9.9

15

1.1

15

5.2

15

6.3

15

9.4

16

2.5

173 days (96%)

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0

0 (Non-ASP) 1-2 3-5 6-13 14-31 32-232

Me

an D

ays

Att

en

de

d


Mean Number of Regular School Days Attended After School Participants vs. Non-Participants, 3-Year Comparison

2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011

* 2009-2010 ran only 175 days


Percentage of Students with 96% School Attendance by After School Attendance Category The bar graph in Figure 9 shows the relationship between regular school attendance rates and attending the after school program over the past three school years. Percentages of students with a 96% attendance rate are shown for each of five after school attendance categories, with a zero category added for non-participants. Three differently colored bars are shown within each attendance category to represent percentages for different school years.

Figure 9

Section 4: Academic Achievement

The relationship between after school program participation and academic achievement in English-Language Arts

(ELA) and Math was analyzed using California Standards Test Results (CST) and 10th grade passing rates on the

California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE). High school graduation rates and percentages of students

Redesignated as Fluent English Proficient (RFEP) were also measured as academic outcomes.

California Standards Test (CST) Performance in English-Language Arts (ELA) To determine the relationship between after school program participation and academic achievement in ELA, students were grouped into five program attendance categories based on quintiles (1-2 days, 3-5 days, 6-13 days, 14-31 days, and 32-232 days).

31

.3%

20

.5%

22

.0%

30

.2%

29

.6%

37

.7%

6.4

%

9.0

% 14

.4%

15

.3%

13

.1%

5.0

% 11

.6%

11

.1%

14

.5%

16

.5%

21

.8%

24

.3%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

0 (Non-ASP) 1-2 3-5 6-13 14-31 32-232

Pe

rce

nta

ge A

tte

nd

ing

96

%


Percent of Students Attending 96% of Regular School Days After School Participants vs. Non-Participants, 3-Year Comparison

2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011


In the bar graph in Figure 10, percentages of students (in all grade levels) scoring proficient or advanced were calculated and compared among each of the five categories. A zero category for non-participants was added for comparison. Three differently colored bars are shown within each attendance category to represent percentages for different school years.

Figure 10

The bar graph in Figure 11 compares the overall mean CST scale scores in ELA of after school participants with those of non-participants for the past three school years.

Figure 11

20

.4%

24

.1%

24

.4%

23

.4%

27

.7%

27

.4%

23

.3%

26

.2%

26

.5%

27

.1%

32

.9%

36

.1%

22

.8%

25

.3%

31

.2%

28

.9%

33

.7%

37

.1%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

0 (Non-ASP) 1-2 3-5 6-13 14-31 32-232

Pe

rce

nta

ge


Percentage of Students Proficient/Advanced in English-Language Arts California Standards Test, 3-Year Comparison

2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011

313.8

319.7

324.0

305.8

310.7 309.2

295.0

300.0

305.0

310.0

315.0

320.0

325.0

330.0

Me

an C

ST S

cale

Sco

re

Mean Scale Scores in English-Language Arts California Standards Test, 3-Year Comparison


2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011


The line graph in Figure 12 compares the overall mean CST scale scores in ELA of after school participants with

those of non-participants within each of five program attendance categories over the past three school years. A zero

attendance category of non-participants was added for comparison. Differently colored lines were used to represent

mean scores for each of the past three years.

Figure 12

California Standards Test (CST) Performance in Math To determine the relationship between after school program participation and academic achievement in Math, students were grouped into five program attendance categories based on quintiles (1-2 days, 3-5 days, 6-13 days, 14-31 days, and 32-232 days). In the bar graph in Figure 13, percentages of students (in all grade levels) scoring proficient or advanced were calculated and compared among each of the five categories. A zero category for non-participants was added for comparison. Three differently colored bars are shown within each attendance category to represent percentages for different school years.

Figure 13

305.8

314.3 309.3

312.3 317.9 315.8

310.7 315.1 317.3 316.7

324.9 328.4

309.2

317.8 323.5 322.8

326.7

333.1

290

300

310

320

330

340

0 (Non-ASP) 1-2 3-5 6-13 14-31 32-232

Me

an C

ST S

cale

Sco

re


Mean Scale Scores by Program Attendance Category California Standards Test, 3-Year Comparison

2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011

10

.2%

15

.7%

12

.2%

14

.6%

19

.0%

16

.6%

12

.6%

12

.8%

15

.3%

16

.0%

20

.1%

18

.6%

11

.7%

17

.5%

17

.9%

18

.9%

18

.9%

20

.8%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

0 (Non-ASP) 1-2 3-5 6-13 14-31 32-232

Pe

rce

nta

ge


Percentage of Students Proficient/Advanced in Math California Standards Test, 3-Year Comparison

2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011


The bar graph in Figure 14 compares the overall mean CST scale scores in Math of after school participants with those of non-participants for the past three school years.

Figure 14

The line graph in Figure 15 compares the overall mean CST scale scores in Math of after school participants with

those of non-participants within each of five program attendance categories over the past three school years. A zero

attendance category of non-participants was added for comparison. Differently colored lines were used to represent

means scores for each of the past three years.

Figure 15

292.5 294.1

296.8

278.3

285.0 282.1

265.0

270.0

275.0

280.0

285.0

290.0

295.0

300.0

Me

an C

ST S

cale

Sco

re

Mean Scale Scores in Math California Standards Test, 3-Year Comparison


2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011

278.3

295.9

285.2 289.9

295.9 292.9

285.0 287.4

292.3 293.6

305.2

295.8

282.1

296.8 296.4 296.1 296.1 298.9

260

270

280

290

300

310

0 (Non-ASP) 1-2 3-5 6-13 14-31 32-232

Me

an C

ST S

cale

Sco

re


Mean Scale Scores in Math by Program Attendance Category California Standards Test, 3-Year Comparison

2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011


10th Grade CAHSEE Passing Rate The percentages of students passing the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) in ELA and Math were compared between after school program participants and non-participants in the 10th grade. These comparisons are shown for the past three school years using bar graphs in Figure 16 and 17. After school participants who attended the program for 6 or more days were included in these comparisons. Unduplicated passing rates were used, meaning that each student was counted as either passing or not passing the CAHSEE one time during the school year, regardless of the number of attempts.

Figure 16

Figure 17

65.9%

74.9% 73.4%

60.6% 62.1% 62.8%

n=769 n=1,018 n=1,253 n=1,377 n=1,049 n=788 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f St

ud

en

ts P

assi

ng

Percentage of 10th Grade Students Passing the CAHSEE English-Language Arts, 3-Year Comparison


75.1% 80.7% 79.3%

68.8% 66.8% 66.5%

n=774 n=1,017 n=1,238 n=1,373 n=1,057 n=770 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f St

ud

en

ts P

assi

ng

Percentage of 10th Grade Students Passing the CAHSEE Math, 3-Year Comparison



High School Graduation Rate Figure 18 examines the relationship between attending the after school program and graduation from high school. The bar graph shows the graduation rates among high school seniors by the number of years they attended the after school program. For this comparison, graduation rate is defined as the percentage of seniors who graduated within each group. Attendance groups were determined by the total number of years seniors attended the after school program while in high school. For example, students in the 2-year cohort attended the after school program for at least one day during their senior year and at least one day during one other year of high school. Non-participants are students who did not participate in the after school program during any year of high school.

Figure 18 Percentage of Students Redesignated as Fluent English Proficient (RFEP) The bar graph in Figure 19 shows the percentages of RFEP students (in all grade levels) for each of five after school attendance categories, with a zero category added for non-participants. Three differently colored bars are shown within each attendance category to represent percentages for different school years.

60.8%

78.6% 80.2% 86.1%

90.5%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

Non-ASP(n)=212

1-Year Cohort(n)=262




Ye

ars

Att

en

de

d t

he

Aft

er

Sch

oo

l P

rogr

am

Percent of Students Graduated

High School Graduation Rate By Number of Years of Program Attendance, 2010-2011

43

.5%

50

.6%

48

.3%

49

.9%

51

.0%

54

.4%

46

.3%

51

.9%

48

.2%

49

.8%

54

.1%

53

.1%

44

.9%

53

.7%

56

.1%

52

.4%

54

.2%

58

.1%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

0 (Non-ASP) 1-2 3-5 6-13 14-31 32-232

Pe

rce

nta

ge R

ed

esi

gnat

ed


Percentage of Students Redesignated as Fluent English Proficient (RFEP) 3-Year Comparison

2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011


Figure 19

Los Angeles Unified Performance Meter

EduCare Foundation After School Participants

2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011

Graduation Rate N/A N/A 84.4%

(n=1,792)

2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011

25.0% 29.2% 30.6%

(n=4,358) (n=5,242) (n=6,263)

15.5% 16.1% 18.6%

(n=4,001) (n=4,833) (n=5,806)

Increase in Reclassifcation (RFEP) rates 50.6% 51.5% 54.7%

(n=5,918) (n=6,822) (n=8,315)

2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011

26.3% 11.2% 17.0%

(n=5,826) (n=6,749) (n=8,582)

Increase percentage of students with 96% or higher

regular school day attendance

Baseline

Baseline

Baseline

CST English Language Arts, High School:

Increase % Proficient & Advanced

CST Mathematics, High School :

Increase % Proficient & Advanced

Los Angeles Unified School District Beyond the Bell

EduCare Foundation

Principals Survey Results

2010-11

Los Angeles Unified School District Beyond the Bell

Principal’s Satisfaction Survey

2

Principals’ Perceptions of Beyond the Bell After School Programs

Agency: EduCare Foundation High Schools: Bell, Jordan New Tech, Lincoln, and San Fernando At the conclusion of the each three school year, Educational Resource Consultants (ERC)

administers an online survey to principals (or assistant principals) at 52 high schools within the

Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) with 21st Century after school programs operated

by 11 different agencies. This report summarizes survey results from the past two years for

after school programs operated by the EduCare Foundation at four LAUSD high schools; Bell,

Jordan New Tech, Lincoln, and San Fernando. Please note that data was not available for Jordan

New Tech in 2010-11. District results from the past three years are included as an appendix.

The survey contains 51 multiple choice items designed to capture principals’ perceptions of

their after school program in seven categories:

Homework Assistance: Quality of homework assistance provided, staff qualifications,

and skills of the staff in regards to academics and student management.

Academic Enrichment: Quality and variety of academic enrichment activities, and staff

qualifications to lead these activities.

Arts Enrichment: Quality of the art, music, dance and dramatic activities and the staff

who lead these activities.

Sports & Athletics: Quality and variety of sports and other athletic activities, and the

staff’s qualifications to lead these activities.

Coordination/Use of Facilities: Quality of communication with the after school

program, cleanliness of rooms and facilities, safeguarding the school’s equipment.

Parent/Teacher Satisfaction: Principal opinion of parent and teacher ratings of how well

the after school program safeguards students and overall ratings.

Agency/Community Support: After school program’s effectiveness in keeping principal

informed and satisfying requests/requirements; the support the after school program

receives from local businesses, community-based organizations and colleges.

Survey methods, items, and reporting is a replication of a similar survey that is simultaneously

conducted among LAUSD’s elementary after school programs by Research Support Services

(RSS). On the graphs in this report, each bar represents a mean score for multiple principals’

responses to multiple items within a particular category. For each survey item, principals

evaluated an aspect of the after school program on a scale of 1-4: Excellent (4), Good (3), Fair

(2), and Poor (1). The lowest possible score on an item was 1.0. Items with no response were

dropped from the analysis.

Principal’s Satisfaction Survey

3

2009-No Data

2009-No Data

2009-No Data

2009-No Data

2009-No Data

2009-No Data

2009-No Data

2009-No Data

3.42

3.50

3.88

3.92

3.83

3.83

3.58

3.70

3.44

3.92

3.75

4.00

4.00

4.00

3.58

3.80

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Agency Community Support

Parent Teacher Satisfaction

Facilities Coordination

Arts Enrichment

Sports And Athletics

Academic Enrichment

Homework Assistance

Overall Rating

EduCare Foundation

2010-2011 (n=3) 2009-2010 (n=4) 2008-2009 (n=0)

Appendix

2.78

3.18

3.15

3.09

2.97

3.19

3.18

3.07

3.04

3.21

3.43

3.37

3.33

3.30

3.36

3.28

3.29

3.51

3.56

3.73

3.53

3.72

3.54

3.55

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Agency Community Support

Parent Teacher Satisfaction

Facilities Coordination

Arts Enrichment

Sports And Athletics

Academic Enrichment

Homework Assistance

Overall Rating

District-Wide Principal Responses

2010-2011 (n=25) 2009-2010 (n=41) 2008-2009 (n=36)

EDUCARE FACT SHEET (w-Svcs) REV 10-18-11

Documents

Transcript of EDUCARE FACT SHEET (w-Svcs) REV 10-18-11