Evaluation of the Quebec Community Learning Centres: An English minority language initiative Learning Innovations at WestEd May 21, 2008

Evaluation Summary Multi-pronged, mixed-methods, and longitudinal, including: –Implementation of the CLC model at 22 sites, guided by the Project Theory of Change –Work of the PRT in building CLC staff capacity and the work of the PIC in supporting the CLCs through external relations –Evaluation of expected outcomes and impacts –Documentation of lessons learned

Evaluation Questions Questions are at the implementation level, the impact level, and lessons learned Questions developed in collaboration with PRT and informed by literature Detailed evaluation questions can be found at: es_eval.html es_eval.html

Evaluation Questions: Implementation To what extent and in what ways do the PRT and PIC implement activities and processes designed to contribute to the capacity of the CLCs to achieve short and intermediate outcomes? To what extent and in what ways do the CLCs, led by principals and CLC coordinators, implement their Action Plans?

Evaluation Questions: Impact To what extent and in what ways do the 22 CLCs accomplish their goals? To what extent and in what ways do the 22 CLCs show evidence of sustainability after the project funding and support end?

Evaluation Questions: Lessons Learned To what extent and in what ways do the PRT’s and CLC Theories of Change adequately represent the processes and outcomes of the initiative? What lessons does the project offer for policy and practice, particularly concerning establishment and support of CLCs in English-speaking communities in Quebec?

Methods Mixed methods evaluation –Qualitative and quantitative data collected –Site visits to each CLC –Observations of trainings, meetings, etc. –Extensive interviews, document review, surveys –Portraits / case studies of 22 sites with cross-site analysis Longitudinal data collection: Collaborative approach –Frequent communication/feedback –Formative as well as summative reporting

Evaluation Activities to Date Observations of multiple trainings and meetings with focus groups of principals and coordinators Interviews with members of PRT Interim reports on observations/interviews Initial interviews with Phase 1 coordinators 2-day site visits to Phase 1 CLCs with “Findings Memo” to sites Initial quantitative portrait development for Phase 1 CLCs

Early Findings: Project Level Critical role of PRT in implementation-- supporting and prodding CLCs in terms of planning and support Project Resource Team (PRT) has been flexible and responsive to formative feedback Importance of time for school teams (coordinators and principals) to share and learn from each other PRT has facilitated networks of role-alike groups (e.g. coordinators listserv)

Early Findings: CLC level Coordinators are key –Work hard at establishing partnerships and CLC visibility –Principals rely heavily upon them –Coordinators building a support network –Some coordinators driving vision- rather than developing shared vision –Some turnover in coordinators- turnover/lack of coordinator may slow implementation Some coordinators worry about job security and pay.

Early Findings: CLC level Leadership and Governance –CLCs don’t advance in implementation without principal support –Implementation also delayed or prevented when no coordinator hired –Leadership change may hurt or help –Some confusion over role of school Governing Board with respect to CLC –CLCs use steering committees to varying degrees –Extent of school board support affects implementation

Involvement of teachers, parents, and students –Wide variation among the CLCs from low to high involement –Expression of sense of pride “our school is a CLC” but some take a “wait and see” view –Some teachers and students associate CLC with video-conference equipment –Some concern about time to learn VCN and Community Based Learning techniques –Use of VCN and CBL have taken off in some communities

Community and Partnerships –Many new services are being offered –Many new partnerships established –Many are using CLC to enhance prior partnerships –Most CLCs engaging with partners and community one or two are not at this time but renewed efforts appear to be underway –CLCs not always selecting partnerships strategically- some cast wide net, others more selective – some driven by activities some by long term vision –Differing roles for partners Some involved in steering committee, some not

Other Key Policy and Practice Findings: –Two models emerging: integrated and parallel – Integrated: the school and CLC are more integrated or woven together, where the school has been re- envisioned as a Community Learning Centre and embraces its expanded role in the community. – Parallel: the school and CLC co-exist and assist each other, essentially viewing each other as partners and resources. – CLCs shaped by approach too- vision driven versus activity driven approach –CLCs with multiple schools involved see varying levels of involvement and have additional challenges for implementation –Sustainability is a major concern among stakeholders