1. Destination 1 Local Evaluators

2. Who Are You?  Roles  Responsibilities  Perspective

3. Kick-Off Goals Goal 1: Increase connections to each other, state and national resources, their local communities and the youth we serve. True Community  Networking  Listservs  Meetings  Youth Advisory Groups  Parent Advisory Groups

4. Kick-Off Goals Goal 2: Increase connections to learning and professional development at all levels (administration, site staff, vendors, and partners.) Professional Development  Budget  Aligning P.D. with Grant Goals and Evaluation  Standards  Core Competencies  Certificate/Credential

5. Kick-Off Goals Goal 3: Increase connections to the school day, teachers, curriculum, and administration. Embedded Academics  Meetings  Common Language  Intentional Alignment

6. Grant = Contract Assurances  Fiscal Agent/Authorized Officials  Co-Applicants  Superintendents  Principals  Partners Road Map Road Map  What  When  How  Who

7. FEDERAL TARGETS

8. Michigan’s improvement on reading grades stayed the same.  Federal target this year was 60%, increased from last year by 5%.  Michigan did not meet the federal target.  Michigan has consistently had about a third of students improve by ½ grade. National data not available for past two years. 2009-10 does not include Detroit or Grand Rapids.

9. Michigan’s improvement on math grades dropped slightly since last year.  Federal target was 48.5%.  Michigan did not meet the federal target.  Michigan showed a slight decline this year. National data not available for past two years. 2009-10 does not include Detroit or Grand Rapids.

10. Michigan did not meet the target in MEAP Reading.   The federal target was raised from 28% to 35%.   There were slight increases in the percent of students who improved.   More middle/high school students improved their MEAP reading scores than elementary students.   However, elementary students made somewhat steeper gains than middle/high school students this year. National data not available for past two years. 2009-10 does not include Detroit or Grand Rapids. % students who moved to Proficient in the current year from Not Proficient in the previous year.

11. Michigan’s met the target for middle/high school students, but not elementary students, in MEAP Math.   The federal target was raised from 16% to 20%.   Middle/high school students met the target, but declined from the previous year.   Elementary students did not meet the new target, but stayed stable. National data not available for past two years. 2009-10 does not include Detroit or Grand Rapids. % students who moved to Proficient in the current year from Not Proficient in the previous year.

12. Michigan did not meet the target this year for improved homework completion/classroom participation.  The federal target is 77%.  Michigan did not meet the target, but is fairly close.  Michigan has remained stable for the past two years. National data not available for past two years. Teacher survey data.

13. Michigan did not meet the target this year for improved student behavior.   The federal target is 75%.   Michigan did not meet the target, but is close.   Michigan has been stable for the past three years. National data not available for past two years. Teacher survey data.

14. ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT (Grades Only)

15. Michigan youth whose grades had room for improvement were much closer to meeting the target.  Nearly half of Michigan students who had room to improve did so. National data not available for past two years. 2009-10 does not include Detroit or Grand Rapids. Room for improvement = reading grades of 3.0 or less.

16. Michigan youth whose grades have room for improvement were close to the target on math grades.  Students with room for improvement were closer to meeting the target.  Slight declines were evident this year. National data not available for past two years. 2009-10 does not include Detroit or Grand Rapids. Room for improvement = math grades of 3.0 or less.

17. What does this mean for you?  Some sites met targets, some did not.  Each site’s status on federal targets is outlined in the ARF tables.  When you receive the ARF tables, look at data to see how each site did on targets.  If a site did not meet targets, look at data to see how site did on academic instruction and instructional context.  Identify improvement goals and strategies to meet those goals based on the data and your knowledge of your program.

18. TACSS Technical Assistance and Coaching Support Services

19. The Purpose of TACSS is to…  Improve the overall quality of 21 st Century Community Learning Centers.  Offer start-up support for new 21 st Century sites.  Grow a culture of performance. accountability and an infrastructure for continuous quality improvement.

20. Lead a team to assess the quality of instruction Provide real-time staff performance feedback ASSESS Lead team to create an improvement plan based on data Select align methods training for direct staff PLAN Carry out plan to improve instructional quality Monitor progress and repeat IMPROVE The Quality Improvement Process

21. TACSS services are provided by… “CYPQ”… “the YPQA People”

22. Meet the TACSS Team… Angelina Garner, Manager Amber Duddy, Program Assistant

23. Meet the TACSS Coaches… Trevor Davies, North and West Gina McGovern, South East Jerome Threlkeld, Central and East

24. TACSS Services available to ALL 21 st CCLC programs Self Assessment Support  Youth PQA Basics Workshop (live and online NEW Platform!)  Youth PQA Plus! Workshop NEW!  Planning With Data Workshop  Scores Reporter Webinars NEW Platform! Professional Development  Youth Work Methods Workshops (targeted audience: site staff)  Quality Coaching Workshop (targeted audience: site managers)  Lunch and Learn Networking Series (targeted audience: all staff) Technical Assistance  Scores Reporter access and issues

25. 2009 – 2010 in Numbers  37 trainings  2081 attendees

26. Satisfaction with TACSS 100% of end-of-year survey respondents reported: “ given the demands of my job, the Youth PQA self assessment process is a good use of my time. ” TACSS trainers receive an average score of 4.55 on “Overall quality of training” on workshop evaluation forms.

27. Register for ALL trainings at Michigan.cypq.or g

28. Youth PQA Trainings Youth PQA Basics  Learn to use the Youth PQA tool and how to lead or participate in the self assessment process. Youth PQA Plus! NEW!  Must be familiar with the Youth PQA tool.  Learn guidelines and strategies for including the Youth PQA throughout the year. 10/ 22 @ Oakland ISD 10/ 29 @ Kalamazoo 9:00 – 1:00 11/ 5 @ Grand Rapids 11/ 11 @ Detroit 9:00 – 1:00 Also offered ONLIN E

29. Scores Reporter Webinar  CYPQ is launching a NEW! online learning system with user-friendly features  Step-by-step guide to entering:  self assessment data due 12/ 15  Program Improvement Plan due 2/ 7 12/ 1 @ 10:00 AM 12/ 7 @ 1:00 PM 12/ 14 @ 10:00 AM

30. Planning With Data  Dig into your self assessment data as a team  Start (if not complete) your Program Improvement Plan (due February 7) 12/ 10 @ Traverse City 1/ 14 @ Genesee 1/ 21 @ Grand Rapids 9:00 – 1:00 “It was fun. I thought a data training would be boring, but was pleasantly surprised! ” -MI 21 st CCLC Participant

31. Quality Coaching  Help staff improve by having one-on- one conversations with them about their instructions.  Learn the process of Observation- Reflection to support staff to develop professionally. 9/ 17 @ Flint 9/ 28 @ Battle Creek 9:00 – 1:00

32. Networking Lunch and Learn  Semi-structured discussion forums  Think about and discuss best practices with your peers.  Lunch is provided! 11/ 19 @ Macomb ISD 3/ 18 @ Muskegon 9:00 – 1:00

33. Thank you!  For questions about training or for online assistance, contact: Amber Duddy, Program Assistant 734.961.6900 x 208 amber@cypq.org Register for ALL trainings at Michigan.cypq. org