ATTACHMENT A
Timeline for Key Education and Digital Literacy Milestones • February 08, 2022: Quality Standards for Equity, Diversity and Inclusion adopted by City Council
• December 01, 2020: Quality Standards for College and Career Readiness adopted by City Council
• May 19, 2020: Quality Standards for Digital Literacy adopted by City Council
• February 11, 2020: San José Education Policy adopted by City Council • May 7, 2019: Quality Standards for Expanded Learning adopted by City Council
• March 26, 2019: Quality Standards for Early Education adopted by City Council
• May 7, 2018: Special meeting of City Council on the Education and Digital Literacy Strategy.
• September 1, 2016: City Manager designated the City Librarian as lead staff in coordinating the Education and Digital Literacy Initiative • June 09, 2016: Education and Digital Literacy Strategy memorandum to Rules and Open Government Committee
ATTACHMENT B
PRNS Early Education Quality Standards: FY 2021-2022
PRNS Department Approach – Early Education Quality Standards Fiscal
Year Department Program Standard Areas
Children
Served
2021-22 PRNS Recreation
Preschool
• EEQS 1: Health and Safety
• EEQS 2: Child Learning and Development
• EEQS 3: Curriculum and Teaching Practices
• EEQS 4: Learning Environments
• EEQS 5: Staffing and Professional
Development
• EEQS 6: Program Leadership and
Management
• EEQS 8: Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
257
PRNS Implementation of Staff Professional Development
Focus Area # Staff
Trained Training Topics
Professional
Development 30
• SEEDS Framework & Curriculum
• Child & Classroom Assessment tools
• Early Education Quality Standards (EEQS)
• CV 19 Health and Safety Guidelines
PRNS Implementation of Staff Professional Development
Focus Area # Staff
Trained Training Topics
Coaching &
Technical
Support
14 • Support for classroom instructors
• Master coach sessions and support
• EEQS Quality Improvement Plan goals
Evaluation &
Assessments 3
• Child assessments – individual child pre-post assessments • Classroom/learning environment assessments - classrooms • EEQS assessments - classrooms
• EEQS Quality Improvement Plans – classrooms
• Assessments Data Entry and Reporting
• Developmental Screening (Ages and Stages Questionnaire) PRNS EEQS Assessment Summary
EEQS
Assessment
EEQS
# 1
EEQS
# 2
EEQS
# 3
EEQS
# 4
EEQS
# 5
EEQS
# 6
EEQS
# 7
EEQS
# 8
Overall
Rating
PreAssessment 1.50 2 1.79 2 1.47 1.59 1.62 1.67 1.71
PostAssessment 1.69 2.07 2.67 2 1.61 1.75 1.62 1.67 1.89 Point Increase
in Rating from
Pre to Post
Assessment
+0.19 +0.07 +0.88 0 +0.14 +0.16 0 0 +0.54
PRNS High Level Actions Implemented to Increase Assessment Ratings by EEQS Area EEQS Actions to Support Assessment Rating
1 Health and
Safety
• Child Supervision: Ensure appropriate adult-child ratio. • Safety Plan: Review and update annually safety plan for each SJRP site to include emergency, fire, and disaster protocols, procedures, and policies.
2 Child Learning
and
Development
• Funding and Staff Support: Resources to conduct ongoing pre and post child level, environmental, and EEQS assessments for approx. 600+ children and 25 classrooms.
• Assessment Tools and Resources: Cost of materials/licensing and data system to conduct ongoing pre/post-assessments of approx. .*600+ children and 25 classrooms*
• Developmentally Appropriate Practices: Implement curriculum and lesson plans that are developmentally appropriate.
3 Curriculum
and Teaching
Practices
• Funding to purchase and implement curriculum and educational resources and conduct outcome-based evaluation citywide. 4 Learning
Environment
• Funding to enhance outside and indoor physical environment based on yearly environmental assessment data.
5 Staffing and
Professional
Development
• Qualified Staff: Establish early education classification series with minimum qualification, basic requirements, and experience. • Professional Development: Funding to provide ongoing professional development to develop capacity and skills in early education field.
• Adequate Staffing: Funding to expand staffing model to effectively implement evidence-based and best-practices across the SJRP program citywide in adherence to the EEQS. As well as increase access to early education programming for families with children, 3- 5 years of age.
PRNS High Level Actions Implemented to Increase Assessment Ratings by EEQS Area EEQS Actions to Support Assessment Rating
• Inclusion Support: Dedicated staff to conduct developmental screenings and provide inclusion training, support, resources, and referral for SJRP staff and families.
• Scholarships: Increase access to SJRP through expanded scholarship program for families experiencing financial constraints. • Revenue/Cost Recovery: Review impact of revenue generating and cost-recovery policies on PRNS to have SJRP be full cost recovery to cover increasing annual costs. Explore impact of enrollment fee and limited scholarship funding for low-income families.
6 Program
Leadership
and
Management
Provide formal strategies and opportunities for community partners to share feedback and recommendations on early education and childcare programs.
8 Diversity,
Equity, and
Inclusion
• Expand data collection of all SJRP participants citywide. • Utilize racial equity lens to understand and address barriers to access and inform policies and practices.
• Utilize evidence-based developmental screenings (Ages and Stages Questionnaire) for children.
*Number of children served and classrooms operating pre-pandemic.
ATTACHMENT C
EARLY EDUCATION QUALITY STANDARDS
SAN JOSÉ RECREATION PRESCHOOL QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN, FY 2021-22 Program Overview:
San José Recreation Preschool (SJRP) is a part-day program providing a nurturing, fun, and enriching early learning program to meet the socialemotional, physical, and cognitive development of children, ages 3-5, with the goal of preparing them for kindergarten and life-long learning. PRNS staff assessed 14 SJRP in-person classes utilizing the Early Education Quality Standards assessment tool. PRNS staff conducted the assessments and developed a Quality Improvement Plan to enhance the overall quality of the early learning program.
Goal Description:
Program Quality Standard Areas to Address:
EEQS#1 Child Supervision – Review child supervision practices and develop specific strategies to meet Proficient Quality.
EEQS#1 Facility Safety – Review all facility emergency plans and drill activities and develop specific strategies and staff training to address the health and safety of SJRP staff and participants.
EEQS#2 Evaluation with Children – Conduct assessments utilizing an evidencebased tool to assess children's development.
EEQS#2 Adult/Educator/Child Interactions – Conduct assessments utilizing an evidence-based tool to assess and enhance quality of adult and child interaction.
EEQS#3 Evidence-Based Curriculum – Expand staffing and professional development budgets to provide on-going training on evidence-based curriculum. Leverage resources with community partners to utilize SEEDS curriculum citywide.
EEQS#3 Adaptive Teaching Strategies – Leverage resources with community partners to provide training and coaching support to SJRP staff to support and enhance adaptive teaching strategies.
EEQS#3 Outcomes-Based Program Evaluation – Utilize environmental/learning assessment tools, SEEDS Cares Dashboard, and EEQS Quality Improvement Plans to achieve outcome-based program evaluation.
EEQS#4 Learning Environment – Leverage resources with community partners and expand program budget to utilize environmental/learning assessment tools annually to enhance the overall quality of the SJRP classroom environments.
EEQS#5 Qualifications and Expertise – Develop early education classification series to recruit and hire staff with the qualifications, education, and experience to lead and oversee early education and recreation programs.
EEQS #5 Training and Professional Development – Expand professional development budgets to provide on-going training and on-site coaching for SJRP staff.
EEQS #6 Community Stakeholder Engagement – Provide formal strategies and opportunities for community partners to share feedback and recommendations on early education and childcare programs.
EEQS#8 Physical, Behavioral, and Developmental Screenings and Referrals – Conduct assessments utilizing evidence-based developmental screenings (Ages and Stages Questionnaire) for children.
EEQS#8 Promoting Racial Equity – Develop racial equity practice, and tools to engage diverse families citywide. Collected participant demographic information and implemented evidence-based developmental screening tool to better serve
What other program information was used to develop this goal? Examples: Early Education Quality Standards Assessment Report, on-site observation, program self-assessment (formal or informal), family survey, classroom observation tools (ERS, CLASS), etc.
PRNS staff utilized multiple tools and strategies to develop and achieve its goal:
Early Education Quality Standards assessment tool, ELLCO (Early Language and Literacy Classroom Observation), PALS (Phonological Awareness Literacy Screening), family intakes, classroom and SJRP teacher observations, and formal and informal SJRP staff team meetings.
How will you know that our goal has been achieved? /What will be different? /What will we see in our practice?
Example: By the end of fiscal year 2020-2021, 74% of all children in the program have been assessed as “Kindergarten Ready” using a formal, evidence-based assessment tool.
By the end of FY 21/22, SJRP staff conducted EEQS assessments, and developed and reviewed Quality Improvement Plan with program goals to reassess progress in the quality continuum for SJRP program EEQS# 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8.
What resources are needed to make progress towards this goal? Provide detailed descriptions. Examples might include specific materials, technical assistance, professional development, etc.
Due to the pandemic, limited staffing capacity, and department resources PRNS staff were limited in the scope of EEQS focus areas (I.e., professional development, assessments, evaluation, etc.) that were implemented. PRNS administrative team leveraged resources with community partners to develop and implement evaluation plan, conduct assessments, and provide professional development/training and coaching to address EEQS# 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8 with goal of progressing across the quality continuum. Administrative staff continue to explore additional resources, early education classifications/positions, policies, and practices that can support PRNS’s ability to achieve Advance Quality in all program quality standard areas.
What strategies and actions do we need to achieve our goal? Target
Date Responsible Action Step/Strategy Status
Done On
Target Revised
June
2021
Program
Specialist
EEQS #1: Health and Safety
Focus Area: Child Supervision
Focus Area: Facility Safety
Reviewed with SJRP staff Child
Supervision and Facility Safety
policies, practices, protocols, and
files.
June
2021 PRNS Admin
EEQS #2: Child Learning and
Development
Focus Area: Evaluation with
Children
Focus Area: Adult/Educator/Child
Interactions
Conducted child and
environmental/learning pre-postassessments to support and assess children's development and
staff/child interaction.
June
2021 PRNS Admin
EEQS #3: Curriculum and Teaching
Practices
Focus Area: Evidence-Based
Curriculum
Target
Date Responsible Action Step/Strategy Status
Done On
Target Revised
Focus Area: Adaptive Teaching
Strategies
Focus Area: Outcomes-Based
Program Evaluation
Developed strategies and
leveraged resources to enhance
professional development plan in
the areas of curriculum instruction
and adaptive teaching strategies.
Developed EEQS Quality
Improvement Plans and
conducted assessments to
achieve outcome-based program
evaluation.
June
2021
PRNS Admin
EEQS #4: Learning Environment
Focus Area: Physical Environment
(indoor/Outdoor)
Utilized environmental/learning
assessment tools to enhance the
overall quality of the SJRP
classrooms and to align with EEQS.
June
2021 PRNS Admin
EEQS #5: Staffing and Professional
Development
Focus Area: Qualifications and
Expertise
Focus Area: Training and
Professional Development
PRNS staff working with Human
Resources and consultant to
develop and early education
classification series, ongoing
process. Developed strategies to
leveraged resources to enhance
professional development to
include curriculum training for
instructors.
June
2021
PRNS
Admin
Target
Date Responsible Action Step/Strategy Status
Done On
Target Revised
June
2021 PRNS Admin
EEQS # 8: Diversity, Inclusion, and
Equity
Focus Area: Physical, Behavioral,
and Developmental Screenings
Conduct
Focus Area: Promoting Racial
Equity
Developed racial equity practices
and tools to engage diverse
families citywide. Collected
participant demographic
information and implemented
evidence-based developmental
screening tool to better serve
families.
Progress Notes:
3 Months:
PRNS staff developed program plan with strategies and timelines to adhere to EEQS and focus areas:
• EEQS #1: Health and Safety, Focus Areas Child Supervision and Facility Safety
• EEQS #2: Child Learning and Development, Focus Areas Evaluation with Children and Adult/
• Educator/Child Interactions
• EEQS #3: Curriculum and Teaching Practices, Focus Areas EvidenceBased Curriculum, Adaptive • Teaching Strategies, and Outcomes-Based Program Evaluation • EEQS #4: Learning Environment, Focus Area Physical Environment (Indoor/outdoor)
• EEQS #5: Staffing and Professional Development, Focus Areas Qualifications and Expertise and Training and Professional Development • EEQS #8: Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity, Focus Areas Physical, Behavioral, Developmental
• Screenings, and Promoting Racial Equity
6 Months:
PRNS staff conducted EEQS assessment and developed a quality improvement plan to progress in the quality continuum in EEQS# 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8. In addition, PRNS staff continued to work with Human Resources and consultant to develop and early education classification series.
9 Months:
PRNS staff reviewed and tracked progress in completing and achieving the goals identified in the quality improvement plan in EEQS# 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8.
Provided SJRP staff training, technical assistance, and support in completing and documenting tasks identified in the quality improvement plans for each site.
Lessons Learned/ Reflective Practice:
At the beginning of the 2021-2022 school year due to the pandemic, changes were considered when conducting in-person programming, child-level assessments, and classroom assessments to adhere to health and safety guidelines.
To continue to progress in the quality continuum on the EEQS, PRNS staff need additional resources and support: additional staff to lead and conduct evaluation and assessment activities; resources and budget for professional development, budget for staff training hours and evaluation support; and staff experienced in early education and childhood development, etc.
Pre-child level assessment data that was collected in the Fall were analyzed and shared with teachers. The data proved instrumental, as teachers were able to provide intervention activities to support their students’ literacy development.
PRNS has been able to secure additional resources and support to advance SEEDS of Early Literacy curriculum, evidence-based assessments, and professional development. PRNS worked with the SEEDS of Early Literacy team to come up with creative ways to provide coaching, through virtual zoom recordings. Due to the level of work involved to effectively expand the evidence-based and best-practices citywide, PRNS continued to focus its staffing and resources strategically on a limited number of sites this fiscal year.
Attachment D
Early Education Program Quality Assessment 2021-22
About the Self-Assessment Tool:
This Self-assessment Tool will support approved providers, service leaders, and educators to reflect on and better understand their current practices and identify opportunities for improving quality outcomes for children and families. A commitment to continuous improvement is inherent in the City of San José’s Early Education Program Quality Standards and striving for best practice underpins this commitment.
When all staff and educators of an education and care service understand what is guiding their practice, they can work together for continuous quality improvements to enhance outcomes for children.
This tool has been developed to guide and support the service team in the self-assessment of the Early Education Program Quality Standards. It aims to assist in the development and ongoing review of your Quality Improvement Plan (QIP), which is a separate document to this Self-assessment Tool.
Self-assessment and quality improvement will be most productive when those involved are open, honest, and feel comfortable with being reflective and critical. Effective communication and positive workplace culture will allow everyone the opportunity to participate and have a voice. Having an open and honest approach will also ensure key issues are identified and addressed.
After identifying service strengths and areas for improvement, the summary can be used to complete your QIP. Remember, your self-assessment identifies areas for improvement and your QIP then prioritizes these improvements. Your QIP does not need to cover all quality areas, only those where you have identified improvements are needed to meet the NQS. 1 Self-Assessment Cover Sheet:
Date: 9/9/2022
Program Name: Storytimes
Department:
Early Education
Services
Check One: □ Program without Parent/Caregiver
Participating □ Program with Parent/Caregiver Participating Site Address: 150 E. San Fernando, San Jose CA, 95112
Contact Person: Nari Ferderer – Early Literacy Librarian Phone: (408) 808-2617 Email: [email protected] Brief Program Description:
2 The Early Education Services Department oversees programming and services for children 0-5 and their caregivers.
Program Quality Standard Area #1: Health and Safety
Focus Areas Basic
Not Met Basic Standards Proficient Quality Advanced Quality Child
Supervision
Program with the Parent/Caregiver Participating:
The program has enough adults/ educators to support and maintain an adult-to-child ratio of no more than 1-12 on a consistent basis.
Program with the Parent/Caregiver Participating:
The program has enough adults/ educators to support an
adult-to-child ratio of no more than 1-10 on a consistent basis.
While mixed-age groupings may be provided, programs are comprised of similar ages.
Program with the Parent/Caregiver Participating:
The program has enough adults/ educators to support an
adult-to-child ratio of no more than 1-8 on a consistent basis.
Program without the Parent/Caregiver Participating:
Adults/Educators have procedures in place to account for the children through a check-in/check-out system.
Children are always in sight and sound of
adults/educators.
Program without the Parent/Caregiver Participating:
In addition to Basic Standards, adults/educators perform hourly headcount.
Program without the Parent/Caregiver Participating:
In addition to Basic Standards, adults/educators perform headcounts every 30 minutes.
Facility Safety
The program operates within a safe environment; facility has adequate entrance security and fire exits; there are written emergency plans; basic first aid supplies are on hand; good sanitary conditions; comfortable climate (heat and air) and appropriate lighting.
All equipment is clean, sanitary, and free of hazardous conditions.
Each site has a written emergency plan, and a written
disaster and drill log. Drills must be conducted a minimum of two (2) times a year.
In addition to Basic Standards, each site’s parent organization is responsible for the development of a comprehensive safety plan that includes: Fire, Earthquake, and Code Red plans.
Parents/Caregivers have access to written safety policies and procedures.
Each site has a written emergency plan, and a written disaster and drill log. Drills must be conducted a minimum of four (4) time a year.
In addition to Proficient Quality Standards, each site has a written emergency plan, and a written disaster and drill log.
Drills must be conducted a minimum of one (1) time a month. 3 Staff Training
and
Certification
All adults/educators and volunteers are trained on the
program’s health and safety practices and emergency
procedures.
All persons working must submit fingerprinting for a criminal record review.
At least one (1) adult/educator must be physically onsite and trained in all of the following:
• CPR
• Pediatric First Aid (AED)
• Epi Pen Administration
• Water safety (if applicable)
At least one (1) staff member must be trained in Mandated Reporting.
In addition to Basic Standards:
At least one (1) adult/educator must be physically onsite and have fifteen (15) hours of health and safety training.
In addition to Basic and Proficient Quality Standards:
At least one (1) adult/educator must be physically onsite and trained in one or more of the following:
• Hazardous Materials Training
• Food Handling
NARRATIVE: Program Quality Standard Area #1 Health and Safety For each focus area, please describe
practices that met or exceeded basic
programing standards?
Child Supervision – The library can maintain a 1:8 ratio during library programming due to the nature of children attending with one or more caregivers to library programs. The library has also implemented attendance caps to help mitigate the spread of Covid-19 amongst our youngest patrons. The attendance caps also help ensure quality learning environments with smaller group sizes, allowing young children space and time to develop their social-emotional skills in a trusted space.
Facility Safety – Storytimes are currently operating at all 25 branch library locations. The library provides a clean and welcoming space for caregivers and the children in their care to safely attend library programming and make use of library resources such as computers, books, magazines, and reference services provided by library staff. Each branch Is provided with a first aid kit for library staff and the public that is routinely replenished. Climate control is maintained from a central location, keeping all branch locations at the same consistent climate conditions. All library locations undergo an annual earthquake and fire drill, with staff exiting the building and reunited at designated meeting zones.
Staff Training & Certification - Volunteers and staff members are required to undergo fingerprinting for a criminal background check and are trained in the library’s health and safety and emergency procedures as part of the onboarding process. Professional library staff (Librarians and Literacy Program Specialists) must meet specific criteria as laid out in the city’s job description to qualify.
Quality Area #1: Program Strengths
Please note specific focus areas in your
description.
Facility Safety - Library facilities are well-maintained as safe and hazard-free environments that draw in the community. Safety measures and protocols have been put in place to ensure staff and library user safety including, but not limited to:
• Hand Sanitizer stations
• Health screenings for library staff
• Maintaining 6ft distance when possible
• Quarantining library materials in circulation
• Following local health guidelines regards masks when appropriate 4 The library has also created an employee working group, the Safety and Security Committee. The Safety and Security (S&S) Committee has been responsible for reviewing practices related to employee and patron safety, evaluating reporting data, and providing feedback on policy/procedures improvements. The committee will help ensure that procedures are easy to understand and implement and that consistent, effective communication occurs to and from staff around safety and security matters. The group will provide feedback on the library’s annual security/safety training plan, emergency procedures and all safety and security assessments.
The group will review compiled data from behavior logs and incident reports to identify system needs, help establish internal triage protocols and make other recommendations for improvements. The committee will share recommendations with the Facilities Program Manager and Deputy Director of Operations and ensure frequent communication with all levels of staff.
Quality Area #1: Program Areas for
Improvement
Please note specific focus areas in your
description.
Staff Training & Certification – As library staff are not considered Mandated Reporters by State Law, the library is putting together a Child Abuse & Neglect Policy and procedure guide for staff who may witness varying incidents either online or in-person to ensure that staff have the necessary tools and training to maintain the library as a safe space for families.
Please include in your final report copies of your written emergency and disaster plans, and drill logs (Attachment “A”).
Total Cumulative Points: 4 / 3 = 1.33
Program Quality Standard Area #1: Health and Safety
Focus Areas
Basic Quality Not
Met
(0)
Basic Standards
(1)
Proficient Quality
(2)
Advanced Quality
(3)
Child Supervision
Facility Safety
Staff Training and Certification
5 Program Quality Standard Area #2: Child Learning and Development Focus Areas Basic
Not Met Basic Standards Proficient Quality Advanced Quality Evaluation with
children
Program with the Parent/Caregiver Participating:
Program regularly assesses parent/caregiver’s opinion of child’s learning and development.
Program with the Parent/Caregiver Participating:
Program regularly assesses parent/caregiver’s opinion of child’s learning and development by use of an assessment tool.
Program with the Parent/Caregiver Participating:
Program regularly assesses parent/caregiver’s opinion of child’s learning and development by use of a formal
assessment and uses findings to guide programmatic
change.
Program without the Parent/Caregiver Participating:
Program regularly assesses individual child’s learning and development by use of an assessment.
Program without the Parent/Caregiver Participating:
Program regularly assesses individual child’s learning and development using an evidence-based evaluation tool.
Program without the Parent/Caregiver Participating:
Program regularly assesses individual child’s learning and development using an evidence-based evaluation tool and uses findings to guide programmatic change.
Adult/Educator/
Child
Interactions
Program adults/educators administer a yearly selfassessment using a validated tool that measures the overall quality of the adult-child interaction. (Example:
Classroom Assessment Scoring System, Early Childhood
Environment Rating Scale, and Preschool Quality
Assessment, Inclusive Classroom Profile.).
Self-assessment rating must meet the tools specified level for “Basic Standard”. For example, ECERS-R = level 5 in Interactions subscale. Assessment findings are shared with program staff.
Program adults/educators administer a yearly self-assessment using a validated tool that measures the overall quality of the adult-child interaction. (Example: Classroom Assessment Scoring System, Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale, and Preschool Quality Assessment, Inclusive Classroom
Profile.)
Self-assessment rating must meet the tools specified level for “Proficient Standard”. For example, ECERS-R = level 6.
Assessment findings are used to guide professional
development and programmatic changes to the
environment.
Program partners with an outside party to conduct a yearly assessment using a validated tool that measures the overall quality of the adult-child interaction. (Example: Classroom Assessment Scoring System, Early Childhood Environment
Rating Scale, and Preschool Quality Assessment, Inclusive Classroom Profile.) Self-assessment rating must meet the tools specified level for “Advanced Standard”.
For example, ECERS-R = level 7.
Assessment findings are used to guide professional
development and programmatic changes to the
environment.
Developmentally
Appropriate
Practices
Program conducts annual review of how the curriculum
aligns with the chosen developmental tool.
Program implements a formal developmental tool to inform curriculum that promotes learning.
Program develops a continuous quality improvement plan of identified areas in need.
Program utilizes a formal developmental tool that informs adult/educator planning and implementation practices that promote learning.
Program prepares lesson plans that are based on input from children, families, and staff.
Program works with families on strategies for creating
consistency between the home and program relating to
developmentally appropriate child practices.
6 NARRATIVE: Program Quality Standard Area #2 Child Learning and Development For each focus area, please describe
practices that met or exceeded basic
programing standards?
Evaluation with Children: The library regularly assesses the parent/caregiver’s opinion of the child’s learning through a bi-annual storytime survey distributed to 300+ caregivers attending library storytimes. The findings from the storytime survey are used by the branches to complete their branch Quality Improvement Plan, indicating desired goals and benchmarks to improve the library storytime experience. 88% of respondents indicated that the library programming has helped improve their skill and has resulted in more quality literary experience for their child.
Adult/Educator/Child Interactions – Library staff provide warm and welcoming environments for families in the library. The program area is well maintained, with appropriate seating available for the range of ages in the audience, creative and colorful book displays highlight the library’s collection. Library staff provide quality interactions with children and their caregivers throughout the program and afterwards, encouraging participants to join in with the activities and providing positive reinforcement for children and caregivers.
Developmentally Appropriate Practices - The library has participated in the California State Library Shared Vision grant program which culminated in Spring of 2022. The Shared Vision grant provided the library with the unique ability to collaborate with and learn from researchers at the San José State Early Childhood Institute and bring in third-party consultants to review library materials in regard to the Storytime Standards, Storytime Curriculum and storytime materials and resources disseminated to the branches.
Quality Area #2: Program Strengths
Please note specific focus areas in your
description.
Developmentally Appropriate Practices – The library continues to review, reflect, and evaluate programs and services with approved consultants to ensure that library programming is developmentally appropriate and meeting the needs of children attending library storytimes. The library has partnered with The Early Childhood Institute researchers from San Jose State University and has brought in Sara Rizik-Baer Consulting to not only observe and evaluate library programming, but to provide guidance and review on library programming materials such as the Storytime Standards and Storytime Curriculum used throughout all 25 branch libraries for storytime programming.
Quality Area #2: Program Areas for
Improvement
Please note specific focus areas in your
description.
Developmentally Appropriate Practices – The library is currently reviewing the recommendations of third-party advisors and making necessary modifications to best fit with city services. Tasks include updating Storytime Standards and Curriculum documents to reflect recommendations from third-party consultants to ensure program quality. Changes include modification in language, format and resources made available to library staff.
Program Quality Standard Area #2: Child Learning and Development Focus Areas
Basic Quality Not
Met
(0)
Basic Standards
(1)
Proficient Quality
(2)
Advanced Quality
(3)
Evaluation with children
7 Total Cumulative Points: 9 / 3 = 3
Program Quality Standard Area #3: Curriculum and Teaching Practices Focus Areas Basic
Not Met Basic Standards Proficient Quality Advanced Quality EvidenceBased
Curriculum
Program with the Parent/Caregiver Participating:
Program develops activity plans informed by multiple
evidence-based sources.
Program with the Parent/Caregiver Participating:
Program implements an age-appropriate curriculum that
aligns to an evidence-based source.
Program with the Parent/Caregiver Participating:
Program adults/educators regularly solicit parent/caregiver feedback regarding kindergarten readiness and integrate this information into program curriculum.
Program without the Parent/Caregiver Participating:
Program develops daily lesson plans informed by multiple evidence-based
Program without the Parent/Caregiver Participating:
Program implements an age-appropriate, evidence-based,
formal curricula (Example: SEEDS, Creative Curriculum,
Preschool Learning Foundations).
Program without the Parent/Caregiver Participating:
Program adults/educators regularly document and monitor individual child progress toward kindergarten readiness and integrates this information into program curriculum.
Adaptive
Teaching
Strategies
(Universal
Design
Learning)
The program staff has a basic understanding of the three main concepts of Universal Design Learning:
Multiple means of representation- give learners various ways of acquiring information and knowledge.
• Multiple means of expression-providing learners
alternatives for demonstrating what they know.
• Multiple means of engagement-tapping into learners’
interests, offer appropriate challenges, and increase
motivation.
The program occasionally utilizes multiple means of
representation- giving learners various ways of acquiring information and knowledge.
The program occasionally utilizes multiple means of
expression-providing learners alternatives for demonstrating what they know.
The program occasionally utilizes multiple means of
engagement-tapping into learners’ interests, offer appropriate challenges, and increase motivation.
The program utilizes multiple means of representation- giving learners various ways of acquiring information and knowledge.
The program utilizes multiple means of expression-provide learners alternatives for demonstrating what they know.
The program utilizes multiple means of engagement-tapping into learners’ interests, offer appropriate challenges, and increase motivation.
Adult/Educator/Child Interactions
Developmentally Appropriate Practices
8 OutcomesBased
Program
Evaluation
The program has a formal mechanism to review its goals
and objectives and make necessary changes for
continuous quality improvement annually.
The program assesses progress toward goals and objectives for continuous quality improvement biannually, and
adults/educators meet quarterly to discuss results.
The program assesses progress toward goals and objectives for continuous quality improvement, and adults/educators meet quarterly to discuss results.
The program employs formal strategies for program
improvement that are based on regular assessment of
progress toward goals and objectives and adults/educators meet monthly to discuss results (regular assessment,
adults/educators performance, and/or program quality using validated self-assessment tools and rubrics).
Adults/educators are involved in interpreting and making decisions regarding what steps should be taken to improve the program.
9 NARRATIVE: Program Quality Standard Area #3 Curriculum and Teaching Practices For each focus area, please describe
practices that met or exceeded basic
programing standards?
Evidence-Based Curriculum – The library has brought in a third-party consultant to review and assist with revisions to the library’s Storytime Standards and Storytime Curriculum, implementing the suggestions from the SJSU ECI researcher’s evaluation of library programming. These necessary observations and revisions will help strengthen the library’s role in providing quality programming and remaining accountable to the community by progressing forward with new ideas and tools to implement.
Adaptive Teaching Strategies (UDL) - Our virtual programs promote skills and development for children 0-5 in listening, sharing, communication, vocabulary building, gross and fine motor development. The programs foster interactive learning environments that promote children sharing their thoughts, ideas, toys and more with their peers and the librarian hosting the program. Library staff can see what children are doing throughout the program and can monitor various levels of progress of the child’s learning and activities over time for repeat attendees. The program allows for Allows for different modes and paces of learning. There is active participation throughout the program, promoting motor skills, verbal language skills. Staff can reinforce learning outcomes with supplemental ideas for activities for families to continue at home after the program has ended.
Outcomes-Based Program Evaluation - The bi-annual storytime surveys help the library assess the overall quality of programming as well as determine areas for improvement. In the spring of 2022, the Library conducted a Storytime Survey with over 300 caregivers. 88% of respondents indicated that the library programming has helped improve their skill and has resulted in more quality literary experience for their child.
Quality Area #3: Program Strengths
Please note specific focus areas in your
description.
Evidence-Based Curriculum – This year, the library has been focusing on re-evaluating the strengthening the social-emotional foundations of programmatic standards by working with outside organization to review and provide guidance on amending library materials to be more inclusive, more representative of the community and more accessible for library staff to administer through quality library programming.
Quality Area #3: Program Areas for
Improvement
Please note specific focus areas in your
description.
Outcomes-Based Program Evaluation: The program is currently developing a process to involve adults/educators in interpreting and making decisions regarding what steps should be taken to improve the program, and creating formal strategies to define the quality improvement plans as well as establish regular meeting opportunities for adults/educators to come together to assess the program’s progress towards its goals and objectives Program Quality Standard Area #3: Curriculum and Teaching Practices Focus Areas
Basic Quality Not
Met
(0)
Basic Standards
(1)
Proficient Quality
(2)
Advanced Quality
(3)
Evidence-Based Curriculum
Adaptive Teaching Strategies
10 Total Cumulative Points: 8 / 3 = 2.66
Program Quality Standard Area #4: Learning Environment
Focus Areas Basic
Not Met Basic Standards Proficient Quality Advanced Quality Physical
Environment
(Indoor and
Outdoor
Furnishings &
Equipment)
Program adults/educators administer a yearly selfassessment using a validated tool that measures the overall quality of the ECE setting. (Example: ECERS-R and Preschool Quality Assessment.) Self-assessment rating must meet the tools specified level for “Advanced Standard”.
For example, ECERS-R = level 5 in Space & Furnishings
subscale.
Assessment findings are shared with program
adults/educators.
Program adults/educators administer a yearly self-assessment using a validated tool that measures the overall quality of the ECE setting. (Example: ECERS-R and Preschool Quality
Assessment.) Self-assessment rating must meet the tools specified level for “Advanced Standard”. For example, ECERSR = level 6 in Space & Furnishings subscale.
Assessment findings are used to guide professional
development and programmatic changes to the
environment.
Program partners with an outside party to conduct an annual assessment using a validated tool that measures the overall quality of the ECE setting. (Example: ECERS-R and Preschool Quality Assessment.) Self-assessment rating must meet the tools specified level for “Advanced Standard”. For example, ECERS-R = level 7 in Space & Furnishings subscale.
Assessment findings are used to guide professional
development and programmatic changes to the
environment.
Outcomes-Based Program Evaluation
11 NARRATIVE: Program Quality Standard Area #4 Learning Environment For each focus area, please describe
practices that met or exceeded basic
programing standards?
Physical Environment – The library has conducted a self-assessment review of the library environment for children and their caregivers. Library spaces have met the required level 6 pertaining to temperature, lighting, age -appropriate seating, and materials available for young children.
Quality Area #4: Program Strengths
Please note specific focus areas in your
description.
Physical Environment – Library spaces are open and welcoming, with large displays of current picture books, upcoming programs and events and additional resources for children and their caregivers. Library spaces are clean, well-maintained, and free of hazards. Library spaces are spacious, allowing natural light through the large windows throughout the building. Building temperature controls are monitored and regulated through a central location.
Quality Area #4: Program Areas for
Improvement
Please note specific focus areas in your
description.
Physical Environment – At this time, the library is exploring safe ways to bring back the library’s Wee Play stations at the branch libraries. The Wee Play stations provide a variety of toys and learning materials for young children, creating a welcoming space. The library is currently working on a timeline to reinstitute this feature through safe practices, allowing time and space for materials purchasing and distribution for all 25 branch sites, as well as providing training and review of the station for library staff at all levels to maintain a quality learning and exploration space for young children and their caregivers.
Total Cumulative Points: 2 / 1 = 2
Program Quality Standard Area #4: Learning Environment
Focus Areas
Basic Quality Not
Met
(0)
Basic Standards
(1)
Proficient Quality
(2)
Advanced Quality
(3)
Physical Environment (Indoor and
Outdoor Furnishings & Equipment)
12 Program Quality Standard Area #5: Staffing and Professional Development Focus Areas Basic
Not Met Basic Standards Proficient Quality Advanced Quality Qualifications
& Expertise
Program guidelines are in place that define qualifications of adults/educators and outline basic requirements for
experience and/or education.
Minimum qualifications of staff and basic requirements for experience and/or education are regularly reviewed and
are directly aligned to program offerings and goals.
Staff has some specialized expertise in specific program areas.
Some staff have advanced qualifications to work with children that directly relate to the specific programming area in which they work.
Program activities inform the development of guidelines for staff qualifications. Staff qualifications and basic requirements are reviewed annually.
Staff members have specific training and experience in the field. There is diversity among staff in the type of qualifications and a structure in place that allows cross-disciplinary experience
Training &
Professional
Development
Program staff participate in a minimum of twenty (20)
hours a year of professional development in the following areas:
• Health and Safety
• Cultural Competency
• Child Development/Theory
• Program Implementation
• Developmentally Appropriate Practices
• Family & Community Engagement
• Inclusion
• Leadership
Any closely related topics
A process is in place for continuous review of staff
development plans.
Program staff participate in a minimum of twenty-five (25) hours a year of professional development in the following areas:
• Health and Safety
• Cultural Competency
• Child Development/Theory
• Program Implementation
• Developmentally Appropriate Practices
• Family & Community Engagement
• Inclusion
• Leadership
Any closely related topics
A process is in place for continuous review of staff
development plans.
Program staff participate in a minimum of thirty plus (30+) hours a year of professional development in the following areas:
• Health and Safety
• Cultural Competency
• Child Development/Theory
• Program Implementation
• Developmentally Appropriate Practices
• Family & Community Engagement
• Inclusion
• Leadership
Any closely related topics
A process is in place for continuous review of staff
development plans.
13 NARRATIVE: Program Quality Standard Area #5 Staffing and Professional Development For each focus area, please describe
practices that met or exceeded basic
programing standards?
Qualifications & Expertise - Library professional staff must meet the basic requirements as laid out in the city’s job description. The minimum qualifications are integrated into the city’s hiring plan and interview process. Librarians enter with a Master’s degree in Library and Information Sciences. The city strives for diversity among staff qualifications and staff are provided with specific training to support their development in their field.
Training & Professional Development - In the fiscal year of 2021-2022, professional staff completed a cumulative total of 4,323 hours of professional development training in the following areas:
• Health & Safety
• Cultural Competency
• Child Development/Theory
• Program Implementation
• Developmentally Appropriate Practices
• Family & Community Engagement
• Inclusion
• Leadership
Quality Area #5: Program Strengths
Please note specific focus areas in your
description.
Training & Professional Development - Library training opportunities are diverse in topics and are highly promoted throughout the system. Library staff are encouraged to participate in as many professional development opportunities as possible to diversify their skill sets, knowledge base, and expertise of their field.
Professional development is made available through both in-house opportunities (staff-led trainings and meetings) as well as through third-party vendors such as the California Library Association, National Association for the Education of Young Children, American Library Association, Infopeople, and other trusted resources in the library and early learning community. Professional library staff have participated in over 4,300 hours of professional development training, averaging 66 hours per staff member throughout the 25-branch library system, doubling the recommendation of 30 hours of annual professional development opportunities.
To provide safe, developmentally appropriate opportunities for in-person programming, the library identified twenty-seven (27) professional staff to participate in the Tandem Give Me 5: Play & Learn Groups train the trainers series, reaching a cumulative 324 hours of training to support staff-caregiver interactions during September 2021. The library is currently preparing to launch the Learn and Play groups through the summer at select branches across the city.
Quality Area #5: Program Areas for
Improvement
Please note specific focus areas in your
description.
Training & Professional Development – The library is currently meeting and exceeding expectations for this requirement and will be looking to maintain this status for the next fiscal year.
14 Total Cumulative Points: 6 / 2 = 3
Program Quality Standard Area #4: Learning Environment
Focus Areas
Basic Quality Not
Met
(0)
Basic Standards
(1)
Proficient Quality
(2)
Advanced Quality
(3)
Qualifications & Expertise
Training & Professional Development
15 Program Quality Standard Area #6: Program Leadership and Management Focus Areas Basic
Not Met Basic Standards Proficient Quality Advanced Quality Ethical
Standards
Organization has adopted ethical standards that are fully implemented and shared.
Organization has adopted ethical standards with an early education focus that incorporate some or all of the following:
• Appreciating childhood as a unique and valuable stage of the human life cycle.
• Basing our work with children on knowledge of child
development.
• Appreciating and supporting the close ties between the child and family.
• Recognizing that children are best understood in the
context of family culture and society.
• Respecting the dignity, worth, and uniqueness of each individual (child, family member, and colleague).
• Helping children and adults achieve their full potential in the context of relationships that are based on trust
respect and positive regard.
Organization has adopted ethical standards with an early education focus
that incorporate some or all of the following:
• Appreciating childhood as a unique
• and valuable stage of the human life cycle.
• Basing our work with children on
knowledge of child development.
• Appreciating and supporting the
close ties between the child and
family.
• Recognizing that children are best
understood in the context of family
culture and society.
• Respecting the dignity, worth, and
uniqueness of each individual (child, family member,
and colleague).
• Helping children and adults achieve
their full potential in the context of
relationships that are based on trust respect and positive regard.
Ethical standards are reviewed yearly.
Ethical standards are reviewed during the decision-making process to ensure adherence to best practices.
Practices,
Policies, and
Procedures
(Children,
Families, Staff)
The program has policies and practices that are clearly and consistently communicated to adults/educators and
community stakeholders.
Policies and procedures are documented and readily
available for the community stakeholders.
The program has policies and a service delivery approach that reflect the culture, linguistic, and traditions of children and their families.
Program management and leadership develop program
policies and practices that reflect a strong foundation in developmental theory, inclusivity, and current research.
Engages adults/educators, colleagues, and stakeholders to analyze developmental theory for relevance to practice and cultural sensitivity.
Policies and practices are regularly reviewed by program adults/educators and administrators to ensure that they support a positive program climate.
Program leadership regularly monitors adults/educators to ensure consistent delivery across adult/educators and
determine areas for professional development.
Program management and leadership stays current on
literature and research about developmental theory,
inclusivity and cultural sensitivity; uses that knowledge to inform decisions and provides professional development
opportunities for early childhood educators that focus on implications for practice in a variety of early education settings.
The program conducts an evaluation at least once every two years using an outside observer to review policies and
practices. Policy and procedural changes are implemented, and supportive training is planned with staff based on results.
The community stakeholders are solicited to provide input in determining practices, policies, and procedures.
16 Program Quality Standard Area #6: Program Leadership and Management (Continued…) Focus Areas Focus
Areas Focus Areas Focus Areas Focus Areas
Vision, Mission,
and Values
Organization has an adopted vision, mission, and values statement that is shared throughout the organization and with community stakeholders.
Organization has an adopted vision, mission, and values statement that has an education focus and is shared
throughout the organization and with community
stakeholders.
A yearly meeting is held to evaluate the organization’s alignment to their education vision, mission, and values.
The vision, mission, and values are reviewed during the decision-making process to ensure adherence to best
practices and are shared with the organization and with community stakeholders.
Community
Stakeholder
Connections/
Partnerships
Engagement
Program management and leadership host partners to
provide information and resources related to a child’s
learning and development.
Program goals are both informally and formally
communicated to community stakeholders (conversations,
letters, newsletters, etc.).
Community stakeholder feedback on program goals and
activities are informally solicited (e.g., surveys, focus groups, etc.).
Program management and leadership establish effective
relationships with partners to ensure continuity of children’s health, learning, and development utilizing the whole-child approach.
A system is in place for formal feedback (e.g., surveys, focus groups, etc.) from community stakeholders to inform changes in program goals. These changes are reviewed to address any emerging needs within the program and community.
The program has a reciprocal relationship with other
organizations throughout the community (i.e., library,
community centers, Family Resource Centers) to support the child’s success within the context of their family.
To promote the children’s well-being, development, and longterm success in school and in life, program management engages stakeholders, local leaders, business representatives, and elected officials to review and provide recommendation for continuous quality improvement planning.
17 NARRATIVE: Program Quality Standard Area #6 Program Leadership and Management For each focus area, please describe
practices that met or exceeded basic
programing standards?
Ethical Standards:
The program’s ethical standards integrate an early education focus by incorporating the following into the program's standards, policies, and training opportunities:
• Appreciating childhood as a unique and valuable stage of the human life cycle. • Basing our work with children on knowledge of child development. • Appreciating and supporting the close ties between the child and family. • Recognizing that children are best understood in the context of family, culture, and society. • Respecting the dignity, worth, and uniqueness of each individual (child, family member, and colleague). • Helping children and adults achieve their full potential in the context of relationships that are based on trust, respect, and positive regard.
Practices, Policies, and Procedures (Children, Family, and Staff): The program management maintains a connection to the literature and research about developmental theory, inclusivity, and cultural sensitivity and uses that knowledge to inform decisions and provide professional development opportunities for early childhood educators that focus on implications for practice in a variety of early education settings.
Vision, Mission, and Values: Education is at the core of the library’s Vision, Mission, and Values statement. Equitable access to and use of library resources are designed to support the community and provide valuable access to literacy and learning tools for the growth and development of children in the city.
Community Stakeholder Connections/Partnerships Engagement: The library maintains a strong connection to local stakeholders and partner organizations. This past year, the library has partnered with new community organizations to further strengthen the safety net and support systems for the community. In an effort to inform the community about our local and global environments, the library has partnered with the Environmental Services Department and Valley Water to highlight environmental care through recycling, mindful water usage through fun and educational storytime programming that will not only provide the adults with tools and resources to make informed decisions but will also introduce these concepts to young children.
The library has also continued its partnership with San Jose State University by encouraging all staff levels to participate in a survey to better understand the resources that support families’ access to linguistically diverse books for their young children. The study surveys the experiences and perspectives of library staff across the San Jose library system.
Quality Area #6: Program Strengths
Please note specific focus areas in your
description.
Community Stakeholder Connections / Partnership Engagement – The library’s strong connection to local stakeholders and partner organizations plays a key role in the development and expansion of library program planning. To support the informal caregivers that care for young children in the community, the library continues to facilitate and expand with a unique program to support the professional development of the FFNs (the Family, Friends and Neighbors) who make up the informal caregiver network in the community. The FFN program cohort provides community, professional development, access to valuable resources and experiences to strengthening the caregiver’s ability to provide quality care for the children in their care.
Quality Area #6: Program Areas for
Improvement
Please note specific focus areas in your
description.
Practices, Policies, and Procedures (Children, Family, and Staff): - The library will be prioritizing the passage of a Child Neglect and Abuse policy, providing staff with guidance and instruction on handling challenging situations, as well as creating another layer of safety for the community we interact with. 18 Total Cumulative Points: 12 / 4 = 3
Program Quality Standard Area #6 Program Leadership and Management Focus Areas
Basic Quality Not
Met
(0)
Basic Standards
(1)
Proficient Quality
(2)
Advanced Quality
(3)
Ethical Standards
Practices, Policies, and Procedures
(Children, Families, Staff)
Vision, Mission, and Values
Community Stakeholder Connections/
Partnerships Engagement
19 Program Quality Standard Area #7: Family Engagement and Partnerships Focus Areas Basic
Not Met Basic Standards Proficient Quality Advanced Quality Parent/Caregiver
Voice /Decision
Making
The program management provides opportunities for
parents/caregivers to give occasional, informal feedback on activities.
A formal process is in place to address parent/caregiver needs and concerns.
The program management provides opportunities for
parents/caregivers to give formal feedback on activities. (e.g., surveys, activity planning meetings).
Practices, policies and procedures exist to incorporate parent/caregiver feedback into program design and
delivery.
The program management engages the parents/caregivers
voice in an annual and on-going basis in programmatic
decisions. The recommendations are reviewed for continuous quality improvement.
Practices, policies and procedures exist to incorporate parent/caregiver feedback into program design and
delivery.
Balanced
Communication
The program utilizes resources (e.g., interpretation,
translation, language line) to facilitate communication with parents/caregivers and children in their
home/preferred language.
The program creates strategies to engage and support
implementation of parents/caregivers from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds.
The program engages with parents/caregivers, early
childhood educators, community leaders and service
providers to identify and address systemic and emerging barriers to effective communication.
The program collaborates with partners to increase the
availability of information and services in the home/preferred languages of families in the community.
Strengthening
Families
The program management administers an annual selfassessment using the Strengthening Families Framework.
The program management administers an annual selfassessment using the Strengthening Families Framework to guide programmatic changes and continuous quality
improvement.
The program management administers an annual selfassessment using the Strengthening Families Framework to guide programmatic changes.
Parents/caregivers are involved in the review of assessment findings and provide recommendations for annual quality improvement plans.
20 NARRATIVE: Program Quality Standard Area #7
For each focus area, please describe
practices that met or exceeded basic
programing standards?
Parent/Caregiver Voice / Decision Making Caregivers are provided with multiple opportunities throughout the year to provide valuable feedback, observations, and assessments of library programming services. Over 300 caregivers responded to a survey in Spring of 2022 about their views of library services and storytime programming. Through these types of surveys, library users can provide feedback on a range of areas from library storytimes to overall library services, resources, and customer service. Appropriate leads evaluate the data to look for areas for growth and development and highlight areas of success for the library. The feedback provided by the community shapes the decision-making conversations for internal program and service planning.
Balanced Communication – This past year, the library has brought in outside organizations to review and evaluate the library’s storytime standards and storytime curricluum framework to provide feedback on how to strengthening and balance communication with the participants as well as adjust and modify programming quality and content to meet the needs of the community.
Strengthening Families – During Y3, library staff continued to conduct the Strengthening Families Self-Assessment in May of 2022. The results of the self-assessment will help indicate priority projects for the upcoming fiscal year.
Quality Area #7: Program Strengths
Please note specific focus areas in your
description.
Parent/Caregiver Voice / Decision Making The Library incorporates community feedback as a barometer for success. When families are not only learning, but also having fun with learning, the memories created will have lasting effects on the child. Children who can view the Library as a space for them to learn, explore, and grow will develop into adolescents and adults who continue to learn from their environments, viewing the Library as a valued and trusted resource in the community. The library plays a critical role in patching education gaps throughout the city. These goals are reflected not only in the Library’s mission statement and the Library vision, but also in the ability to put the community first when planning new programs, evaluating current programs, or forming connections with local organizations and partners to further implement and integrate new ideas and components efficiently into our services.
Quality Area #7: Program Areas for
Improvement
Please note specific focus areas in your
description.
Strengthening Families – The library will be looking to expand the annual self-assessment with the assistance of a parental advisory group, helping provide an outside perspective on library resources and services.
Program Quality Standard Area #7: Family Engagements and Partnerships Focus Areas
Basic Quality Not
Met
(0)
Basic Standards
(1)
Proficient Quality
(2)
Advanced Quality
(3)
Parent/Caregiver Voice/Decision
Making
Balanced Communication
Strengthening Families
21 Total Cumulative Points: 8 / 3 = 2.66
Program Quality Standard Area #8: Equity, Diversity, Inclusion Focus Areas Basic
Not Met Basic Standards Proficient Quality Advanced Quality Inclusive and
Supportive
Practices
Program abides by Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Program has a documented process for receiving and
assessing request for reasonable accommodation.
Adults/educators are aware of children needing inclusion support services. (Ex. English Language Learners, varying abilities, and behavioral concerns.)
Program abides by ADA and regularly evaluates their efforts in creating inclusive and supportive environment.
Program annually reviews documented process for receiving and assessing request for reasonable accommodation to
include a tracking system to best serve the needs of children and families efficiently.
The environment intentionally promotes engagement through dynamic spaces, equipment, materials and facilitation
practices.
Adults/educators have identified strategies and/or
documented inclusion plans for children needing inclusion support services. (Ex. English Language Learners, varying abilities, and behavioral concerns.)
Program has policies and practices that advance inclusion.
Program annually reviews documented process for receiving and assessing requests for reasonable accommodation
through community and stakeholder feedback.
Program partners with an outside party to conduct a yearly assessment using a validated tool that measures the overall quality of the ECE setting. (Example: ECERS-R, Inclusive Classroom.)
Adult/educators have identified strategies and/or
documented inclusion plans for children needing inclusion support services. (Ex. English Language Learners, varying abilities, and behavioral concerns.)
Adults/educators review documented inclusion plan and
meet regularly to discuss progress toward inclusive practices.
Program environment is flexible enough to allow
adults/educators to continuously modify their space to meet the needs of children and families.
Adults/educators create activities and /or curriculum to include children/youth with special needs in program
activities.
Physical,
Behavioral,
and
Developmental
Screenings and
Referrals
Program offers opportunities for evidence-based
screenings for children.
Program offers opportunities for evidence-based screenings for children and utilizes screening information to strengthen program activities and practices.
Program schedules evidence-based screenings for children and utilizes the screening information to guide and strengthen the program activities and practices.
Program refers and connects families to appropriate agencies and resources for further assessment and/or support services based on screening results and emerging needs.
Promoting
Racial Equity
(Continued
Below)
Early childhood educators must recognize and support
each child’s unique strengths without imposing cultural biases (explicitly or implicitly).
Program leadership regularly monitors staff, programs, and policies through a racial equity lens to promote anti-bias education/programming.
The program conducts an evaluation at least once every two years using an outside observer to review racial equity policies and practices. Policy and procedural changes are
implemented, and supportive training is planned with
adult/educator based on results.
22 Program creates an environment that promotes equity, learning, and development for all children, families, and adults/educators.
Program has policies and practices regarding race, equity, and culture that are clearly and consistently
communicated to all.
Program collects racial, social economic, and language data about communities served to better understand barriers to access.
Program reviews and analyzes data to inform decisions on location of programs/services offered to increase access.
Program collects racial, ethnic, and language data about communities served to better understand current needs.
Program reviews and utilizes data for continuous quality program improvement practices.
Program solicits stakeholder input when determining policies, procedures, and protocols regarding racial equity and access of underserved communities.
Program Quality Standard Area #8: Equity, Diversity, Inclusion (Continued) Focus Areas Basic
Not Met Basic Standards Proficient Quality Advanced Quality Promoting
Racial Equity
(Continued)
Program collects racial, ethnic, and language data about communities served to better understand current needs.
Offer early education programming in each council
district.
Reviews collected data to inform practices and develop a plan for continued quality improvement, training, and hiring of adults/educators that reflect the community.
Program reviews collected data and utilizes it as part of an ongoing racial equity plan to inform decisions:
• on location of programs/services offered
• pricing (if applicable)
• staff placement and recruitment
• marketing/outreach
23 NARRATIVE: Program Quality Standard Area #8 Equity, Diversity, Inclusion For each focus area, please describe
practices that met or exceeded basic
programing standards?
Inclusive & Supportive Practices - The program abides by ADA guidelines and regularly evaluates the library's efforts to create inclusive and supportive environments. The library provides inclusive services and programs to meet the needs of the community. The library works collaboratively with The Inclusion Collaborative to provide library resources that are inclusive, adaptive, and support the growth and learning of the child in their learning environments, whether at home or through the library.
Physical, Behavioral, and Developmental Screenings and Referrals - Due to Covid-19 Public Health Orders for community safety, libraries have been closed for public use since March of 2020. Once our storytimes shifted to a virtual platform through Zoom, children began viewing and participating in library programs in their home environment with caregivers nearby to assist or participate in the program with the child. As a result, our Wee Grow program in partnership with First5 Santa Clara County has been in hiatus until we can safely resume in-person programming and the ASQ/referral process with the community.
Promoting Racial Equity The library strives to ensure that voices and stories from diverse cultures and traditions are represented in the library, through library materials, translated communication materials, library programs, partner organizations, and more. The library supports the growth and development of all children throughout the community. SJPL's Racial Equity Team was formed as part of a statewide initiative to create a network of libraries and library staff committed to racial equity and full inclusion. The goal is to share information, deepen conversations and increase racial equity in library service delivery and the communities we serve. The committee is committed to reversing institutional practices that are racially inequitable by eliminating or revising policies and procedures that restrict or deny access or create barriers. It is invested in diversifying the workforce, supporting staff with ongoing training and development, and treating all individuals respectfully and with kindness.
Quality Area #8: Program Strengths
Please note specific focus areas in your
description.
Promoting Racial Equity – Since its formation in January 2020, the Racial Equity Team has created new professional development opportunities for library staff, created space for conversation and learning, and has helped in promoting and celebrating the city’s diversity through various virtual events and programs for both library staff and the community at large. This last year, the RET has expanded and branched into several Affinity Groups.
The Affinity Groups include:
• Black Affinity Group,
• Hispanic/Latinx Affinity Group,
• API Affinity Group,
• Multiracial Affinity Group, and
• White Learning Group
Each Affinity Group focuses on slightly different things, but some collective goals that all the Affinity Groups have been exploring are:
• Revamping the hiring, recruiting, and promotion process at SJPL to reach and promote more BIPOC communities • Explore possibility of Affinity Groups serving as consultants for SJPL cultural program, to vet for cultural authenticity/sensitivity • Collaborate with other SJPL Equity Working Groups, such as the SJPL LGBTQ+ Working Group, the Disabilities Access Committee, and INSIDERS 24 Quality Area #8: Program Areas for
Improvement
Please note specific focus areas in your
description.
Physical, Behavioral, and Developmental Screenings and Referrals – Due to COVID-19 and library closures, the library’s Wee Grow referral program came to an end. The library is currently seeking funding to bring back the program with the intention to expand the program to more branches throughout the system.
Total Cumulative Points: 6 / 3 = 2
Program Quality Standard Area #7: Family Engagements and Partnerships Focus Areas
Basic Quality Not
Met
(0)
Basic Standards
(1)
Proficient Quality
(2)
Advanced Quality
(3)
Inclusive and Supportive Practices
Physical, Behavioral, and
Developmental Screenings and Referrals
Promoting Racial Equity
25 Summary of Program Quality Standards Areas
Program Quality Standards Areas Overall Score
1 Health and Safety 1.33
2 Child Learning and Development 3
3 Curriculum and Teaching Practices 2.66
4 Learning Environments 2
5 Staffing and Professional Development 3
6 Program Leadership and Management 3
7 Family Engagement and Partnerships 2.66
8 Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity 2
TOTAL FOR ALL STANDARD AREAS: 19.65
FINAL OVERALL RATING: 19.65 / 8 = 2.5
Basic Quality Not Met
(0)
Basic Standards
(1)
Proficient Quality
(2)
Advanced Quality
(3)
Attachment E
2021 Early Education
Community Assessment
Key Findings & Guiding Strategies
Early Education Services
San José Public Library
150 E. San Fernando Street, San José, CA 95112
(408) 808-2617 [email protected]
Background
In March 2021, after one full year of living in a pandemic and operating primarily on virtual platforms, Early Education Services (Early Education) set out to conduct an environmental scan to re-assess the assets, needs, and aspirations of the communities it serves. Early Education sought to re-ground its programming and work plan in the current realities of San José’s communities.
Early Education began envisioning a “better normal,” in which a renewed commitment to intentionality and equity could be applied to every piece of programming design and implementation.
The community assessment sought to capture both the strengths and the needs of San José’s community. Applying a strengths-based framework is essential to holistically serving and partnering with the community, and such an approach reinforces the Strengthening Families framework that Early Education is implementing as part of its Quality Standards.
The environmental scan aimed to collect on-the-ground community insights and expertise, which could then be used to directly shape Early Education’s programming and work plan to provide more targeted, representative, and equitable services for and with the community.
Community Assessment
Before planning any new programs, Early Education sought to gather more information about San José’s communities: what their urgent needs are, what resources and infrastructure they already have, what services are most important to them. The community assessment was conducted through online surveys and one-on-one interviews with professional staff from community-based organizations, community members, and Library staff. Research and equitybased frameworks from local and state-wide library and early education communities of practice were also incorporated into the findings. The questions centered around:
• Assets & Strengths – “What are some of the strongest connections with the community you currently have? What are your community strengths?” • Needs & Aspirations – “What needs have you identified in your community? What outcomes do you want to see in your community in 2021?”
Key Findings
The information and feedback gathered from the community was clustered along common threads, and the following themes emerged.
Thriving, Not Just Surviving
When asked what specific outcomes they hoped for in the coming months and years, respondents spoke of a vision in which their children and their communities not only survived, but thrived. Community members noted that existing institutional frameworks often reflect an educational survival complex, in which children of color, and especially Black and brown youth, are never educated to thrive, only to survive. Instead of pursuing systemic change, the educational survival complex tells service providers to focus on ‘fixing’ individual problems or on giving individuals the ‘tools’ to survive a flawed system.
What is important, then, is to transform the norm from a scarcity mindset to an abundance mindset, in which it is expected that institutions will provide more than the bare minimum. In such a shifted world, the most historically marginalized communities are intentionally and consistently centered, included, and empowered to thrive. In addition to concrete supports such as food, shelter, education, and financial support, community members emphasized the importance of such things as trauma-informed care, healing-centered programs, and mental healthcare in supporting the healthy development of children and families.
Key to supporting children and families in thriving is acknowledging the fact that equity is when all groups have the same outcomes, but that this goal is achieved through different approaches. The same resources do not work for everyone. Programming must therefore be designed to be flexible, adaptable, and accessible. As one disability rights advocate in the community said, “Disability is not the biggest barrier. Ableism is the biggest barrier.” Institutions must ask themselves, what are the existing institutional norms and practices which are consistently failing their communities?
One-on-One Support & Building Relationships
In line with the emphasis on flexibility and accessibility, Early Education found community consensus on the importance of one-on-one support in meeting community members where they are. An approach echoed by the Brazelton Touchpoints and Strengthening Families frameworks is: Be prepared to go beyond your traditional role. One-on-one support goes hand in hand with a holistic, whole-person approach to community interactions. One-on-one interactions are often where trust-building and relationship-building happen, and how an intimidating or confusing institution can become a safe space.
What can one-on-one support look like? Community members named some specific examples:
• Individual check-ins and support
• Help navigating bureaucracy
• Help with financial matters, utilities, and document submission • Technology, computer, and internet support
• Language access & translation
• Phone and online availability (not just in-person support) Additionally, mentorship and reliable, stable relationships between community members and staff were emphasized in particular as essential supports.
Individualized supports also align with the Strengthening Families framework, and staff can begin to consider how they can apply the framework’s protective factors. For example: Are Library staff able to refer patrons to a specific person at an organization, instead of just a general contact? When staff refer patrons to external services, are they also following up on the patron afterwards? It is essential to have pathway navigators available who are able to walk side-byside with community members to help them utilize resources and navigate bureaucratic processes.
Intersectionality
One-on-one individualized support naturally dovetails with an intersectional, holistic, wraparound service model. Meeting community members where they are at means meeting them at the intersections of race, gender, sexuality, disability status, language, socioeconomic status, immigration status, and more.
Referring to contemporary equity, diversity, and inclusion initiatives, community members stressed the importance of service models being race explicit, but not race exclusive. It’s important to consider race and...
• Gender
• Sexual orientation
• Religion
• Disability status
• Socioeconomic status
• Educational attainment
• and other factors that influence the ways individuals move through the world.
Disability justice advocates emphasized how disability is often not included in equity, diversity, and inclusion initiatives. Community leaders serving LGBTQ+ families spoke of how the concepts of “cultural competence” and “cultural diversity” often do not include gender identity and expression. An intersectional approach is one that is equipped to support a monolingual Vietnamese single mother with an 8 year old child with autism. An intersectional service model can provide educational support for foster youth navigating the intersections of race, learning disabilities, and poverty.
The 2021 Santa Clara County Children's Data Book provides a glimpse into how within the population of students with a disability in the county alone, many children are also simultaneously navigating many other intersecting factors:
• Students with a Disability in SCC: 28,409
o Also homeless: 416
o Also socioeconomically disadvantaged: 14,604
o Also English Language Learner: 10,533
o Also foster youth: 201
When institutions apply an intersectional lens to their equity and inclusion efforts, they can begin to shift to a system in which having multiple marginalized identities is not a predictor in whether or not an individual receives meaningful and competent care and support.
Guiding Strategies
Based on the key findings, a few guiding principles emerged which Early Ed can consider implementing to strategically inform its work moving forward.
Centering Lived Experience & Expertise
The communities and individuals most impacted by policies, programs, and practices must be the ones leading the way. A strengths-based approach is one that uplifts community members’ lived experience and expertise.
Community members underlined the transformative power of safe spaces where historically marginalized and stigmatized individuals are able to show up as their whole selves. Foothill College’s Family Engagement Institute succinctly notes: identity and voice = engagement and learning. Institutions, then, are prompted to shift to a learning mentality, in which organizations uplift community members as the subject matter experts and key agents of change in their own lives.
In the survey Early Ed sent out, “culture and stories” were consistently named as the strongest assets in respondents’ communities, because of the power that culture and stories have to inspire resilience and community solidarity. Moreover, in line with a call for trauma-informed models, community leaders stressed the healing power of enabling families to connect with their roots and lineage, and of providing not only culturally competent but culturally sustaining services as well.
In such a strengths-based framework, institutions are asked not only how are they gaining community trust, but also how are they in turn trusting in the community? How can institutions begin to uplift community members as subject matter experts and empower them to lead and design the solutions they want for their own communities?
Material Empowerment
Building upon a strengths-based framework that uplifts the lived experience and expertise of community members, material empowerment in the form of economic opportunities was identified as a powerful way of supporting individuals as leaders and change makers.
Community leaders noted how systems are currently often set up to “incentivize” participation through in-kind gifts designed to encourage attendance and community engagement. However, a number of organizations have implemented different approaches: an organization serving young parents who are formerly incarcerated or system-impacted offers paid fellowships and childcare stipends; a nonprofit serving unhoused populations partnered with a library so that formerly unhoused individuals who provided policy recommendations and community liaison services were career-tracked into library jobs; and an organization serving incarcerated parents hires individuals who have been through the program as paid contractors who then lend their expertise to mentor new program participants.
This model represents a move away from a practice of mining communities for their data and relying solely on volunteer labor. Material empowerment and economic opportunities have another benefit: programs and services become more culturally competent, since they are staffed by people who are from and in relationship with the communities they are serving.
Whether it is paid internships, stipends, contract positions, or apprenticeships, community members have underlined that equitable services and program models are ones that directly invest back into the communities and people they are serving.
Partners in Change & Cultivating a Sense of Ownership
As institutions work to empower community members as leaders, a vital element of an equitable service model is one where community members are partners in change. This entails community members shaping their own values, goals, and solutions, with institutions fulfilling the role of enabling and co-producing the community’s vision.
Cultivating a partnership requires institutions to commit to walking alongside families and communities, and to shifting and sharing their institutional power.
Working in partnership means collaborating horizontally (rather than a vertical top-down approach) with communities and figuring out ways to shift decisionmaking power to the community.
Of utmost importance are community members’ autonomy, agency, and selfdetermination. The role of the institution, then, is to support leadership development in the communities it is serving, and to strive to ensure that community members are consistently engaged in shaping the policies and practices that affect them the most.
The Continuum of Engagement illustrates the gradual escalation of community engagement activities: from the lower intensity forms of engagement such as institutions informing and consulting with community members, to the higher intensity activities of collaboration, shared decision-making, and finally community ownership of a program. It is when institutions progress toward community partnership and community ownership that the norm begins to shift from one of community disenfranchisement to one of community agency and self determination.
Accountability
As institutions begin to shift and share power with the community, a key consideration is accountability: how can an organization ensure that it is representative of the community it serves? What does it mean for Early Ed to be accountable to the community? Important questions to begin thinking through accountability processes include:
• What is the goal? Is it co-designed by the community? • What level of decision-making authority will communities have? • Is the organization ready to listen and implement what it has heard? Next Steps
Caregiver Advisory Committees
Taking the above key findings and guiding principles into account, Early Ed in Fall 2021 is moving forward with establishing Caregiver Advisory Committees, which will help directly inform Early Ed programming to make sure it meets the needs and interests of San José's families. Parents & caregivers are the experts on their children, and they will be recruited to serve on the Caregiver Advisory Committees to share their ideas, suggestions, experiences, and expertise to directly shape our Early Education programming. Library staff will focus on trustand relationship-building in the committees and partnering with caregivers to co-create shared goals and program priorities.
There will be multiple committees, including committees centered around the following communities: Black, Latinx, Indigenous/Native, API, Disability Community, Incarcerated/System-Impacted, Foster Youth, Unhoused/Housing Insecure, and LGBTQ+.
Committee Objectives
• Amplify the parent & caregiver voice in SJPL
• Bring together a diverse range of subject matter experts • Extend programs to non-traditional library users
• Ensure principles of equity & inclusion are applied in all Early Ed programs • Eliminate barriers
• Partner with community to create policies, program designs, and curricula The Caregiver Advisory Committees will build on many of the assets and strengths identified in the community assessment: community lived experience, expertise, culture, stories, agency, and self-determination. By hearing directly from caregivers and working with them to shape program priorities and design, Early Ed hopes to partner with them to co-create intentional programming that furthers the community’s aspirations for an environment in which all are enabled to thrive.
Community Assessment Survey Questions (For Community Members) 2021 San José Community Member Survey
The Early Education Services Unit at the San José Public Library is conducting a survey to learn about the current strengths and needs of the San José community. We are requesting your invaluable input and opinions, which will be used to directly shape our future programming and services to best serve you and all our community members. (There are 13 questions in total. Each question will help us better understand the community we serve, but please feel free to skip any question you do not want to answer.)
1. Name
2. Email address (Optional. Will only be used to clarify or follow up on responses)
3. Phone number (Optional. Will only be used to clarify or follow up on responses)
Assets & Strengths
4. Demographics. Which descriptors apply to you? (Please select all that apply.) BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, People of Color)
English Language Learner
Immigrant
Refugee
Disability Community
LGBTQ+
Foster Youth
Incarcerated and/or Impacted by Incarceration
Unhoused and/or Housing Insecure
Other (please specify)
5. Which languages do you speak? (Please select all that apply.) English
Spanish
Vietnamese
Mandarin
Cantonese
Tagalog (including Filipino)
Hindi
Persian (Including Farsi, Dari)
Korean
Japanese
Russian
Arabic
Tamil
Telugu
Ilocano
Samoan
Amharic
Armenian
Malayalam
Kannada
Other (please specify)
6. What are some of your favorite parts of your community? (This could include your family, friends, schools, shops, parks, libraries, community services, cultural events, and more.)
7. What would you say are your community's main cultural assets? (What do you think makes your community strong and unique? Please select all that apply.) People/Individuals
Associations/Groups
Institutions
Culture and Stories
Places
Economy and Commerce
Other: ___________________
8. Please share a few details to explain your answer.
Needs & Aspirations
9. What services are most important to you? (Please indicate the priority levels for each category: I'm not sure; Not Important; Slightly important; Important; Very important; Most Urgent/Essential)
Pandemic related resources (e.g. personal protective equipment, reliable information and news, support navigating healthcare, etc.) Foundational supports (e.g. food, shelter, education, supplies, etc.) Financial support
Healthcare
Social connection
Adult programming
Children's programming (0-5 years)
Children's programming (School age)
Classes (Adult Education)
Classes (Adult Enrichment)
Classes (Children's Enrichment)
Culturally competent workshops
Validation/Emotional support
Therapy/Counseling
Books
Learning materials
Other:__________________
10. Please share a few details to explain your answers.
11. Since the pandemic began, what services and resources have been most useful for you?
12. What barriers do you face in accessing programs and resources? (Please select all that apply.)
Don't know where to find out about programs and resources. Don’t know how to use technology.
Don’t have a computer or device.
Am not available during the program times.
Programs are full and cannot register.
Programs are not in my language.
Programs are not relevant to my needs or interests.
Other (Please specifiy)
11. How do you usually find out about programs and resources that might be useful for you?
Organization Websites
Social media (Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, etc.)
Email outreach (Online newsletters, email reminders, etc.) In-person (Staff tell me about it)
Resource distribution sites
Church bulletin board
School newsletter
Word of mouth (friends, family, etc.)
Other (Please specify)
Community Assessment Survey Questions (For Service Providers) 2021 San José Community Assessment
The Early Education Services Unit at the San José Public Library is conducting a broad environmental scan of the current strengths, assets, and needs of the San José community. We are requesting your invaluable input and community expertise, which will be used to directly shape our future programming and services to best serve our community.
1. Name
2. Organization (If part of SJPL, please enter your Branch or Unit)
3. Email address or Phone number (Will only be used to clarify or follow up on responses)
Assets & Strengths
4. Demographics: Which communities do you serve? (Please select all that apply.)
BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, People of Color)
Unhoused and/or Housing Insecure
Food Insecure
Socio-economically Disadvantaged
English Language Learners
Immigrant
Refugee
Undocumented
Disability Community
LGBTQ+
Foster Youth
Incarcerated and/or System Impacted
Other (please specify)
5. Languages Spoken: What languages do the community members you serve speak? (Please check all that apply.)
English
Spanish
Vietnamese
Mandarin
Cantonese
Tagalog (Incl. Filipino)
Hindi
Persian (Incl. Farsi, Dari)
Korean
Japanese
Russian
Arabic
Tamil
Telugu
Ilocano
Samoan
Amharic
Armenian
Malayalam
Kannada
Other (please specify)
6. What are some of the most successful/strongest connections with the community you currently have? (This could include programming, outreach efforts, resource distributions, virtual events, social media, etc.)
7. What are your programming strengths?
8. What would you say are your community's main assets? (What do you think makes your community strong and unique? Please check all that apply.) People/Individuals
Associations/Groups
Institutions
Culture and Stories
Places
Economy and Commerce
Other: ___________________
9. Please share a few details to explain your answer/s.
10. Regarding the services you provide, what new assets, strengths, or skills have you/your organization developed since the pandemic – especially ones that you will carry beyond the pandemic?
Needs & Aspirations
11. What needs have you identified in your community? (These could be programmatic needs, material needs, gaps in service, etc.) Please indicate the priority levels for each category: I’m not sure; Not Important; Slightly Important; Important; Very Important; Most Urgent/Essential
o Pandemic related resources (e.g. personal protective equipment, reliable information and news, support navigating healthcare, etc.) o Concrete supports (e.g. food, shelter, education, supplies, etc.) o Financial support
o Healthcare
o Social connection
o Adult programming
o Children's programming (0-5 years)
o Children's programming (School age)
o Classes (Adult Education)
o Classes (Adult Enrichment)
o Classes (Children's Enrichment)
o Culturally competent workshops
o Peer Support/Validation/Emotional support
o Therapy/Counseling
o Books
o Learning materials
o Other (please specify):__________________
12. Please share a few details to explain your answers.
13. What barriers do your community members face in accessing your programs and resources?
14. What specific outcomes do you want to see in your community in 2021? Opportunities for Partnership
15. What could you use support with this year?
16. What assets are you interested in seeing SJPL bringing into a partnership?
17. Do you have any ideas for potential partnerships between SJPL and your organization?
What methods have been most effective for you in reaching your community members?
Online outreach (Websites, social media, etc.)
Email outreach (Correspondence, e-newsletters, etc.)
In-person outreach
Resource distributions
Other (please specify)
19. What resources would you want SJPL Early Education Services to help share, spotlight, or cross-promote for you?
Contacts, Respondents, and Sources
Desiree Victor (Young Women’s Freedom Center, Site Director) Dawn Edwards (Lotus Bloom, Director of Programs)
Dontae Lartigue (Razing the Bar, CEO & Co-Founder)
Thảo Lê (ViệtUnity)
Christine Pham (Vietnamese American Roundtable)
Huy Tran (Vietnamese American Roundtable)
Odette Avalos (Catholic Charities Sherman Oaks FRC)
Rose Jaquez (Catholic Charities of Santa Clara County)
Jessica Trejo (SOMOS Mayfair)
Margarita Arroyo (SOMOS Mayfair)
Katherine Wang (Asian Americans for Community Involvement) Jaqueline Ortiz (Community Member)
Lilia Sevilla (Community Member)
Ana Ibarra (Community Member)
Dinora Nieves (Community Member)
Haben Girma (Disability Justice Advocate)
CREI 2021 (Cultivating Racial Equity and Inclusion)/GARE (Government Alliance on Race and Equity)
Re-Imagining Community Safety, San José Advisory Group
FIRST 5 of Santa Clara County
Santa Clara County Office of Reentry Services
Family Engagement Institute, Foothill College
2021 Santa Clara County Children’s Data Book
Jessica Lundin (SJPL Librarian, Alum Rock Branch)
Joan Weagle (SJPL Librarian, Joyce Ellington Branch)
Michelle Clark (SJPL Librarian, Rose Garden Branch)
Rebekah Gonzalez (SJPL Librarian, INSIDERS)
Elizabeth Barragan (SJPL FLC Coordinator, Seven Trees Branch) Cassidy Pham (SJPL Librarian, Tully Community Branch)
Rosalinda Savercool (SJPL Librarian, Educational Park Branch) Mark Giannuzzi (SJPL Librarian, Alviso & Educational Park Branches) Shirley Tanase (SJPL Librarian, Alviso Branch)
Jo-Ann Wang (SJPL Librarian, Almaden Branch)
Jeana Clampitt (SJPL Librarian, Evergreen Branch)
Michele Rowic (SJPL Librarian, Santa Teresa Branch)
Robert Donahue (SJPL Librarian, Santa Teresa Branch)
Shih Fa Kao (SJPL Librarian, Berryessa Branch)
Ila Langner (SJPL Librarian, Disability Access Committee) Lucia Farnham-Hudson (SJPL Librarian, Pearl Avenue Branch) Charmaine Caward (SJPL Librarian, Cambrian Branch)
Dana Lema (SJPL Librarian, Tech Services)
Jessica Chung (SJPL Librarian, West Valley Branch)
Randall Studstill (SJPL Librarian, West Valley Branch)
Amanda Otte (SJPL Literacy Program Specialist, Digital Equity & Expanded Learning)
Disability Access Committee (SJPL)
Date of observation: May and June 2022
Organization name: San Jose Public Library
Site/program name: Virtual Homework Club
Name(s) of program offering(s) observed: Virtual Homework Club
ATTACHMENT F
Homework Club Program Quality Assessment FY 2021-22
Published by
David P. Weikart Center for Youth Program Quality
A unit of the Forum for Youth Investment
7064 Eastern Ave NW
Washington, DC 20012
202.207.3333
www.forumfyi.org
Updated October 2020
Copyright © 2012 the Forum for Youth Investment.
Except as permitted under the Copyright Act of 1876,
no part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage-and-retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publisher.
ISBN 1-57378-256-X
Printed in the United States of America
fOrum
FOR YOUTH INVESTMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FRONT MATTER
Introduction i
Conducting a Program Self-Assessment iii
Conducting an External Assessment v
Program Information 1
I. SAFE ENVIRONMENT
Emotional Safety 2
Healthy Environment 3
Emergency Preparedness4
Accommodating Environment 5
Nourishment 6
II. SUPPORTIVE ENVIRONMENT
Warm Welcome 7
Session Flow 8
Active Engagement 9
Skill-Building 10
Encouragement 11
Child-Centered Space 12
Ill. INTERACTION
Managing Feelings 14
Belonging 15
School-Age Leadership 16
Interaction with Adults17
IV. ENGAGEMENT
School-Age Planning 18
School-AgeChoice 19
Reflection 20
Responsibility 21
School-Age PQA Observation Guide 22
© 2020 The Forum for Youth Investment▪ All Rights Reserved | i
INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE
The School-Age Program Quality Assessment (School-Age PQA) is based on the validated Youth PQA & is designed to evaluate the quality of children's programs & identify staff training needs. It consists of a set of score-able standards for best practices in afterschool programs, community organizations, schools, summer programs & other places where children have fun, work & learn with adults. The School-Age PQA is designed to empower people & organizations to envision optimal-quality programming for children by providing a shared language for practice & decision-making & producing scores that can be used for comparison & assessment of progress over time.
The School-Age PQA measures the quality of children's experiences & promotes the creation of environments that tap the most important resource available to any child-serving organization: a young person's motivation to engage critically with the world.
BENEFITS
The School-Age PQA offers several important attributes:
• Experience-tested approach- The standards for best practices that make up the School-Age PQA are grounded in extensive experience working with young people. Together, the scales in the instrument represent a child development approach that works.
• Research-based rubrics - The School-Age PQA contains proven measurement rubrics that allow observers to differentiate programs in important and meaningful ways.
• Opportunities to observe practice- Staff using the School-Age PQA must spend time watching what happens in their program. • Flexibility- The School-Age PQA is designed to meet a range of accountability and improvement needs, from self assessment to research and evaluation.
TERMINOLOGY
THE 2012 REVISION
The School-Age PQA is an assessment tool for best practices for any childserving program. Each scale was given a short label or name to focus attention on the intent & purpose of the scale. This edition also contains some minor changes to make the items easier to interpret & score. When an item was substantively rewritten to clarify scoring, the original intent of the item was preserved wherever possible. We added three items to Skill-Building to better assess this important scale. Minor changes were made to increase consistency in wording across the School-Age PQA & the Youth PQA. Items in the SchoolAge PQA but not the Youth PQA are identified by (SA) after the item number.
THE 2020 REVISION
In March 2020, many programs transitioned to virtual learning environments.
To support virtual assessment, an additional scoring option, Not Scored (NS), was created, allowing assessors to decide before the assessment not to score specific items because they are not applicable to the purpose or modality of the program. Similar to an "X", it was decided that a score of "NS" will also be excluded from the scale and domain averages so as not to negatively impact the scores. This change then updated the scoring calculations. If less than 50% of items in a scale are given a 1, 3 or 5 score, no scale score will be computed. If less than 50% of the scale in a domain have scores, no domain score will be computed. If less than 50% of the domains in the tool have scores, no Total Score will be computed.
• Form refers to the entire group of scales used for assessment. For example: Form A- Program Offerings and Form B - Organization Practices & Policies.
• Domain refers to the group of scales falling under one of the sections I-VII. For example, in Form A - Program Offerings, a domain is "I.Safe Environment," which contains scales that pertain to that domain.
Domain score is the average of scale scores for each domain I-VII. For example, the domain "I. Safe Environment" contains five scale scores to be averaged for a domain score.
• Scale score refers to the average of the scores (one per item) that make up a scale. For example, the Healthy Environment scale, has four items that can be scored as 1, 3 or 5 and then averaged for a scale score. • Item or item row refers to a single row on the School-Age PQA for which there are descriptors for scores 1, 3 and 5. Level 5 is best practice.
© 2020 The Forum for Youth Investment▪ All Rights Reserved | ii
DEFINITIONS
• Organization refers to the agency that operates services for young people. An organization may be a community-based nonprofit agency, church or temple, private center, neighborhood association or school. • Site refers to the physical location of the activities being observed. For example, Middleton School or Bay Area Country Club.
• Program offerings refer to structured activities led by regular staff with the same children over time. This includes the range of scheduled services available to children at an organization (classes, workshops, meetings, special events, homework help, discussion groups, etc.) • Session refers to one scheduled period of a program offering, e.g., a session might be when the photography club meets from 3 to 5 p.m. on Wednesday.
• Staff refers to the person or persons facilitating a session. Staff may include paid workers, volunteers or peer leaders.
• Activities are the planned interactions led by staff within a program offering. For example, the activities in an art club might include making a collage, learning different painting techniques and making sculptures with found objects.
• Program hours are the normal hours that the full range of program offerings are in session.
INTRODUCTION TO ITEMS S- SCORING
The School-Age PQA items measure quality in different ways. Some items measure aspects of the environment or the way the session is structured. The bulk of these are in domain "I. Safe Environment." Some items measure if staff exhibit specific behaviors or best practice methods, or how frequently staff carries out the practice. Some items distinguish between child-initiated behaviors that occur informally/spontaneously & those that have been set up intentionally by staff. Others measure how many children have certain opportunities. It is important to note that items generally capture either staff practices or child behaviors/opportunities, but not both. Both are indicators of a quality program, although the School-Age PQA & continuous improvement approach focus on staff behaviors as that is where staff can directly make changes or improvements.
Scores at all levels are based on a five-point measurement scale ranging from 1- 5, where 1 generally represents the absence of a practice or the presence of a poor practice, 3 represents the informal presence of the practice or availability of the practice to only some youth, and 5 represents intentional delivery of the highest quality practices.
A site, network or organization may decide in advance not to score specific practices because they are not relevant to the program offering (e.g. fire extinguisher in a virtual program). Before the assessment, have a conversation to determine if any items or scales are not to be scored because they are not applicable to the purpose or modality of the program.
To complete the assessment, any items which were pre-determined to be omitted are marked NS. A rater may decide certain items should be scored with an "X" as instructed in the instrument. A mark of an "X" indicates that a specific practice was not able to be scored during the program offering (e.g., Managing Feelings if no conflict or incident involving strong feelings was observed).
In observing and scoring, it is helpful to keep the following in mind:
• Think about the intent of the item when scoring. Consult the handbook as needed.
• Follow through and pay attention to an entire sequence of events (e.g., child behavior, staff response, child response). • If the item assesses children's opportunity for something, score based on whether the opportunity was present or explicitly offered, even if some children do not take advantage of the opportunity. • Score based on what you see that day, even if there were extenuating circumstances present that affected scores.
• If there are two or more staff members, score on whether any one of the staff members carry out a certain practice. Otherwise, focus on the primary staff member.
• Structured refers to the quality of being intentional, planned, prompted, initiated and/or named by the staff; it does not refer to children's informal conversation or actions.
© 2020 The Forum for Youth Investment▪ All Rights Reserved | iii CONDUCTING A PROGRAM SELFASSESSMENT
Team-based program self assessment using the School-Age PQA is a highly effective, low stakes strategy for building a quality-focused culture. Program self assessment can help managers and staff co-create meaningful improvement objectives for the quality of their programming and ultimately the outcomes for their young participants.
Throughout the process, keep in mind these three aspects of a constructive program self assessment process:
• Work as a team.
• Base scores on observational evidence.
• Focus on conversations about quality.
1. SELECT AN□TRAIN A SELF-ASSESSMENT TEAM
The program self assessment team should consist of the site leader and at least two program staff, volunteers or parents. The site leader attends PQA Basics training. Team members can prepare to be a part of the program selfassessment process by completing the PQA Basics training online. The site lead should also conduct a meeting or mini training for team members using the materials shared at PQA Basics. Use this time to have a conversation with your team to decide if any items or scales are not to be scored because they are not applicable to the purpose or modality of the program.
2. PREPARE FOR DATA COLLECTION
Team members collect data by taking turns observing their programs in action. Sometimes, schedules need to be rearranged, or a program manager needs to arrange coverage in order to provide the opportunity for staff to observe each other. Plan time as soon as possible following the observations for discussion and scoring. This time should also be used to The site teams should observe program offerings: structured activities that are led by regular staff with the same children over time. Enrichment classes or afterschool clubs that get together at the same time each week for the entire school semester are a great example. Avoid homework help, open gym, unstructured computer lab time, drop-in, etc. Always notify program staff of scheduled observations ahead of time. This is not a test! If timing and staff schedules do not allow for full observations, then try to observe at least one hour of programming, divided among self assessment team members (e.g., three people each observe for 20 minutes, four people each observe for 15 minutes). Vary observation times so that your observations include the beginning, middle and end of different sessions.
3. OBSERVE AN□TAKE NOTES
When conducting an observation, find a place to sit that allows you to see and hear as much as possible without getting in the way. Take notes by hand or using a laptop. Bring a copy of the back page of the School-Age PQA. You can bring the full School-Age PQA to your observation, but do not write notes onto the form or try to score the form while observing.
Take notes throughout the offering on factual information; include quotes, actions, etc. As a general rule, expect to take 3-4 or more handwritten pages (1-2 typed) of notes per 30 minutes of observation.
Your notes should be:
• Factual and objective (rather than judgmental, evaluative or impressionistic)
• Specific and detailed (rather than general)
• Accessible (language should make sense six months from now) • Chronological (include time markers)
Your notes should include:
• Anecdotal descriptions of interactions
• Quotes of what children and/or staff say when interacting • Actions and language of the children involved
• Materials lists
• Sequences of daily events and routines
At the end of the session, ask the session leader(s) any follow-up questions, as listed on the back of the PQA. After the observation, you will not score the PQA, but save your notes to use during the scoring meeting. © 2020 The Forum for Youth Investment▪ All Rights Reserved | iv © 2020 The Forum for Youth Investment▪ All Rights Reserved | v
CONDUCTING AN EXTERNAL
ASSESSMENT
For an external assessment, a trained, reliable external assessor visits a site to observe a single program offering and score a PQA based on the observation.
1. ATTEND AN EXTERNAL ASSESSOR RELIABILITY TRAINING
External assessors attend an External Assessment Reliability Training to practice skills and complete a reliability check. All assessors must pass the reliability check to be endorsed as external assessors prior to conducting any site visits.
2. PREPARE FOR DATA COLLECTION
The network leader will often coordinate schedules and assign assessors to sites. External assessors should confirm the date and time of observation with the site leader and ask him or her to inform the relevant staff that they will be visiting to conduct an observation. This time should also be used to confirm if any items or scales are not to be scored because they are not applicable to the purpose or modality of the program.
3. OBSERVE AN□TAKE NOTES
When travelling to the assigned children's program, assessors should arrive at least 15 minutes before the scheduled observation time. Assessors will view program offerings in their entirety (usually 45-90 minutes long).
Assessors take objective observational notes which describe only observable behaviors, language and materials. They focus on the behaviors of the staff and children with whom the staff is interacting and record as many quotations as possible.
Notes should be:
• Factual and objective (rather than judgmental, evaluative or impressionistic)
• Specific and detailed (rather than general)
• Accessible (language should make sense six months from now) • Chronological (include time markers)
Notes should include:
• Anecdotal descriptions of interactions
• Quotes of what children and/or staff say when interacting • Actions and language of the children involved
• Materials lists
• Sequences of daily events and routines
At the end of the session, the assessor asks the session leader(s) any follow-up questions, as listed on the back of the PQA. The assessor should also ask the staff who led the session the questions on the Staff Information page.
4. SCORING THE POA
After the visit, assessors fit and score using their notes, making sure to fill out all evidence boxes and program description information.
The assessor uses the answers to the follow-up questions as evidence to score the items as applicable. Some evidence can be cross-referenced against multiple items. In fact, items with a score of 5 may provide a full listing of relevant evidence.
5. ENTER SCORES
The School-Age PQA produces scores at the item, scale and domain levels. All scores beyond the item level are created using mathematical means, or averages. Scales are averages of items, and domains are averages of scales.
Please note that items scored as "X" or "NS" are excluded from the scale and domain averages, so as not to negatively impact the scores. When more than half of the items within a scale are unscored, there is not enough available data to calculate a valid scale score. Similarly, when more than half of the scales within a domain are unable to be scored, there is not enough available data to calculate a valid domain score. Under these circumstances, scale and domain scores should not be calculated.
After scoring the items in the School-Age PQA, the assessor can enter the scores into the online Scores Reporter. The online Scores Reporter can be accessed through the Weikart Center website at www.cypq.org. The staff at the Weikart Center is available to offer technical assistance as needed. © 2020 The Forum for Youth Investment▪ All Rights Reserved | 1 In-person observation ✔ Live virtual observation Observed a recorded session Volunteers are available to help Kindergarten – 8th-grade students with their homework after school. 1:1 10 10
✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Mentoring Literacy STEM Other academic enrichment
(e.g., homework help, tutoring, college prep)
Career readiness Youth leadership Community service/ Visual & performing arts (e.g., entrepreneurship) civic engagement (e.g., drama, painting, music) Sports, fitness & physical health (e.g., basketball, dance, cooking) Other:
San Jose Public Library Virtual
06/05/2022
If multiple observations were conducted, provide the date of the last one conducted. © 2020 The Forum for Youth Investment▪ All Rights Reserved 2 Use of this instrument issubject to terms described in enclosed End User License Agreement I. SAFE ENVIRONMENT: EMOTIONAL SAFETY | HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT | EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS | ACCOMMODATING ENVIRONMENT | NOURISHMENT
1. 5
2. 5
© 2020 The Forum for Youth Investment▪ All Rights Reserved 3 Use of this instrument issubject to terms described in enclosed End User License Agreement I. SAFE ENVIRONMENT: EMOTIONAL SAFETY | HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT | EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS | ACCOMMODATING ENVIRONMENT | NOURISHMENT X
X
X
X
© 2020 The Forum for Youth Investment▪ All Rights Reserved 4 Use of this instrument issubject to terms described in enclosed End User License Agreement I. SAFE ENVIRONMENT: EMOTIONAL SAFETY | HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT | EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS | ACCOMMODATING ENVIRONMENT | NOURISHMENT
1. X
2. X
3. X
4. X
5. X
6. 1 Access to outdoor program
space is unsupervised during
program hours.
3 Access to outdoor program
space is sometimes supervised
during program hours.
5 Access to outdoor program
space is supervised during
program hours.
X Is access to the outdoor program space
supervised? If there is no outdoor program space,
do not rate.
© 2020 The Forum for Youth Investment▪ All Rights Reserved 5 Use of this instrument issubject to terms described in enclosed End User License Agreement I. SAFE ENVIRONMENT: EMOTIONAL SAFETY | HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT | EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS | ACCOMMODATING ENVIRONMENT | NOURISHMENT
1. X
2. X
3. X
4. X
5. (SA) X
© 2020 The Forum for Youth Investment▪ All Rights Reserved 6 Use of this instrument issubject to terms described in enclosed End User License Agreement I. SAFE ENVIRONMENT: EMOTIONAL SAFETY | HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT | EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS | ACCOMMODATING ENVIRONMENT | NOURISHMENT
1. X
2. X
3. X
© 2020 The Forum for Youth Investment▪ All Rights Reserved 7 Use of this instrument issubject to terms described in enclosed End User License Agreement II. SUPPORTIVE ENVIRONMENT: WARM WELCOME | SESSION FLOW | ACTIVE ENGAGEMENT | SKILL-BUILDING | ENCOURAGEMENT | CHILD-CENTERED SPACE
1. 5 SJPL staff observed high
engagement and provided
observations of a warm
welcome in Homework Club sessions
with the coaches.
2. 5
3. 5
© 2020 The Forum for Youth Investment▪ All Rights Reserved 8 Use of this instrument issubject to terms described in enclosed End User License Agreement II. SUPPORTIVE ENVIRONMENT: WARM WELCOME | SESSION FLOW | ACTIVE ENGAGEMENT | SKILL-BUILDING | ENCOURAGEMENT | CHILD-CENTERED SPACE
1. 5 4PM
4PM
6PM
6PM
2. 5
3. 5
While this is a virtual program,
materials were made avalible.
4. 5
5. 5
© 2020 The Forum for Youth Investment▪ All Rights Reserved 9 Use of this instrument issubject to terms described in enclosed End User License Agreement II. SUPPORTIVE ENVIRONMENT: WARM WELCOME | SESSION FLOW | ACTIVE ENGAGEMENT | SKILL-BUILDING | ENCOURAGEMENT | CHILD-CENTERED SPACE
1. 4
2. 4
3. (SA) 5
© 2020 The Forum for Youth Investment▪ All Rights Reserved 10 Use of this instrument issubject to terms described in enclosed End User License Agreement II. SUPPORTIVE ENVIRONMENT: WARM WELCOME | SESSION FLOW | ACTIVE ENGAGEMENT | SKILL-BUILDING | ENCOURAGEMENT | CHILD-CENTERED SPACE
1. 5
2. 5
3. 5
4. 5
5. 5
© 2020 The Forum for Youth Investment▪ All Rights Reserved 11 Use of this instrument issubject to terms described in enclosed End User License Agreement II. SUPPORTIVE ENVIRONMENT: WARM WELCOME | SESSION FLOW | ACTIVE ENGAGEMENT | SKILL-BUILDING | ENCOURAGEMENT | CHILD-CENTERED SPACE
1. 5
2. 5
© 2020 The Forum for Youth Investment▪ All Rights Reserved 12 Use of this instrument issubject to terms described in enclosed End User License Agreement II. SUPPORTIVE ENVIRONMENT: WARM WELCOME | SESSION FLOW | ACTIVE ENGAGEMENT | SKILL-BUILDING | ENCOURAGEMENT | CHILD-CENTERED SPACE
1. (SA) X
2. (SA) X
3. (SA) X
4. (SA) X
© 2020 The Forum for Youth Investment▪ All Rights Reserved 13 Use of this instrument issubject to terms described in enclosed End User License Agreement II. SUPPORTIVE ENVIRONMENT: WARM WELCOME | SESSION FLOW | ACTIVE ENGAGEMENT | SKILL-BUILDING | ENCOURAGEMENT | CHILD-CENTERED SPACE
5. (SA) X
6. (SA) X
7. (SA) X
© 2020 The Forum for Youth Investment▪ All Rights Reserved 14 Use of this instrument issubject to terms described in enclosed End User License Agreement III. INTERACTION: MANAGING FEELINGS | BELONGING | SCHOOL-AGE LEADERSHIP | INTERACTION WITH ADULTS X
X
X
X
© 2020 The Forum for Youth Investment▪ All Rights Reserved 15 Use of this instrument issubject to terms described in enclosed End User License Agreement III. INTERACTION: MANAGING FEELINGS | BELONGING | SCHOOL-AGE LEADERSHIP | INTERACTION WITH ADULTS
1. 4 all of these in Belonging are harder to
accomplish in virtual settings. In an
in-person homework club these will be
easier to address and support.
2. 4
3. 4
4. (SA) X
© 2020 The Forum for Youth Investment▪ All Rights Reserved 16 Use of this instrument issubject to terms described in enclosed End User License Agreement III. INTERACTION: MANAGING FEELINGS | BELONGING | SCHOOL-AGE LEADERSHIP | INTERACTION WITH ADULTS
1. (SA) X The virtual program is 1:1 support
rather than a mix of group work and
coaching support.
2. (SA) X
3. (SA) X
© 2020 The Forum for Youth Investment▪ All Rights Reserved 17 Use of this instrument issubject to terms described in enclosed End User License Agreement III. INTERACTION: MANAGING FEELINGS | BELONGING | SCHOOL-AGE LEADERSHIP | INTERACTION WITH ADULTS
1. (SA) X
2. (SA) 4 students are in breakout rooms, in
person for the 2022-2023 academic
year, this will be easier to accomplish.
3. (SA) 5 there is a point person that wanders
to each breakout room on a
consistent schedule.
4. (SA) 5
© 2020 The Forum for Youth Investment▪ All Rights Reserved 18 Use of this instrument issubject to terms described in enclosed End User License Agreement IV. ENGAGEMENT: SCHOOL-AGE PLANNING | SCHOOL-AGE CHOICE | REFLECTION | RESPONSIBILITY
1. (SA) 4 staff is prepared to support children
with e-resources and library materials.
2. (SA) 3 When conducted in person this will be
easier to accomplish. Currently in a
virtual setting, staff use strategies that
are available.
3. (SA) 4 staff encourage students to share their
homework and plans and then support
students in understanding concepts.
© 2020 The Forum for Youth Investment▪ All Rights Reserved 19 Use of this instrument issubject to terms described in enclosed End User License Agreement IV. ENGAGEMENT: SCHOOL-AGE PLANNING | SCHOOL-AGE CHOICE | REFLECTION | RESPONSIBILITY
1. (SA) X Activities offered in a virtual setting are
unique in offering and while they play
games, provide choice, this is not 100%
applicable.
2. (SA) X
© 2020 The Forum for Youth Investment▪ All Rights Reserved 20 Use of this instrument issubject to terms described in enclosed End User License Agreement IV. ENGAGEMENT: SCHOOL-AGE PLANNING | SCHOOL-AGE CHOICE | REFLECTION | RESPONSIBILITY
1. 5
2. 4
3. 4
© 2020 The Forum for Youth Investment▪ All Rights Reserved 21 Use of this instrument issubject to terms described in enclosed End User License Agreement IV. ENGAGEMENT: SCHOOL-AGE PLANNING | SCHOOL-AGE CHOICE | REFLECTION | RESPONSIBILITY
1. (SA) X
2. (SA) X
© 2020 The Forum for Youth Investment▪ All Rights Reserved 22 Use of this instrument issubject to terms described in enclosed End User License Agreement Follow-Up Questions
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
© 2020 The Forum for Youth Investment▪ All Rights Reserved 23 Use of this instrument issubject to terms described in enclosed End User License Agreement EN□USER LICENSE AGREEMENT: Program Q uality Assessment
THIS IS AN AGREEMENT GOVERNING YOUR USE OF THE FORUM FOR YOUTH INVESTMENT'S PROGRAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT (HEREAFTER, THE "PQA"). THE FORUM FOR YOUTH INVESTMENT ("LICENSOR" OR "US") AS OWNER OF THE PQA IS WILLING TO
PROVIDE YOU (AT TIMES REFERRED TO HEREIN AS LICENSEE) WITH THE PQA IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS CONTAINED IN THIS AGREEMENT.
IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO ACCEPT THIS AGREEMENT, DO NOT DOWNLOAD OR USE THE PQA. USE OF THE PQA IS YOUR CONSENT TO BE BOUND BY AND YOUR ACCEPTANCE OF ALL THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OFTHIS AGREEMENT.
PLEASE CAREFULLY READ THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OFTHIS AGREEMENT, AS THIS AGREEMENT IS ENFORCEABLE LIKE ANY WRITTEN NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT SIGNED BY YOU. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO ALL OF THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT, DO NOT DOWNLOAD OR USE THE PQA.
1. DEFINITIONS.
A. Client. An entity, organization, or person which uses the PQA.
B. Confidential Information. Confidential information as used herein means all standards, techniques, forms, rubrics, procedures, information andinstructions pertaining to the PQA and other matters subject to this Agreement which are disclosed by us to you.
C. Copyright. All of the written, audio and visual materials provided with the PQA are the copyright material of, and are owned by US, including without limitation, the materials provided herein. You agree not to copy any of such materials in any way without the prior written permission of the Licensor.
D. PQA. A family of observational assessment tools designed to assess the instructional quality of programs and to identify staff training needs.
a. Youth PQA. A validated observational assessment for programs that serve youth in grades 4 - 12. b. School-Age PQA. A PQA designed for programs that serve children in grades K - 6. c. Health & Wellness PQA. A PQA designed for health and wellness-related programming. d. STEM PQA. A PQA designed Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM)-related programs. e. ARTS PQA. A PQA designed for Arts enrichment-related programs.
E. PQA Materials. Any and all materials provided as part of the PQA including all education and instruction books, charts, disks, forms, activity props, workbooks, and related materials.
2. LICENSEE RIGHTS.
A. This license confers upon Licensee the right to use the PQAs at a single location for the benefit of your organization. Under no circumstances does Licensee have the right to contract with additional organizations for their use of the PQA or to license, sell, or authorize any third-party use of the PQA without the express permission of Licensor.
B. You may NOT sell the PQA.
C. You may NOT make any derivative works or materials using any part of the PQA Materials D. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement and the continuing performance by You of Your obligations hereunder, you shall have, during the term hereto, the right to use the PQAs.
E. You are only allowed to use the PQA as described herein. No other entity, organization or individual mayutilize your copy of the PQA without the express written consent of Licensor. You are permitted to print or copy the PQA for use within your organization provided the End User License Agreement is provided with such copy.
3. FEES.
A. A single instance or download of the PQA for the right to use the PQA is free. Licensor reserves the right to charge a fee in the future.
B. Licensor shall have no other obligation for any defective material.
4. RESPONSIBILITIES.
A. You shall:
a. Use the PQA and any PQA Materials for your organization's sole benefit. You shall assume all responsibility and risk for ensuring the effectiveness of the PQA. b. Not make, provide copies of, or grant access to the use of any PQA or PQA Materials outside of your organization.
c. Not do any act which alters or impairs the copyrights or trademarks of the PQA or PQA Materials which are not specifically authorized by this Agreement. d. Use your best efforts to work with thePQA using proper techniques.
B. Licensor may, but is not required to, make available a downloadable version of the PQA and any PQA Materials.
C. Licensor may, but is not required to, provide additional guidance and tools.
5. PROPRIETARY RIGHTS AND NON-DISCLOSURE.
You agree that the PQA and PQA Materials and the authorship, systems, ideas, methods of operation, documentation and other information contained in the PQA,are proprietary intellectual properties and/or the valuable trade secrets of the Licensor and are protected by civil and criminal law, and by the law of copyright, trade secret, trademark and patent of the United States, other countries and international treaties. The Licensor retains all right, title andinterest in and to the PQA and PQA Materials, including all copyrights, patents, trade secret rights, trademarks and other intellectual property rights therein.
Your possession, installation or use of the PQA and PQA Materials does not transfer to You any title to theintellectual property in the PQA and PQA Materials, and You will not acquire any rights to the PQA and PQA Materials except as expressly set forth in this Agreement. Except as stated herein, this Agreement does not grant You any intellectual property rights in the PQA and PQA Materials. You agree not to modify or alter the PQA and PQA Materials in any way. You may not remove or alter any copyright notices or other proprietary notices on any copies of the PQA and PQA Materials.
6. TERM AND TERMINATION.
A. This Agreement and your use of the PQA are effective as of the date of download and shall continue for a period of one (1) year. Your continued use of the PQA shall automatically renew the term for a period of one (1) year from your last use.
B. In the event that either Party breaches this Agreement, the other Party shall, in addition to any other remedy it may have, have the right to terminate this Agreement, upon ten (10) days written notice.
7. AGREEMENT NOTTO COMPETE.
A. During the term of this Agreement, neither You nor Your organization, employees, partners, officers, or directors shall directly orindirectly enterinto or in any manner participate in any business profession, proprietorship or any other endeavor which sells, markets or distributes any PQA or PQA Materials, or any techniques or programs which are the same as or similar to any PQA or PQA Materials. You further agree not to use, at any time, Licensor's trade secret or other Confidential Information.
B. The covenants contained in this Agreement shall survive the termination or expiration of this Agreement and shall apply regardless of whether this Agreement was terminated by lapse of time, by default, or for any other reason.
8. LIMITATIONS.
A. LICENSOR MAKES NO WARRANTIES RELATING TO THE PRODUCTS EXPRESS, OR IMPLIED, AND EXPRESSLY EXCLUDES ANY WARRANTY OF FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR MERCHANTABILITY.NO PERSON IS
AUTHORIZED TO MAKE ANY OTHER WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION CONCERNING THE PQAS OTHER THAN AS PROVIDED IN THIS PARAGRAPH.
B. In no event shall Licensor's aggregate liability from or relating to this Agreement or the PQA and PQA Materials (regardless of the form of action, whether contract, warranty, tort, malpractice, fraud and/or otherwise) exceed the amount actually paid by You to Us. In no event shall Licensor be liable to You or any third party for any consequential special, indirect, incidental or punitive damages.
9. INDEMNIFICATION.
You agree to indemnify and hold Licensor harmless from anyclaim, damage or cause of action (inclusive of negligence, misrepresentation, error or omission) or other breaches of this Agreement by You.
10. SUBCONTRACTING AND ASSIGNMENT.
This Agreement shall be binding and inure to the benefit of the Parties hereto. Your rights are personal in nature and You shall not assign any of Your rights nor delegate any of Your obligations under this Agreement to any third Party without Licensor's express written consent.
11. YOUR REPRESENTATIONS.
You have done your own investigation,due diligence and evaluations regarding the PQA and have made your own independent determination of its value. No promises or representations have been made by Licensor or any of Licensor's representatives or agents other than herein set forth. No modifications of the term hereof shall be valid unless made in writing and executed by both You and Licensor.
12. MISCELLANEOUS.
A. Independent Contractors. The Parties are independent contractors, and nothing contained in this Agreement shall be constructed to create relationship of partners, joint ventures, employer-employee or franchisefranchisee. You acknowledge that You do not have, and shall not make any representations to any third party, either directly or indirectly, that You have any authority to act in the name of or on behalf of Us or to obligate Us in any way whatsoever except as expressly provided herein. You agree not to represent that You are an agent or representative of Ours and You further agree not to use the word "agent," or any other designation, which might imply that Licensor is responsible for Your acts.
B. Governing Law and Jurisdiction. The rights of the Parties and provisions of this Agreement shall be interpreted and governed in accordance with the laws of the District of Columbia and you agree that proper jurisdiction and venue shall be in the general courts of the District of Columbia.
C. Waiver. The failure of either Party to enforce, at any time or for any period of time, anyprovision of this Agreement shall not be a waiver of such provision or of the right of such Party thereafter to enforce such provision.
D. Amendment. This Agreement may be amended only by written instrument signed by representatives of both Parties.
E. Headings. The paragraph headings appearing in the Agreement are inserted only as a matter of convenience and reference and in no way define, limit, construct or describe the scope or extent of such paragraph or in any way affect such a paragraph.
F. Cumulative Rights. The rights are cumulative and no exercise or enforcement by either Party of any right or remedy hereunder shall prelude the exercise or enforcement by the other of any other right or remedy hereunder which either Party is entitled by law or equity to enforce. Nothing herein contained shall be interpreted as to bar or waive the right to obtain any remedy available at law or in equity.
YOU REPRESENT, COVENANT, AND AGREE THAT LICENSOR HAS MADE NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES CONCERNING
YOUR SUCCESS AND LICNSOR DISCLAIMS ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION AS TO THE SUCCESS OF THE PQA UNDERTHIS AGREEMENT.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, and by downloading and using the PQA and PQA Materials, you agree to abide by all statements made herein.
Attachment G
Digital Literacy Program Quality Standards 2021-22
About the Self-Assessment Tool:
The Digital Literacy Program Quality Standards and Framework are designed to serve as a guide and a continuous quality improvement tool by defining standards and identifying strategies to improve the quality of digital literacy programs. This document is intended for programs that are City-sponsored, specifically programs that promote digital skills for students and community members. By focusing on the "3 A's"- Access, Affordability, and Adoption- the City of San José will ensure that all residents can develop skills using digital tools for all stages of learning and have easy access to appropriate devices and broadband service.
This Self-Assessment Tool will support program and service leaders as well as educators to reflect on and better understand their current practices and identify opportunities for improving quality outcomes for participants. A commitment to continuous improvement is inherent the City of San José’s initiative through SJ Access by providing residents and students access to all things digital: internet, free Wi-Fi, as well as digital literacy programs and opportunities.
This tool has been developed to guide and support the service team in the self-assessment of the Digital Literacy Quality Standards.
If a standard is not applicable to your program, please mark "not met" and explain in the Narrative area why/how this standard/focus area does not apply to your programming.
Programs may potentially be audited to ensure accurate completion of this Digital Literacy Assessment Tool. Please provide supplemental documents to support how the program is currently meeting a standard and/or focus area as appropriate.
Digital Literacy Quality Standards Assessment Tool
1 In addition to these Quality Standards, users may find the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) Standards and the City of San José City-Wide Privacy Principle and Privacy Policy helpful in planning programs and utilizing the Quality Standards.
This tool is designed to help create a "baseline" of data and use that information to help programs improve and adapt to the everchanging digital world. The Digital Literacy Quality Standards Improvement Plan is available to use as a tool to adjust and set goals to score higher on the standards.
Digital Literacy Quality Standards Assessment Tool
2 Self-Assessment Cover Sheet:
Date: March 22, 2022
Program Name:
Department:
Site Address:
Contact Person:
Phone: N/A Email:
Brief Program Description:
Digital Literacy Virtual Class facilitated in English, Spanish, and Vietnamese Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr Library
150 E San Fernando St, San José Ca 95112
Samantha Cramer and Yadirha Orozco
[email protected]
[email protected]
Digital Literacy Quality Standards Assessment Tool
3 The Digital Literacy Virtual Workshop is a series of Computer classes presented in English, Spanish, and Vietnamese for beginners. It is a class that helps participants gain confidence and build technical skills utilizing the CETF curriculum. Facilitators lead about 10-15 students through a virtual course on Articulate platform. The lessons included in this program are Computers, Safety & Internet, Searching Online, Using Email, Navigating and Working with Windows 10, Introduction to Microsoft Word, Introduction to Google Drive and Google Docs, How to Navigate SJPL.org.
Program Quality Standard 1: Technology and Access
Focus Areas Not Met Beginning Emerging Advanced
Access to
Technology
Program provides working technology tools
and makes them available to participants.
Program offers free access to computers,
broadband Internet, and wireless Internet.
Program offers expertise to support participants
with varying abilities in the use of the
technology and Internet that is available to
them.
Program provides access to a variety of
adaptive and relevant technology.
Program manages technology to ensure
access by participants with disabilities, or
varying abilities, and that participants are
equipped with skills and assistive devices
necessary to access technology tools and
create content.
Maintained
Devices
Devices have operating security systems. Devices are regularly and proactively reviewed on a routine schedule to update security
systems as needed.
Digital Literacy Quality Standards Assessment Tool
4 Internet
Connection
Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) Internet is
available for use.
DSL Internet and wireless connection is
available for use.
DSL Internet, hot spots/cellular, and wireless
connections are available for use or check-out.
Digital Literacy Quality Standards Assessment Tool
5 NARRATIVE: Program Quality Standard Area 1
For each focus area, please
describe practices that met
or exceeded basic
programing standards?
Facilitators regularly check with students for comprehension and answer questions that might arise. They also redirect participants to other programs as needed to help continue their learning opportunities within SJPL. Facilitators also take participants feedback and requests for different learning material. The class has evolved to include these requests as well as continue to note the participants needs to include more learning material.
Facilitators also take time to help participants become familiar with Zoom in preparation for the virtual class as well as provide a “crash-course” in case the participant needs help on how to use their device. Participants are informed that hotspots are available for check out through SJPL and inform them of community wi-fi they can access form SJPL locations. Lastly, facilitators provide a 15– 20-minute window to call participant and help them complete the Intake form, pre-survey as well as call back at the end of the series to complete the post-survey.
SJPL has added Tech Support Hours and other programs at several branch locations that facilitators refer participant to.
Quality Area 1: Program
Strengths
Please note specific focus
areas in your description.
Facilitators and program strengths include that onboarding process. Facilitators ensure the participants has become comfortable and confident enough with their internet connection and device so that they are prepared to learn during the Zoom class session.
Similarly, Facilitators help participant check out a hotspot or Chromebook when needed.
Quality Area 1: Program
Areas for
Improvement. Please note
specific focus areas in your
description.
One area for improvement includes making the program as inclusive as possible by providing accessibility to participants that request it. Since SJPL has opened to the public once again, there is an opportunity to provide onboarding and device “crashcourse” to participants in-person as needed. This is a strategy that can be coordinated to provide further assistance to those that request it Program facilitators can also strategies ways to increase efforts around training staff on how to provide and use assistive technology tools while ensuring access to participants with disabilities. Similarly, provide service for varying abilities to ensure access that underserved and marginalized community members can participate.
Program Quality Standard Area 1: Technology and Access
Digital Literacy Quality Standards Assessment Tool
6 Total Cumulative Points: 7/3 = 2.3
Focus Areas Not Met
(0)
Beginning
(1)
Emerging
(2)
Advanced
(3)
Access to Technology
Maintained Devices
Internet Connection
Digital Literacy Quality Standards Assessment Tool
7 Program Quality Standard Area 2: Privacy and Security Focus Areas Not Met Expected Optimal
City of San José
Privacy Principles
Program adheres to the City of San José Privacy Principles, including in its work with third-party partners and vendors and partnerships agreements.
Program makes an effort to educate participants on privacy guidelines.
Online Security
Program is knowledgeable of the terms and conditions of all online or downloaded applications and websites used by
participants.
Program follows the City of San José’s Privacy Principles on the handling of personal information.
Program discloses to participants any exposure their personal information may have as a result of using the technology and /or applications.
Opt-in Opt-out
Password
Management Actions
of the Individual
Program is familiar with the intricacies of opt in/opt out provisions and accurately defines the terms.
Program informs participants of password requirements for applications and provides guidelines on how to create a safe password.
Program trains participants on how to properly log out of applications and equipment’s at the end of each sessions.
Program instructions participants on how to avoid potential privacy issues when accepting terms and conditions.
Program provides information on how to avoid being caught by scams, including clickbait and phishing programs.
Program educates and encourages participants to apply these same skills outside of program.
Cleaning/wiping
devices after each
use
Program verbally instructs participants to properly log off from devices/applications to ensure work completed during sessions has been stored properly and confirms that nothing is left on device or application.
Program established written/visual instructions and protocols for participants to follow.
Data Privacy
Program is familiar with and adheres to city, state, and federal policies regarding data privacy for adults and children.
Privacy policies are easily available and understandable to users.
Program provides participants with information regarding potential data exposure as a result of using required/suggested applications.
Program partners and third-party vendors do not advance private interest; they adhere to the same privacy policy as City-funded, sponsored programs.
Digital Literacy Quality Standards Assessment Tool
8 Program establishes a proactive process to notify ongoing users of any changes to the program’s privacy policies.
Digital Literacy Quality Standards Assessment Tool
9 NARRATIVE: Program Quality Standard Area 2
For each focus area, please
describe practices that met
or exceeded basic
programing standards?
When Facilitators help participants complete the onboarding, participants are made aware that no information they is shared with third parties. Participants are welcomed to not share personal information if they decide so. Facilitators ensure that participants understand the reason this information is gathered and that it wii not be shared. Facilitators have not and will not disclosed participants personal information.
Participants are taught to watch for risky signs that might/potentially be a harmful website. They learn what to look for to ensure a website they visit or apps is safe to visit without the risk of malware or virus.
Facilitators do encourage them to visit websites that provides educational videos and how to access links shared with them during the course. The workshop discusses/teaches password safety several times with videos, text, and uses knowledge check questions. Similarly, the workshop also discusses/teaches about internet scams, how to avoid them, and what to do if they run into one. The workshop includes videos and text on how to properly log off from devices Quality Area 2: Program
Strengths
Please note specific focus
areas in your description.
One Privacy and Security program strength is that participants are taught about password safety and how to avoid internet scams. Teaching this address the underemphasized and often overlooked area of digital literacy that leads to hacker breaching participants data privacy.
Quality Area 2: Program
Areas for Improvement
Please note specific focus
areas in your description.
An area of improvement for this standard is including the City of San José Privacy Policies in the curriculum. Facilitators would be able to walk participants through the policies and assured the safety of their privacy a patron of the San José Public Library.
Program Quality Standard Area 2: Privacy and Security
Focus Areas Basic Quality Not Met
(0)
Expected
(1)
Optimal
(2)
Digital Literacy Quality Standards Assessment Tool
10 Total Cumulative Points: 8/5 =
1.6 City of San José Privacy Principles
Online Security
Opt-in Opt-out Password Management Actions
of the Individual
Cleaning/wiping devices after each use
Data Privacy
Digital Literacy Quality Standards Assessment Tool
11 Program Quality Standard Area 3: Learning Environments Focus Areas Not Met Beginning Emerging Advanced
Onsite
Environment
Program has a safety plan in place and
clearly communicates health, safety, and
behavior procedures with participants.
Program operates within a safe environment
with accessible fire exits, written emergency
plans, and basic first aid supplies on hand.
All equipment is clean, sanitized, and free of
hazardous conditions.
Program staff are trained in health and safety
related issues.
Program fosters an emotional climate that is
positive, supportive and mutually respectful
among all participants and staff.
Program provides enough space, equipment,
and supplies to carry out the activities set forth
in the program.
Program staff are trained and certified in CPR
and First Aid (AED).
Program regularly conducts appropriate safety
practice drills with staff and participants.
Online
environments
Program presents a self-directed learning
environment that encourages safety and
privacy.
Program instructs participants on behavioral
norms and etiquette while using digital
technology and interacting in a digital
environment.
Program informs participants about possible
scenarios that could make participants
vulnerable online.
Program educates participants in behavioral
norms when using digital technologies and how
to interact with others in a digital environment.
Program makes an effort to provide information
about the risks of searching online, how to
search safely, and how to resolve or report
illegal, offensive materials.
Program supports participants in addressing
any issues encountered in digital environment.
Digital Literacy Quality Standards Assessment Tool
12 NARRATIVE: Program Quality Standard Area 3: Learning Environments For each focus area, please
describe practices that met
or exceeded basic
programing standards?
The curriculum provides information about the risks of searching online and how to instead search safely. Participants are encouraged to browse the internet in between class sessions and bring any issues they encounter to the workshop for further assistance. This helps by providing other participants to view real life scenarios. The program facilitators ask that participants mute themselves to avoid background noise from being a distraction from others. We also encourage participants to have their cameras on as it makes it easier for facilitators to see their facial expressions and any confusion they may have.
Quality Area 3: Program
Strengths
Please note specific focus
areas in your description
Facilitators do a great job at creating a welcoming environment for participants, so they feel comfortable to ask questions about online safety. They learn how to use and navigate zoom. Alternatively, facilitators encourage participants to contact them when they’re having difficulties connecting to the internet so that they can get them into the program on time. Encourage participants to slow down and review the program as needed to use it has their own study guide.
Quality Area 3: Program
Areas for Improvement
Please note specific focus
areas in your description.
An area of strength for the learning environment standard is provide information on how to report illegal or offensive material such as on social media.
Program Quality Standard Area 3: Learning Environments
Focus Areas Not Met
(0)
Beginning
(1)
Emerging
(2)
Advanced
(3)
Onsite Environment
Digital Literacy Quality Standards Assessment Tool
13 Total Cumulative Points: 3/2 = 1.5
Online Environment
Digital Literacy Quality Standards Assessment Tool
14 Program Quality Standard Area 4: Skill Building and Learning Focus Areas Not Met Beginning Emerging Advanced
International
Society for
Technology in
Education
Student
Standards
(ISTE)
Program makes ISTE Student Standards
available to staff and volunteers to review.
Program focuses on, at minimum, two of the
seven ISTE standards when teaching digital
literacy.
Program provides staff and volunteers with ISTE
Student Standard related resources, training,
and or professional development.
Program focuses on, at minimum, fours of the
seven standards when teaching digital literacy
during programming.
Program prioritizes the applications of ISTE
Student Standards.
Program incorporates all seven ISTE Student
Standards.
Program evaluates and measures how ISTE
Student Standards are being utilized. Program
uses learning assessments and/or rubrics
associated with ISTE Student Standards to track
learning outcomes.
Information
Evaluation
Program instructs participants on how to use
a search engine to find, look for, and use
the information.
Program teaches participants to identify the
credibility and relevancy of information
presented online by evaluating the
information.
Program instructs participants on effective
techniques for evaluating the quality and
credibility of information pulled form a website.
Program teaches how to apply different
search strategies to increase the accuracy
and relevance of online search results.
Program educates participants on how to
‘recognize when information is needed have
the ability to locate, evaluate, and use
effectively the needed information’.
Program teaches participants to think critically
about the intentions of commercial websites
and advertising.
Digital Literacy Quality Standards Assessment Tool
15 NARRATIVE: Program Quality Standard Area 4: Skill Building and Learning For each focus area, please
describe practices that met
or exceeded basic
programing standards?
The workshop teaches effective techniques for evaluating the quality and credibility of information pulled from websites with videos, photos, text and knowledge checks. The program facilitators give live examples of the information covered in the curriculum to reinforce the material being taught. The workshop also discusses/teaches how to apply different search strategies to increase the accuracy and relevance of online search results with examples and interactive buttons. Facilitators warn students about online advertisement that comes up as when conducting searches websites like google and how to identify the correct link they are looking for. An example is identifying the correct CA DMV link and how the first search results can be paid ads that mimic the DMV but are not the correct site.
Quality Area #4: Program
Strengths
Please note specific focus
areas in your description.
A program strength is teaching that internet search strategies are such a vital part of using the internet in our daily lives. Using videos, worksheets, interactive buttons, and links to teach the curriculum subjects helps to reinforce the concepts so that people with different learning styles.
Facilitators regularly use real life examples when teaching about searches strategies and by sharing screen and walking them live.
Participants are able to identify the differences between searcher results and how to narrow or broaden the results based on what they are looking for.
Quality Area #4: Program
Areas for Improvement
Please note specific focus
areas in your description.
An area of improvement includes providing participants with the ISTE standards to review. The skill building and learning standard can be strengthen by including more interactive portions to the course for participants to do, rather than watch the facilitator do.
Including practice exercises or “homework” would also be helpful to reinforce the concepts the participants are learning.
Program Quality Standard Area 4: Learning Environment
Focus Areas Not Met
(0)
Beginning
(1)
Emerging
(2)
Advanced
(3)
Digital Literacy Quality Standards Assessment Tool
16 Total Cumulative Points: 3/2 = 1.5
International Society for Technology in
Education Student Standards (ISTE)
Information Evaluation
Digital Literacy Quality Standards Assessment Tool
17 Program Quality Standard Area 5: Curriculum and Teaching Practices Focus Areas Not Met Beginning Emerging Advanced
Outcomebased
programs
Program staff gather, plan, and determine
goals and objectives aligned with
program outcomes.
Program staff and volunteers are aware of
the outcomes, goals, and objectives.
Staff and volunteers are encouraged to
plan around outcomes.
Program has a formal mechanism to
review annually its goal and objectives
and make necessary changes for
continuous quality improvement.
Program staff develops and implements goals
and objectives aligned with program
outcomes.
Staff and volunteers are educated on the
outcomes, goals and objectives for their
understanding.
Staff and volunteers plan and organize specific
content around outcomes and goals.
Program assesses progress toward goal and
objectives for continuous quality improvement
and adults/educators meet quarterly to discuss
results.
Program staff plan, implement, and evaluate
strategies for program improvement based on
outcomes from goals and objectives set for the
program cycle.
Staff and volunteers are involved in interpreting
and making decisions based on program
evaluation results and take necessary steps
towards program improvements.
Staff and volunteers meet to work together and
organize specific content around outcomes
and goals.
Community and participants are involved in
interpreting and making decisions regarding
what steps should be taken to improve the
program.
Differentiated
Instruction/
Personalized
Learning
Program develops and uses plans based
on digital literacy competencies.
Program makes an effort individualize
curriculum, focusing on instruction and
assessment that is both flexible and
challenging.
Program instructions are based on the
needs and preferences of each
participant.
Program curriculum is developed and
delivered based on the participants’ interests,
the community they serve, and the
participants’ digital literacy knowledge.
Program differentiates instructions by tailoring
content, the process, product, and learning
environment.
Program takes time to determine what
participants already know so as to increase
effectiveness of program.
Program uses evaluation tools, like surveys, to
know what the participant has learned and
retained from the information provided to
them.
Program’s teaching processes involve
providing all participants with different avenues
for understanding new information in terms of
acquiring content, processing, constructing, or
making sense of ideas.
Program works towards participant learning
objectives and how participants can
demonstrate their learning.
Digital Literacy Quality Standards Assessment Tool
18 CONTINUED Program Quality Standard Area 5: Curriculum and Teaching Practices Focus Areas Not Met Beginning Emerging Advanced
Information
Evaluation
Program applies different search strategies
to increase the accuracy and relevance on
online search results.
Program tries to ensure that the information
given/taught to participants is relevant to
the program’s objective and not intended to
sell to our persuade participants.
Program ensures that the information is used
to inform/teach digital literacy as well as
how to cite such information.
Program uses effective techniques to evaluate
the quality and credibility of websites.
Program looks for information that is current,
relevant and accurate to current digital
literacy curriculum and is free of bias or
advertisement.
Program verifies that the information used is
credible.
Program teaches participants how to
recognize when a source is bias-free,
reputable, and credible to use for their digital
literacy needs.
Program instructs participants on how to
critically evaluate sources by using rubrics and
other evaluation methods or tools.
Program ensures that information used is
intended for the present audience and is at an
appropriate level.
Digital Literacy
Resources
Program understands the importance of
resources to be used in the home/outside of
the program and that they are an important
piece of success.
Program staff is equipped with skills and
experience to comply with accessibility
standards, and design technology-based
services using Universal Design for Learning.
Program identifies community needs and
provides educational resources to share with
participants.
Program provides equitable digital literacy
service that support participants’ navigation,
understanding, evaluation, and creation of
digital content.
Program organizes content for participants to
access at their convenience and enables
collaboration amongst participants to engage
and further their digital literacy skills.
Program connects and provides participants
with ongoing one-on-one and/or self-directed
learning that can accommodate a range of
leaning styles.
Program supports participants in the use of
digital resources outside of the program.
Program offers a wide range of free
technology instructions, including courses such
workforce development and health resources.
Digital Literacy Quality Standards Assessment Tool
19 NARRATIVE: Program Quality Standard Area 5: Curriculum and teaching Practices For each focus area, please describe
practices that met or exceeded
basic programing standards?
Facilitators check in with one another about the curriculum as well as the program led to make appropriate edits to the articulate course. Each participant is given a pre and post survey so we can assess the growth and areas that need a higher focus. There is also tracking of progress within the lessons and will reference to other programing within SJPL that relates to the topic being taught.
Facilitators provide one-on-one support as needed. Participates are also encouraged to retake the class if they would like a refresher or need to review the course a big longer.
Quality Area 5: Program Strengths
Please note specific focus areas in
your description.
The class is schedule based on the availability of the participants. This has shown to be effective because it reaches a larger audience and people are available to attend since their schedule is considered. Participants are encouraged to bring up real life examples that they might encountered and need some support or questions answered. Patrons are also regularly connected with other tech programs to provide them with opportunities to practice skills and increase their confidence with technology.
Quality Area 5: Program Areas for
Improvement
Please note specific focus areas in
your description.
One area of improvement is including information about how to identify bias-free and reputable information. The entire curriculum will benefit form a review and change of some word choice. It would be helpful with the terminology was easier to follow and comprehend.
The course would also benefit from providing more exercises between sessions for participants to interreact with.
Program Quality Standard Area 5: Learning Environment
Focus Areas Not Met
(0)
Beginning
(1)
Emerging
(2)
Advanced
(3)
Outcomes-based programs
Differentiated Instruction/Personalized
Learning
Digital Literacy Quality Standards Assessment Tool
20 Total Cumulative Points: 10/4 = 2.5
Program Quality Standard Area 6: Staffing
Focus Areas Not Met Beginning Emerging Advanced
Qualification
and Expertise
Program has defined qualifications of
adults/educators and outline basic
requirements for experience and/or
education.
Minimum qualifications of staff and basic
requirements for experience and/or
education are regularly reviewed and are
directly aligned to program offerings and
goals.
Program staff has some specialized expertise
in specific program areas.
Program ensures all staff complete a
California Department of Justice Live Scan.
Some staff have advanced expertise to work
with digital literacy.
Program activities inform the development of
guidelines for staff qualifications.
Program staff are familiar with basic technology
equipment including computers, Internet,
software, etc.
Staff members have specific training and
experience in digital literacy. There is diversity
among staff in the type of qualifications and a
structure in place that allows for crossdisciplinary experience.
Program staff qualifications and basic
requirements are reviewed annually.
Program staff have experience in communitybased technology teaching/training. This could include basic computer skills and Internet use,
safety and security, and support participants in
acquiring affordable computers and home
Internet access.
Information Evaluation
Digital Literacy Resources
Digital Literacy Quality Standards Assessment Tool
21 Training and
Professional
Development
for Staff
Onboarding and program orientation will be
provided and directly related to the job
description and work requirements. Staff are
aware of certifications related to the
programming area.
Program has basic training for staff and
volunteers as well as policies and procedures
outlined in the program employee
handbook.
A process is in place for continuous review of
staff development plans.
Staff is trained on diversity and equity as
addressed in standard 8.
Staff is trained in San Jose’s City-Wide Privacy
Principles.
Program staff can revisit relevant training and
professional development opportunities
regularly.
Staff complies and applies the DLQS and San
Jose’s City-Wide Privacy Principles. Additional
trainings, webinars, classes, conferences, or
professional development opportunities are
made available to staff, instructors, or
volunteers.
CONTINUED Program Quality Standard Area 6: Staffing
Focus Areas Not Met Beginning Emerging Advanced
Volunteers
Training is provided in class management.
Potential volunteers present some form of
documentation that describes their expertise
in Digital Literacy.
Program ensures all volunteers to complete
a California Department of Justice Live Scan.
Program volunteers are trained on program’s
health and safety practices and emergency
procedures.
International
Society for
Technology in
Education
Standards
Program makes ISTE Educator Standards
available to staff and volunteers.
Program prioritizes and ensures that staff and
volunteers apply and understand the ISTE
Educator Standards. Program provides staff and volunteers with ISTE Educator Standards related resources, training
or professional development.
Digital Literacy Quality Standards Assessment Tool
22 (ISTE) Educator
Standards
Digital Literacy Quality Standards Assessment Tool
23 NARRATIVE: Program Quality Standard Area 6: Staffing For each focus area, please describe
practices that met or exceeded
basic programing standards?
As new staff are brought on board to assist with the program registrations they are onboarded/trained by various Family Learning Center Staff. All volunteers are trained on program curriculum and expectations by current program leads (staff members). There is diversity amongst staff and all are well versed about computer teaching skills. Program facilitators build report with their participants by continuingly checking in with them and ensure that their questions are answered.
Facilitator’s review and analyze participants data collected to understand the participant’s culture, socioeconomic status, language, motivation, ability, and personal interest, and utilize this information for continuous quality program practices improvement. Volunteers have sat in and observed the class to provide feedback to class facilitators.
Quality Area 6: Program Strengths
Please note specific focus areas in
your description.
A strength in the program is that it is provided in English, Spanish, and Vietnamese by SJPL staff that have experience in communitybased programming and are technologically savvy and have teaching/training experience. Staff also have experience working with historically underserved populations. These experiences have helped staff reflect on our own experience with technology and seek more information to provide examples and helpful information for participants.
When necessary, staff and volunteers are trained by current program leads that share best practices and program teaching advice.
Quality Area 6: Program Areas for
Improvement
Please note specific focus areas in
your description.
The current program staff and facilitators do a great job at onboarding, teaching, and checking in with participants. It would be helpful for program staff to have more bilingual staff or volunteers’ assistants with all program components. Having more staff support would also mean that the class can be offered at different time thus reaching a larger audience.
Program Quality Standard Area 6: Program Leadership and Management Focus Areas Not Met
(0)
Beginning
(1)
Emerging
(2)
Advanced
(3)
Qualification and Expertise
Training and Professional Development for
Staff
Digital Literacy Quality Standards Assessment Tool
24 Total Cumulative Points: 6/4 = 1.5
Volunteers
International Society for Technology in
Education Standards (ISTE) Educator
Standards
Digital Literacy Quality Standards Assessment Tool
25 Program Quality Standard Area 7: Family Engagement and Partnerships Focus Areas Not Met Expected (1)
Ethical
Standard
Every program is aligned to the City of San José’s City-Wide Privacy Principle and Privacy Policy We Value Privacy: We affirm that privacy is an inherent human right. San Jose commits to fully evaluating risk to your privacy before collecting, using, or sharing your information.
We collect only what we need: We collect only what is required to provide and improve city services and comply with the law. We seek community input about what information is used and collected.
We are open and transparent: We are transparent about what information we collect, why we collect it, and how it is used. We commit to being open about our actions, policies, and procedures related to your data. We make our policy documents publicly available and easy to understand.
We will give you control over your data: we will provide you with the information to make an informed decision about sharing your data. We have clear processes that ensure data accuracy and provide you visibility into what data the city has collected from you.
We share only what we need: We anonymize your information before we share it outside the city, except in very limited circumstances.
Business partners and contracted vendors who receive or collect personal information from us or for us to deliver city series must agree to our privacy requirements.
We design for privacy and security: We integrate privacy and security into every aspect of our designs, systems, and processes. We commit to updating our technology and processed to effectively protect your information while under our care. We follow strict protocols in the event your information is compromised.
Digital Literacy Quality Standards Assessment Tool
26 CONTINUED Program Quality Standard Area 7: Family Engagement and Partnerships Focus Areas Not Met Beginning Emerging Advanced
Vision, Mission,
and Values
Organization has an adapted vision,
mission, and value statement that is shared
throughout the organization and with
community stakeholders.
Program has a plan to evaluate its alignment
to the organization’s vision, mission and
values.
Program continuously improves and
evaluates its alignment to the vision, mission
and values of the organization as it relates to
the developing digital literacy skills and
inclusion to their users.
Policy,
Procedures,
and Programs
Best Practices
Program has policies and practices that
are clearly and consistently
communicated to staff and the
community.
Policy and procedures are documented
and readily available and visible to all.
Program identifies a need in the
community for digital literacy skill
development.
Curriculum and content are consistently
reviewed and current to learn and know.
Program is accountable for its policies,
procedures, and best practices.
Program develops policies and practices that
reflect a strong foundation in developmental
theory, inclusivity and current research.
Program engages adults/educators,
colleagues, and stakeholders to analyze
developmental theory for relevance to
practice and cultural sensitivity.
Policies and practices are regularly reviewed
by program adults/educators and
administrators to support a positive program
climate.
Program leadership monitors programs and
offerings regularly to review delivery and
determine areas for quality improvement.
Program managers, leadership and staff stay
current on literature and research about
digital literacy promising practices.
Program conducts an evaluation at least
once every two years to review policies and
practices. Policy and procedural changes are
implemented, and supportive training is
planned. The community stakeholders are
solicited to provide input in determining
practices, policies and procedures.
Organization is committed to continuous
quality improvement and reflective practice.
Organization develops, grows and changes
based on the needs of the community (see
standard 5).
Program
Assessment
and
Evaluation
Program understands the community
needs.
Program intends to use assessment and
evaluation tools to evaluate the efficiency
and effectiveness of the program.
Program understands and responds to the
community needs.
Program is driven and guided by the
assessment and evaluation tools used to
analyze outcomes and outputs.
Program understands, responds to, and
designs with the community to meet their
needs.
Program uses outcomes and outputs from the
assessment and evaluation tools. It is
validated to ensure participants retain
Digital Literacy Quality Standards Assessment Tool
27 information and are satisfied with program
content.
Community
Engagement
Program goals are communicated to
stakeholders through conversations,
newsletters, etc.
Program shows interest in working with the
community to meet objectives.
Program shows interest in starting the
feedback cycle or community inquiry.
Program management and leadership solicit
information directly from the community and
users.
Program has a system in place to receive
formal feedback (e.g., surveys, focus groups,
etc.) from community stakeholders to inform
changes in program goals.
Recommendations are reviewed to address
any emerging needs within the program and
community.
Program continues to improve quality based
on community feedback to implement
actionable goals.
Partnerships
Program emphasizes that importance of
partnerships and engagement.
Program seeks outside partnerships to
enhance or add to programs that are
already in place.
Program establishes effective relationships
with partners to bolster a continuity of
learning.
Program has established partnerships with
outside stakeholders and services to integrate
with programs in place.
Program has a reciprocal relationship with
other organizations throughout the
community to support the success of digital
inclusion.
Program has established partnerships with
outside services and neighboring stakeholders
to formally conduct referrals and introduce
participants to additional programs and
services around their area. Program invites
outside services to the agency and provides
in-person information to participants.
Digital Literacy Quality Standards Assessment Tool
28 NARRATIVE: Program Quality Standard Area 7: Program Leadership and Management For each focus area, please describe
practices that met or exceeded
basic programing standards?
We do not share participants’ information with any organization outside of the grant funders. We inform participants that they do not have to provide us with information that makes them feel uncomfortable, and we re-emphasize this several times throughout the intake process. SJPL has vision, mission and value statement that is shared with participants at the beginning of the program. The goal of the Digital Literacy Virtual Class is to assist those with low/beginning digital literacy skills become active members of the digital community. We want to empower participants to live their daily lives as technologically savvy as they can since technology is among our everyday lives. Facilitators have suggested several components to the curriculum that have been taken into account and added to the lessons (ex. using the mouse, Google Docs & Google Drive). SJPL staff members advertise this program wherever possible, in the community, on SJPL website, pass out fliers, and share with other community organizations. Program leads and other FLCs work in partnership with Community Based Organizations to bring those they serve to the Digital Literacy Workshops.
Quality Area 7: Program Strengths
Please note specific focus areas in
your description.
Programs continues to evolve based on participants needs and based on digital literacy trends. Revisions and additions are made to the articulate course as needed and reviewed monthly. Outreach and connections to partners have allowed the library to turn outward and connect with members of the community that can benefit from the programs. The time of when the program is taught is always considering when offering to participants, its important to tailor the schedule to best fit theirs. Sometimes, facilitators offer a Saturday class. Program connects participants with adequate devices that might be needed to effectively participate in the program such as laptops, hotspots, iPad and device kits. Staff take time to ensure participants are set up for success before the first class, including sending reminders via text and email. Program has adapted to COVID times and is offered virtually and invite participants to other programs that continue to enhance their learning.
Quality Area 7: Program Areas for
Improvement
Please note specific focus areas in
your description.
It would be even more beneficial to offer more classes at different times. Having more staff and volunteers to run these programs would encase the quality of the program provided. Facilitators are searching for curriculum that is broader and representative of the participant’s languages for better comprehension. There are some links and mead that can be revised to provide a more efficient resource. There is also a need to provide further outreach to the underserved communities and opportunities to create partnerships with local community partners and businesses.
Digital Literacy Quality Standards Assessment Tool
29 Total Cumulative Points: 16/6 = 2.67
Program Quality Standard Area 7: Program Leadership and Management Focus Areas Not Met
(0)
Beginning
(1)
Emerging
(2)
Advanced
(3)
Ethical Standard
Vision, Mission, and Values
Policy, Procedures, and Programs Best
Practices
Program Assessment and Evaluation
Community Engagement
Partnerships
Digital Literacy Quality Standards Assessment Tool
30 Program Quality Standard Area 8: Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Focus Areas Not Met Beginning Emerging Advanced
Inclusive and
Supportive
Practices
Program abides by the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA).
Program has policies and practices
regarding race, equity, culture, status, and
level that are clear and consistent and are
communicated to all.
Program has supportive practices in place
that serve participants needing
accommodations.
Program abides by ADA guidelines and
regularly evaluates efforts to create an
inclusive and supportive in-person and online
environments.
Program collects appropriate data to better
understand the diversity of the community they
serve and use that data to better understand
barriers and provides accommodations.
Program identifies strategies and/or has
documented plans for participants needing
additional supportive services.
Program has policies and practices that
advance inclusion by assessing and
considering the readiness of participants in
order to provide reasonable accommodations.
Program conducts an evaluation at least once
every two years to review and understand
racial and equity policies, best practices, and
understandings. Findings of evaluations are
implemented and incorporated for program
improvement.
Program actively implements supportive
practices and curriculum that are inclusive to
participants with academic, linguistic, physical,
cognitive, or economic factors that impede
their ability to access resources provided by the
program.
Equity and
Diversity
Program creates an environment for
participants promoting equal access and
opportunities to digital tools, resources, and
services that increase digital knowledge,
awareness, and skills.
Program collects appropriate data to better
understand the diversity of the community
they serve and use that data to better
understand current needs.
Program actively provides participants with
equal access to technology. Trained staff
provide support to navigate the digital tools.
Program reviews and analyzes data collected
to understand the participants’ culture,
socioeconomic status, language, motivation,
ability, and personal interest, and utilize data
for continuous quality program improvement
practices.
Program has policies and practices that
advance inclusion. Program reviews
documented processes for receiving and
assessing requests for reasonable
accommodation through community
feedback.
Program recognizes participants’ strengths and
supports their learning/advancement in digital
literacy without imposing cultural biases.
Program incorporates anti-bias curriculum and
professional development opportunities for
program staff and participants.
Digital Literacy Quality Standards Assessment Tool
31 NARRATIVE: Program Quality Standard Area 8: Equity, Diversity, Inclusion For each focus area, please describe
practices that met or exceeded
basic programing standards?
Bilingual facilitators have been crucial in providing programing to the English learning communities. The program is revised and implemented in the policies that support the learning and advancement of digital literacy. An evaluation process is in place to review and revise material that align with current trends that change rapidly in the digital literacy world. ADA participants are referred to the correct department to better meet their needs and provide the adequate resources to ensure and support their learning. Program does abide by ADA regulations in the sense that we have a phone number/email address available for those with disabilities to contact as needed. Facilitators ensure that all participants have access to a digital devices and Internet or support them by borrowing from SJPL. Facilitators spend time with participants to ensure that their devices work properly so they are ready in time for the start of the program.
Quality Area 8: Program Strengths
Please note specific focus areas in
your description.
A program strength is that we provide the class to ANYONE who is interested and needs to improve their digital literacy skills. Staff emphasis the need to foster a safe environment that helps build trust with community members. Participants are always encouraged to provide feedback when needed via email, phone, or by speaking to a staff member. Staff understand that by inviting feedback, they will be able to improve areas and enhance the program quality to support the learning and advancement of patron’s digital literacy skills.
Recruitment for this program has been successful partly because past participants have invited friends and family to the course by sharing their positive experience.
Quality Area 8: Program Areas for
Improvement
Please note specific focus areas in
your description.
An area of improvement for this standard would be to expand our ADA resources and provide staff training that teaches inclusive programming strategies. Professional development and other training opportunities would support staff as they navigate the everevolving digital literacy world. An updated survey that asks relatable questions to patrons would also support the communication between the facilitators who teach the course and the participants who are learning form the course. Collecting relevant information from patrons would help continue the program quality to improve.
Program Quality Standard Area 8: Equity, Diversity, Inclusion Digital Literacy Quality Standards Assessment Tool
32 Total Cumulative Points: 6/2 = 3
Focus Areas Not Met
(0)
Beginning
(1)
Emerging
(2)
Advanced
(3)
Inclusive and Supportive Practices
Equity and Diversity
Digital Literacy Quality Standards Assessment Tool
33 Summary of Digital Literacy Quality Standards Areas
Not Met
(0)
Beginning
(1)
Emerging
(2)
Advanced
(3)
Digital Literacy Quality Standards Areas Overall Score
1 Technology and Access
2.3 2 Privacy and Security
1.6 3 Safe and Supportive Learning Environments
1.5 4 Skill Building and Learning
1.5 5 Curriculum and Teaching Practices
2.5 6 Staffing
1.5 7 Program Leadership and Management
2.67 8 Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion
3 TOTAL FOR ALL STANDARD AREAS:
16.57 FINAL OVERALL RATING: 16.57 / 8 = 2.07