Literacy Cooperative of Greater Cleveland

1. Literacy Cooperative of Greater Cleveland TANF Project Overview Stakeholder Meeting July 11, 2006

2. Congratulations On Your Good work The TANF consulting team salutes the good work of the five participating programs: • Heights Even Start • VGS/Project Learn • Garden Valley Collaboration • Garden Valley Neighborhood Center • Cleveland Reads • SEEDS of Literacy • Euclid ABLE • Youth Opportunities Unlimited

3. Consulting Team and Strategic Areas Strategic Areas Training, Curriculum, and Instruction Public Awareness and Outreach Resources Evaluation and Accountability Margaret Doughty Amy McClelland Ray Hart

4. Training, Curriculum, and Instruction Key Topics • Curriculum and Instruction • Students with Low Literacy Levels and/or Special Needs • Retention and Persistence • Transition Strategies Professional Development for Instructors across all topics

5. Public Awareness and Outreach Key Topics • Marketing and Recruitment Resources Evaluation and Accountability Key Topics • Funding • Volunteers • Community Partnerships Key Topics • Evaluation • Data Tracking • Data Analysis

6. Curriculum and Instruction Areas of Focus • Curriculum and Instruction in general was excellent – teachers are skilled and excellent • Instruction was one-dimensional – one-on-one tutoring or whole group • Programs need computers! Solutions • Helped integrate leaner goals and relevant interests into lesson content • Suggested alternatives for orientation process and use of student information going forward • Offered ideas for alternative instructional approaches (mix of one-on-one tutoring, group class work, etc.) • Raised level of awareness of computers as key instructional resources – county approved laptops as virtual textbooks

7. Students with low literacy levels and/or special learning needs Areas of Focus • Challenging population for programs – many refer out • Funding streams require GED outcomes – often not realistic goal for this population Solutions • Defined and identified a need for further professional development from the Cooperative • Introduced PowerPath as a possible screening tool, among others • Engaged Alan Toops, ED for Statewide Literacy Coalition, who is also a noted Learning Disability (LD) expert

8. Retention and Persistence Areas of Focus • Retention and traditional barriers are a consistent issue • Contact hours with students too limited for substantive gains • Extended hours not feasible (longer days, weekends, summer) • Programs have difficulty measuring and communicating learner progress Solutions • Linked effective curriculum use and instructional practices as important retention tools • Shared research studies on persistence (NCSALL and others) • Provided overview of how to use data to encourage student retention and growth • Offered solutions re: learner-driven environments • Developed ideas and provided incentives for learners

9. Transition Strategies Areas of Focus • Few systemic pathways to next steps (higher ed or job placement) • Little post-program support for learners • Little relationship between current job skills needs and curriculum • Little comprehensive vocational exploration Solutions • Provided workshop and panel discussion from community representatives on transition strategies • Fostered relationship building with Workforce Investment Board’s One-Stops • Provided list of resources and strategies on mentoring, community partner site visits, etc.

10. Marketing and Recruitment Areas of Focus • Learners are not aware of literacy services available in their neighborhoods • With marketing efforts and awareness campaigns, programs need to be ready to handle an influx of learners • Programs need to be more flexible about orientation schedules and learner enrollment time frames • “Literacy” as a concept may be a turn-off for many potential learners Solutions • Provided new marketing materials • Provided marketing seminar • Conducted advocacy and outreach for individual programs and Cooperative in general with key stakeholders groups and potential partners (State ABLE, School Districts, One-Stops, etc.) • Helped some programs rethink how they brand their programs

11. Funding Areas of Focus • Single funding sources limit program service provision beyond basic academic needs • Programs lack sufficient funds to service a broad range of learners • Individual organizations have difficulty accessing larger funding streams Funders and other key constituents may not be aware of the realities of expected learner progress, particularly for those at lower literacy levels – criteria is needed to articulate expectations for different learner groups Solutions • Provided fundraising seminar and one-on-one technical assistance • Provided lists of potential local and state funders • Provided seminar on data analysis and evaluation • Found public school funding to support some learners (which in turn freed up funding for other learners) • 90% of the resources from TANF grant went to programs

12. Volunteers Areas of Focus • Programs need a variety of volunteers • Programs may need assistance in developing effective volunteer management programs Solutions • Met with Cleveland Reads about its volunteer tutor orientation and identified it as a promising community provider in this area • Provided organizations with Cleveland Reads’ volunteer tutor training handbook • Identified resources about managing volunteers

13. Community Partnerships Areas of Focus • Literacy providers are relatively isolated and could benefit from intentional networks • Community partnerships should address wrap-around services that individual programs are unable to provide Solutions • Implementation of the TANF project itself established connections between organizations • Provided opportunities for organizations to come together and share ideas • Facilitated meetings with potential community partners • Provided resource contacts and suggestions for interaction with other community partners

14. Evaluation and Accountability Areas of Focus • Most evaluation activities are conducted for compliance and not continuous program improvement • Data tracking is inconsistent across programs • No standards exist to measure learner progress and success across levels • No standards exist to determine what data to collect and how to analyze the data for student progress in a particular program • Data reporting is often an outcome measure not a progress measure Solutions • Provided seminar on evaluation and different ways to measure learner success as well as one-on-one advice for data analysis and evaluation • Provided a sample analysis of measuring student progress across levels using State TABE data • Began discussions about a standard data tracking system (ABLE) • Encouraged long-term cost-benefit analysis of program impacts

15. Thank You Panel discussion from: • Euclid ABLE • Heights Even Start • Youth Opportunities Unlimited • Garden Valley Collaboration • VGS/Project Learn