Transcript Presentation to the Ellis Center Board

Evaluation of the Quebec
Community Learning
Centres: An English
minority language initiative
Learning Innovations at WestEd
May 21, 2008
Evaluation Summary
• Multi-pronged, mixed-methods, and
longitudinal, including:
– Implementation of the CLC model at 22 sites, guided
by the Project Theory of Change
– Work of the PRT in building CLC staff capacity and
the work of the PIC in supporting the CLCs through
external relations
– Evaluation of expected outcomes and impacts
– Documentation of lessons learned
Evaluation Questions
• Questions are at the implementation level, the
impact level, and lessons learned
• Questions developed in collaboration with PRT
and informed by literature
• Detailed evaluation questions can be found at:
http://www.learnquebec.ca/en/content/clc/clc_r
es_eval.html
Evaluation Questions: Implementation
• To what extent and in what ways do the
PRT and PIC implement activities and
processes designed to contribute to the
capacity of the CLCs to achieve short and
intermediate outcomes?
• To what extent and in what ways do the CLCs,
led by principals and CLC coordinators,
implement their Action Plans?
Evaluation Questions: Impact
• To what extent and in what ways do the
22 CLCs accomplish their goals?
• To what extent and in what ways do the
22 CLCs show evidence of
sustainability after the project funding
and support end?
Evaluation Questions: Lessons
Learned
• To what extent and in what ways do the
PRT’s and CLC Theories of Change
adequately represent the processes and
outcomes of the initiative?
• What lessons does the project offer for policy
and practice, particularly concerning
establishment and support of CLCs in
English-speaking communities in Quebec?
Methods
• Mixed methods evaluation
–
–
–
–
–
Qualitative and quantitative data collected
Site visits to each CLC
Observations of trainings, meetings, etc.
Extensive interviews, document review, surveys
Portraits / case studies of 22 sites with cross-site
analysis
• Longitudinal data collection: 2007 - 2009
• Collaborative approach
– Frequent communication/feedback
– Formative as well as summative reporting
Evaluation Activities to Date
• Observations of multiple trainings and meetings
with focus groups of principals and coordinators
• Interviews with members of PRT
• Interim reports on observations/interviews
• Initial interviews with Phase 1 coordinators
• 2-day site visits to Phase 1 CLCs with “Findings
Memo” to sites
• Initial quantitative portrait development for Phase 1
CLCs
Early Findings: Project Level
• Critical role of PRT in implementation-supporting and prodding CLCs in terms of
planning and support
• Project Resource Team (PRT) has been
flexible and responsive to formative feedback
• Importance of time for school teams
(coordinators and principals) to share and
learn from each other
• PRT has facilitated networks of role-alike
groups (e.g. coordinators listserv)
Early Findings: CLC level
• Coordinators are key
– Work hard at establishing partnerships and CLC
visibility
– Principals rely heavily upon them
– Coordinators building a support network
– Some coordinators driving vision- rather than
developing shared vision
– Some turnover in coordinators- turnover/lack of
coordinator may slow implementation
• Some coordinators worry about job security and pay.
Early Findings: CLC level
• Leadership and Governance
– CLCs don’t advance in implementation without
principal support
– Implementation also delayed or prevented when
no coordinator hired
– Leadership change may hurt or help
– Some confusion over role of school Governing
Board with respect to CLC
– CLCs use steering committees to varying degrees
– Extent of school board support affects
implementation
• Involvement of teachers, parents, and
students
– Wide variation among the CLCs from low to
high involement
– Expression of sense of pride “our school is
a CLC” but some take a “wait and see” view
– Some teachers and students associate CLC
with video-conference equipment
– Some concern about time to learn VCN and
Community Based Learning techniques
– Use of VCN and CBL have taken off in
some communities
• Community and Partnerships
–
–
–
–
Many new services are being offered
Many new partnerships established
Many are using CLC to enhance prior partnerships
Most CLCs engaging with partners and community
• one or two are not at this time but renewed efforts appear
to be underway
– CLCs not always selecting partnerships
strategically- some cast wide net, others more
selective – some driven by activities some by long
term vision
– Differing roles for partners
• Some involved in steering committee, some not
• Other Key Policy and Practice Findings:
– Two models emerging: integrated and parallel
– Integrated: the school and CLC are more integrated or
woven together, where the school has been reenvisioned as a Community Learning Centre and
embraces its expanded role in the community.
– Parallel: the school and CLC co-exist and assist each
other, essentially viewing each other as partners and
resources.
– CLCs shaped by approach too- vision driven versus
activity driven approach
– CLCs with multiple schools involved see varying levels
of involvement and have additional challenges for
implementation
– Sustainability is a major concern among stakeholders