Page 86 - Gateways for Early Educators

Gateways for Early Educators
of the children they serve, what type of early care and education professional they are, where their child care business is located, and about the participants’ experience in the Gateways training. Participants are asked to report their level of agreement or disagreement with the following statements: This training presented helpful ideas that I will be able to use, This training was informative, This training has increased my knowledge about the topic presented, and Because of this training I plan to do new things with the children I serve. Additional open-ended questions afford participants the opportunity to provide examples of knowledge gained in the training, new things that they plan on doing in their program, and how the training may be improved. A final question asks participants to provide an overall rating of the training of Poor, Fair, Good, or Excellent. See the end of report for a copy of the evaluation form.
Methodology
Training surveys were collected from a convenience sample of participants in Gateways trainings. In past evaluations, measures were taken to collect a subsample of surveys that were representative of the R&R agencies and each of the strands. Sampling grids were created to ensure that at least one training in each strand was collected for each agency. As such, as many as 30 trainings were evaluated. As demonstrated in this report during the prior 3 program years, ratings for trainings have been very similar and consistently high (See Figure 4). Therefore, this year a smaller subsample of surveys were collected- evaluations for one training per R&R agency. Measures were taken to ensure all agencies were sampled. See Table 1 for the training strands sampled from each agency.
Training Results
Trainings Evaluated
A total of 153 (97%) out of 157 participants in the 7 Gateways trainings evaluated returned a training evaluation form. The response rate ranged from 94% to 100% across the 7 Resource and Referral (R&R) agencies. Five of the trainings evaluated were conducted in English and 2 in Spanish. See Table 1 for each agency’s response rate, number of trainings evaluated, languages, and training strands of those evaluated. As seen in Table 1, trainings from 4 strands were not sampled: Child Growth and Development (CGD), Promoting Diversity (PD), Professional Development and Leadership (PDL) and Program Management (PM).
Table 1. Characteristics of Trainings Sampled
2016
R&R Agency
Number of Participants
Number of Participants who Completed an Evaluation (Response Rate)
Number of Trainings Evaluated
Training Language
Training Strand
Child Care Resource Center (CCRC)
20
20 (100%)
1
Spanish
Child Observation and Assessment (COA)
Connections for Children
33
31 (94%)
1
English
Health, Safety, and Nutrition (HSN)
Crystal Stairs, Inc.
29
26 (90%)
1
English
Child Observation and Assessment (COA)
Mexican-American Opportunity Foundation (MAOF)
2
2 (100%)
1
English
Special Needs and Inclusion (SNI)
Options for Learning
21
21 (100%)
1
Spanish
Positive Interaction and Guidance (PIG)
Pathways
32
32 (100%)
1
English
Learning Environments and Curriculum (LEC)
Pomona Unified School District (PUSD)
20
21 (105%)
1
English
Families and Community (FC)
Total
157
153 (97%)
7
76