evaluation summary report 2014

Boston College Center for Optimized Student Support

City ConnectsEvaluation Summary Report 2014in Catholic Schools

City Connects in Catholic Schools • Evaluation Report 2014 i

Acknowledgements

City Connects in Catholic Schools would like to thank our partners who

support our work in Boston-area Catholic elementary schools. Their

ongoing support is vital to our work.

The Catholic Schools Foundation has made a sustained commitment to

implementing and expanding City Connects in Catholic Schools.

The Mathile Family Foundation has enabled City Connects to adapt its

model to high schools and has supported the expansion of City Connects in

Catholic elementary schools in Ohio.

The Better Way Foundation has provided support for the Early Childhood

Adaptation of City Connects in Catholic Schools and for its expansion to all

City Connects schools.

The Archdiocese of Boston’s Catholic Schools Office has been a supportive

partner in the implementation and evaluation of City Connects in Catholic

Schools.

Our community agency partners across the cities of Boston and Chelsea

have established and sustained partnerships with City Connects School

Site Coordinators, the schools, students, and families.

Boston College and the Lynch School of Education have a deep and long-

standing commitment to address the non-academic barriers to learning.

The principals, teachers, and City Connects School Site Coordinators

have inspired us with their deep and daily commitment to children,

communities, and Catholic education.

The ongoing work of implementing and evaluating City Connects in

Catholic Schools is not possible without the generosity and resolve of all

of our partners. It is our shared commitment to children and communities

that makes this work possible and successful.

1City Connects in Catholic Schools • Evaluation Report 2014

IntroductionUnderlying discouraging reports of increasing economic disparity and

rising rates of child poverty in the United States1 is the long-recognized—

but often ignored—fact that children growing up poor face exceptional

challenges outside of school that impede success in school. Current

research confirms that larger social structures and contexts beyond the

school are critical, accounting for up to two-thirds of the variance in

student achievement.2 Urban Catholic elementary schools face the same

challenges as their public school counterparts: they serve neighborhoods

that show high concentrations of poverty and students who struggle

with the impact of poverty on academic achievement.3 It is now widely

recognized that urban schools cannot close the achievement gap without a

systemic approach to addressing out-of-school factors.4 While the challenge

of poverty may be society’s to solve, and not all non-academic barriers to

learning can or should be addressed by schools, in the absence of a large-

scale societal solution, schools are in a position to provide some supports

that mitigate the impact of poverty.

Over the course of 12 years, staff at the Lynch School of Education at

Boston College have developed and implemented a theoretically-guided,

evidence-based approach to student support in high-poverty urban schools.

This approach, called City Connects, is novel in that it: a) is systematic,

using a student support professional in each school to transform and

optimize existing school structures and processes in order to make student

support practices a codified and core aspect of schools that permeates all

functions of schools as institutions; and b) is tailored, identifying each

student’s strengths and needs in academic, social-emotional, physical,

and family domains and leveraging community-based services to deliver

support that is aligned with these strengths and needs. This approach

redefines the traditional and often haphazard approach to student support

in most schools.

Under the leadership of Boston College, City Connects was formally

adopted by Boston Catholic elementary schools (K-8) in 2008-09.

Historically, Catholic elementary schools have made important

contributions to closing the achievement gap between low-income students

and those from higher-income families. The Catholic value of caring for

“the whole person” makes Catholic schools a natural fit to address the

1 Bertlsmann Foundation, 2011; Blow, 2011; Kahn & Martin, 2011; Tavernise, 20122 Rothstein, 2010; Phillips, Brooks-Gunn, Duncan, Klebanov, & Crane, 19983 Cattaro, 2002; Fenzel & Domingues, 2009; O’Keefe & Scheopner, 20094 Bryk, Sebring, Allensworth, Luppescu, & Easton, 2010

©2014 Trustees of Boston College, Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts2

adverse impact of poverty on academic growth. City Connects and Boston’s

Catholic schools are capitalizing on their shared values not only to close

the achievement gap, but also to support students in the Catholic tradition

of caring for the entire human person.

More than 10 years of research and evaluation in Boston Public Schools

has shown that City Connects has significant, positive outcomes in student

achievement and thriving (behavior, work habits, and effort). Further,

after students leave the intervention in Grade 5, it has a significant, long-

term, beneficial impact on academic achievement, chronic absenteeism,

and school dropout.

This report summarizes the most recent findings of the evaluation of City

Connects in Catholic Schools. Wherever possible, results are reported for

the 2012-13 school year, when the City Connects model was implemented

in 16 urban Catholic elementary schools in the Archdiocese of Boston.5

In some places in this report, results from the 2011-12 school year are the

most recent available. This report includes sections summarizing the

program’s impact on students, as well as on school-based professionals and

organizations partnering with the program. Central to the evaluation of

City Connects in Catholic Schools is the Early Childhood Adaptation of the

City Connects model; outcomes for early childhood are also presented.

5 A separate document reports on implementation and evaluation in Dayton, OH Catholic schools.


The City Connects InterventionRationale and Partner Schools

For children living in poverty, the impact of out-of-school factors is clearly

evident in their ability to succeed in school. Limited resources, stress,

and the chaos of poverty result in poor attendance, high mobility, social-

emotional dysfunction, a lack of readiness for school, and limited cultural

capital to understand schools as institutions.6 Rothstein describes the

impact on achievement of out-of-school factors relative to in-school factors:

Decades of social science research have demonstrated that

differences in the quality of schools can explain about one-third

of the variation in student achievement. But the other two-thirds

is attributable to non-school factors (emphasis added).7

Figure 1 illustrates that academic success is predicated on children’s

readiness to engage and thrive in school. It also shows the overlapping

impact of the various domains of development on children’s readiness to

learn and thrive.

Figure 1. Academic Success is Predicated on Students’ Readiness to Engage and Thrive in School

Many schools currently are unable to respond to the pressing challenges

facing students’ out-of-school lives. Student support structures are the

product of an earlier time, a different set of needs, and a less diverse

demographic. The typical approach to student support in most schools:

6 Dearing, 20087 Rothstein, 2010


1. Is fragmented and idiosyncratic, serving a small number of high-

need students

2. Does not address the full range of needs, focusing mainly on risk

3. Does not collect data on the effectiveness of the supports offered

students

4. In practice, does not operate as a core function of the school, and

as a result, seeks minimal teacher engagement8

In contrast to these earlier approaches, optimized student support has six

identifying characteristics. It is:

1. Customized to the unique strengths, needs, and interests of each

student

2. Comprehensive, serving the academic, social/emotional, health,

and family needs of all students from a variety of cultural and

ethnic backgrounds

3. Coordinated among families, schools, and community agencies

4. Cost-effective to schools by leveraging the resources provided

by community agencies

5. Continuously monitored for effectiveness through collecting

and analyzing data to evaluate and improve service delivery and

student outcomes

6. Implemented in all sites with fidelity and oversight

Grounded in these best practices, City Connects in Catholic Schools is a

partnership between Boston College, community agencies, and Catholic

elementary schools in the Archdiocese of Boston. The partnership

delivers optimized student support in participating schools, which are

located in several Boston neighborhoods, including East Boston, the

North End, Dorchester, Roxbury, the South End, Roslindale, South

Boston, and West Roxbury, and in two communities outside of Boston

(Chelsea and Brookline). In 2012-13, City Connects was implemented in 16

Catholic schools; total student enrollment in grades Pre-K through grade

8 during 2012-13 was 4,428. Table 1 presents demographic information on

participating schools for 2012-13.

8 Walsh & DePaul, 2008


Table 1. City Connects Catholic School and Comparison Elementary School Characteristics, 2012-13

City Connects Schools(N=16)

Comparison Schools(N=9)

GenderMale 49% 47%

RaceAsianBlackHispanic/LatinoWhiteMulti/Other

8%21%19%34%17%

13%14%10%54%

9%

Free/Reduced Price LunchRegistering as Eligible 27% 22%

Total Students 4,362 2,707

*Total number of students is slightly lower than the total reported above because demographic records were incomplete for a small set of students.

Data compiled from City Connects in Catholic Schools records collected from individual schools and Archdiocese of Boston Catholic Schools Office records.

Description of the City Connects Intervention

The mission of City Connects is to have children engage and learn in

school by connecting each child with the tailored set of prevention,

intervention, and enrichment services he or she needs to thrive. There are

six key components of the model:

School Site Coordinator. At the core of the intervention is a full-time

School Site Coordinator (SSC) in each school, trained as a school counselor

or school social worker, who connects students to a customized set of

services through collaboration with families, teachers, school staff, and

community agencies. The SSC follows standardized practices codified in

the City Connects Practice Manual, which are schematized in Figure 2 and

described in detail below.


Figure 2. City Connects’ Student Support Process

Whole Class Review. The SSC works with each classroom teacher to

review every student in the class and develop customized support plans

that addresses their individual strengths and needs. There are five aspects

of the Whole Class Review (WCR):

1. Identifying the strengths and needs of each student across four

domains (academic, social/emotional/behavioral, health, and

family)

2. Identifying and locating appropriate school- and/or community-

based services and enrichments

3. Establishing the connection between these service providers and

individual children and their families

4. Documenting and tracking the delivery of the service

5. Following up to ensure appropriateness of fit

As they conduct the WCR, at the most general level, the teacher and SSC

group the students in a class into three tiers: strengths and minimal risk

(Tier 1); strengths and mild to moderate risk (Tier 2); or strengths and

severe risk (Tier 3). Tier 2 is divided into two levels: 2a (mild risk) and

2b (moderate risk). Figure 3 shows the percentage of students in Early

Childhood and later elementary grades classified at each level.


Figure 3. Percentage of Students at Each Level of Risk, Early Childhood and Elementary Grades

Data source: SSIS, 2012-13

Individual Student Review. Students identified as having intensive

needs, at any point during the school year, receive an Individual Student

Review (ISR). A wider team of professionals discuss and develop specific

measureable goals and strategies for the student. The ISR is conducted

by the student support team—an existing school structure that can

include school psychologists, teachers, principals, nurses, and occasional

community agency staff members and that is typically led by the SSC. The

SSC communicates with the family before and after the ISR. In 2012-13, 5%

of students received an ISR.

Community agency partnerships. A critical aspect of the role of the SSC

is developing and maintaining partnerships with community agencies and

institutions. These relationships are vital to providing all students with

the supports and enrichments they need to thrive. In 2012-13, services were

delivered by 190 different community partners.

Connecting students to services, tracking, and following up. During

and after the conversations with teachers, school staff and leaders, and

community agency representatives, City Connects SSCs connect each

student to the particular enrichment and service programs that best meet

his or her strengths and needs. SSCs work closely with families as students

are referred and connected to particular enrichments and services.

To aid with the process, and to permit streamlined tracking and follow-

up, City Connects has developed a proprietary Web-based database,

the Student Support Information System (SSIS). SSIS allows for secure

collection of data on student reviews, individual student plans, service


referrals, and providers (both school-based and community agencies) who

deliver services. SSIS data are used for three purposes:

1) record-keeping at the individual and school level; 2) monitoring and

evaluating the implementation of the intervention throughout the school

year; and 3) conducting research on the effectiveness of the intervention.

Services can be classified into three broad categories: prevention and

enrichment; early intervention, and intensive/crisis intervention. Each

category includes services of different types. The tailoring of services

is accomplished through different combinations of quantity and type of

services from Table 2, resulting in a unique set of services for each student.

Table 2. Total Number of Service Referrals, by Category

Number of Services

Percentage of Category

Percent-age of All Services

Category 1 (Prevention and

Enrichment)

After-School Program 1,996 22%

59%

Enrichment: Youth Development 1,818 20%

Enrichment: Arts 1,347 15%

Sports or Physical Activity 1,324 15%

Health Screening – Vision 700 8%

Health Screening – Hearing 619 7%

Enrichment: Academic 549 6%

Health Screening – BMI 224 2%

Before-School Program 210 2%

Health Screening – Postural/ Scoliosis 102 1%

Summer Programming: Enrichment 83 1%

Violence Prevention 68 1%

School Vacation Program 65 1%

Summer Programming: Academic 1 <1%

Category Total 9,106


Data source: SSIS, 2012-13.

Category 2 (Early Intervention)

Academic Classroom Support 941 21%

28%

Mentoring 673 15%

Psycho-Social Group 411 9%

Individual Tutoring 376 9%

Classroom-based Social Skills Intervention 352 8%

Classroom-based Health Intervention 288 7%

Math Intervention 257 6%

Literacy Intervention 210 5%

Behavioral/Social 189 4%

Family Conference/Meeting 145 3%

Behavioral Support: City Connects School Site Coordinator

144 3%

Academic Support 87 2%

Supplemental Educational Services (SES) 67 2%

Parent/Family Engagement 66 2%

Parent/Family Support 64 1%

Family Assistance 54 1%

Staff Mentoring 25 1%

ESL 11 <1%

Parent/Family Donations 7 <1%

Classroom/Group Health Intervention 4 <1%

ESL-Parent/Family 4 <1%

Classroom/Group Social Skills Intervention 2 <1%


Category 3 (Intensive/Crisis

Intervention)

Health/Medical 990 52%

12%

Counseling: Student 481 25%

Regular Check-in with City Connects School Site Coordinator

187 10%

Violence Intervention 87 5%

Special Education Evaluation 78 4%

Crisis Intervention 41 2%

Informal Screening/Diagnostic 17 1%

Counseling: Family 14 1%

Attendance Support 14 1%

Occupational Therapy 5 <1%

Independent Evaluation 1 <1%


Grand Total 15,398


For any single student, regardless of tier, the tailored set might include

a combination of prevention and enrichment, early intervention, and/or

intensive services.

Table 3. Average Number of Service Referrals by Tier

Tier Students Referred to Services

Average Number of Service Referrals*

1 1708 2.8

2a 1254 3.5

2b 670 4.4

3 256 5.9

Total 3888 3.5

Data source: SSIS, 2012-13.*Average includes only students referred to services. Table excludes inactive students and students not assigned to a tier.

As Table 3 shows, the average number of service referrals per student was

highest in the tier corresponding to most severe risk (Tier 3) and lowest

in the tier corresponding to minimal risk (Tier 1). Similarly, students in

Tier 1 were typically referred to less intensive services, while students in

higher tiers were referred to more intensive services, as shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Percentage of Service Referrals in each Category, by Level of Risk

Data source: SSIS, 2012-13.

Figure 4 shows that as tier (representing level of risk) increases, the

proportion of intensive services also increases; for example, Tier 3 students

received over twice as many referrals to intensive and crisis intervention

services as those in Tier 1.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Tier1 Tier 2a Tier 2b Tier 3

Category 3 (Intensive/Crisis Interven>on)

Category 2 (Early Interven>on)

Category 1 (Preven>on and Enrichment)


City Connects in Catholic SchoolsHistory of City Connects in Catholic Schools

On the basis of the evaluation and success of City Connects in public

schools, key stakeholders pursued the implementation of a similar

program for Catholic elementary schools. In 2003, City Connects staff

at Boston College conducted a needs assessment of Boston Catholic

elementary schools, revealing that urban Catholic school children face

significant barriers to learning on a level comparable to their public

school counterparts. From 2004 to 2008, Boston College offered professional

development seminars (six sessions annually) to principals and school

counselors on implementing various aspects of systemic student support.

While this professional development effort facilitated an introduction

to the City Connects model, it was not intended to result in consistent,

systemic implementation across schools.

In September 2008, the Archdiocese of Boston’s Office of Catholic Schools, the

Catholic Schools Foundation, and Boston College collaborated to fund and

pilot a more formalized and systemic implementation of the City Connects

model across a cluster of Catholic elementary schools in Boston. City

Connects is now in 16 Catholic elementary schools in Boston and in two high-

poverty Catholic schools just outside of the city (Chelsea and Brookline).

In 2008, the Mathile Family Foundation supported the implementation of

the City Connects model at Our Lady of the Rosary K-8 School in Dayton,

Ohio. Dayton is also the site of the first high school adaptation of City

Connects at Chaminade-Julienne Catholic High School. The City Connects

implementation in Catholic schools in Dayton is described in detail in two

separate reports.9

In 2009, the Better Way Foundation (Minneapolis, MN) provided a 3-year

grant to adapt the City Connects model to the early childhood population.

City Connects in Catholic Schools committed to develop, implement,

and evaluate an Early Childhood Adaptation of the City Connects model

in participating schools in Boston as well as in free-standing Early

Childhood centers sponsored by Catholic Charities.10 Reports detailing the

particulars of the Early Childhood Adaptation were prepared for the Better

Way Foundation in September 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013. These reports

incorporated data from our evaluation of the Early Childhood Adaptation.

9 Hursh, DiNatale & Walsh 2010, 201110 For the purposes of this program, “early childhood” is a term that refers to children

enrolled in grades K0 (or pre-kindergarten) through 1st grade.


Professional Development

City Connects School Site Coordinators participate in biweekly

professional development sessions at Boston College. Delivered by the

City Connects Program Manager, the professional development series

is designed to support the implementation of the City Connects model.

Sessions include training in core elements of the model, regular reviews

of data from participating schools in order to inform practice, exploration

of developmental research relevant for the early childhood population,

discussion of relevant case examples, and presentations on timely issues

for schools (e.g., bullying, autism, and special needs).

Principals attend three quarterly professional development meetings at

Boston College. SSCs are included in these meetings in order to maximize

efficient collaboration. The meetings focus on the data from the evaluation

of City Connects, the implementation of the model in each principals’

school, and the overall goals and direction of City Connects.

Fidelity of ImplementationPractice data collected through SSIS shows that core elements of the

City Connects model are being implemented with fidelity in Catholic

elementary schools. As noted above, to assess the strengths and needs of

each student, SSCs work closely with each classroom teacher to conduct

a Whole Class Review. The review is a core element of the practice,

providing the information the Coordinator and teacher use to tailor an

individual plan of services and enrichments for each student. In 2012-13,

100% of students received this comprehensive review.

Students identified as experiencing significant risk are referred to an

Individual Student Review (ISR). As described above, this intensive review

brings a team of professionals together for a careful assessment of the

student’s strengths and needs and the construction of specific goals and a

plan for the student. Five percent of students received this intensive review.

Fidelity to the model was also seen in SSCs’ leadership role in Student

Support Teams, where ISRs are conducted. Most SSCs chaired or co-

chaired weekly or biweekly SST meetings, another core element typically

lasting between 45-60 minutes. The remaining SSCs held longer monthly

meetings timed around specific referrals.


Impact on StudentsFindings from a range of data sources demonstrate that City Connects

has a positive impact on students in Catholic schools. This section

first presents findings related to academic achievement and academic

readiness. Next, we turn to the impact of City Connects on measures of

student thriving.

Academic Achievement in Elementary School

This section reports results from an initial analysis of 2010-11 data from

the 14 Boston Catholic schools taking part in City Connects that year and

a comparison group of nine elementary schools not taking part in City

Connects.11 It is important to note that outcome evaluation requires data

over several years. The two sources of data typically used to evaluate City

Connects in the public schools are report card scores and standardized

test scores (Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System, MCAS). In

the Catholic school context, report card content and format varies across

schools; the unavailability of a standard report card across schools limits

the basis for comparison.

Although MCAS data are not available for Catholic school students,

Catholic schools in the Archdiocese of Boston began administering a

standardized achievement measure, the Stanford 10 Achievement Test,

in grades 2-8 during the 2009-2010 school year. This report presents a

comparison of student achievement growth as measured by the Stanford

10 in the subject areas of Mathematics, Reading, and Language. Four years

of assessment results (from 2009-10 through 2012-13) were analyzed for

students in grades 2-8.

Table 4 presents demographic information on students in the City

Connects and comparison groups for the full Stanford 10 analytic sample

across grades.12

11 Comparison schools were all Catholic elementary schools in six “urban rim” (former industrial) communities surrounding the Greater Boston area.

12 Numbers are smaller than those in Table 1 because students in the SAT-10 analytic sample (grades 2-8 only) are a subset of all students enrolled in City Connects and comparison schools.


Table 4. Demographic Information, City Connects Catholic and Comparison Schools, Stanford 10 Analytic Sample

Grades 2-8

City Connects Students(N=3,216)

Comparison Students(N=2,403)

GenderMale 49% 46%

Race

Asian

Black

Hispanic

White

Other

7%

18%

16%

40%

19%

10%

10%

8%

55%

17%


Data source: Archdiocese of Boston, Catholic Schools Office

As seen in Table 4, City Connects and comparison schools were similar

across several characteristics, including gender. They also differ in several

important respects. City Connects schools include higher percentages of

students of color and higher percentages of students living in poverty, as

measured by eligibility for free or reduced-price lunch.

Mathematics. A statistical analysis that adjusted for demographic

differences between City Connects and comparison students found that

the average mathematics achievement level in grade 6 was significantly

higher for City Connects students than for equivalent peers with similar

demographic characteristics. City Connects students also demonstrated a

significantly higher rate of growth. As Figure 5 shows, the two groups of

students started with similar average scores in grade 3, but City Connects

students gained at a higher rate than their comparison peers. By grade 6,

the average difference between the two groups was 16 scale score points—

more than half a standard deviation. This difference is one-third greater

than the size of the achievement gap associated with eligibility for free/

reduced price lunch in this analysis.


Students who remained enrolled in a City Connects school for more years

were also more likely, on average, to have additional gains in achievement,

compared to those with fewer years of City Connects involvement.13

Figure 5. Growth in Stanford 10 Math Scores (2009-10 to 2012-13): Model-adjusted Mean Scores for City Connects Catholic School and Comparison Students

Source: Stanford Achievement Test 10 scores, 2009-10 to 2012-13.City Connects N=3,216; Comparison N=2,403

Reading. Differences in grade 6 achievement of a smaller magnitude were

found for the Stanford 10 Reading assessment, and the difference was not

statistically significant. City Connects sixth graders had average Reading

scores that were 11 scale score points (39% of a standard deviation) higher

than their peers.

13 Figures 5-7 present scores estimated by a hierarchical linear model that controls for student gender, race/ethnicity, having an IEP, and being eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. For City Connects Catholic school students, the figure shows the average growth trajectory for students who began participating in City Connects in grade 3 and remained enrolled in a City Connects school each year through grade 6. Because this analysis is not based on an experimental design, it cannot rule out other factors that might have led to the observed differences between City Connects and comparison students.


Figure 6. Growth in Stanford 10 Reading Scores (2009-10 to 2012-13): Model-adjusted Mean Scores for City Connects Catholic School and Comparison Students

Source: Stanford Achievement Test 10 scores, 2009-10 to 2012-13. City Connects N = 3,182; Comparison N = 2,403

Language. On the Language assessment, sixth graders participating in

City Connects had higher scores on average than their peers in comparison

schools (14 scale score points, or half a standard deviation), but the

difference was not statistically significant.

This relationship between City Connects participation and achievement

was significantly weaker among low-income students compared to others,

as indicated by eligibility for free or reduced-price lunch programs. As the

two graphs in Figure 7 illustrate, lower-income City Connects students

started out with slightly lower average scores in grade 3 than their

lower-income peers in comparison schools, but surpassed the comparison

students by grade 6. The overall difference in scores for this subgroup

in grade 6 was about a quarter of a standard deviation (8 scale score

points). Among moderate- or higher-income students (as measured by

non-eligibility for free or reduced-price lunch), City Connects participants

started out at about the same level as comparison students, but pulled

ahead of them by approximately half a standard deviation (15 scale score

points) by grade 6. (Note that although higher and lower income students

exhibited different patterns, the relationship between City Connects

participation and grade 6 results did not reach the level of statistical

significance in either group.)


Figure 7. Growth in Model-adjusted Mean Stanford 10 Language Scores (2009-10 to 2012-13) by Free/Reduced-Price Lunch Eligibility

Eligible for Free/Reduced-Price Lunch

City Connects N=1,005; Comparison N=228

Not Eligible

City Connects N=2,211; Comparison N=2,175

Source: Stanford Achievement Test 10 scores, 2009-10 - 2012-13.

The differences between City Connects and comparison schools should

be kept in mind as context for understanding these findings. Because

all Boston schools in the Archdiocese participate in City Connects,

comparison schools are recruited from surrounding cities, which generally

have poverty rates lower than that in Boston.


School Readiness in Early Childhood

To better understand the impact of City Connects on pre-school and

kindergarten students, City Connects administered the Bracken School

Readiness Assessment (BSRA) in both City Connects Catholic and

comparison schools.14 The BSRA is a widely-used cognitive test for

children in pre-K through grade 2 that assesses five basic skills considered

essential for school readiness: color naming, letter identification, counting,

sizes/comparisons, and naming shapes.

In 2009-10 through 2012-13, the BSRA was administered to both levels of

pre-kindergarten and all kindergarten students (referred to as K0, K1, and

K2 in this report, or students aged 3, 4, and 5 years, respectively) in both

intervention and comparison schools. All students in the intervention and

comparison schools were invited to participate in the evaluation. Table 5

presents demographic information on students in the City Connects and

comparison groups for the Bracken analytic sample across grades.

Table 5. Student Demographic Information, City Connects Catholic and Comparisons Schools (Bracken Analytic Sample)

City Connects Students(N=1,228)

Comparison Students(N=580)

GenderMaleFemaleMissing gender

49%51%

51%36%13%

Race

Asian

Black

Hispanic/Latino

White

Mixed/Other

Missing race

9%

24%

16%

37%

12%

4%

12%

15%

9%

52%

4%

8%


Data source: Individual schools’ demographic data.

Table 5 summarizes information for the full Bracken analytic sample of

1,808 students. Of these, 1,143 had data from one school year, 575 had data

14 Schools included all schools receiving the City Connects intervention and a comparison group of nine schools. Comparison schools were all Catholic elementary schools in six “urban rim” (former industrial) communities surrounding the Greater Boston area.


from two school years, and 90 had data from three school years. Bracken

scores are normed in 3-month age groupings and always have a mean

of 100 and standard deviation of 15. Scores within the 85-115 range are

considered indicative of “average school readiness.” Scores below 85 or

above 115 are considered indicative of “delayed” and “advanced” school

readiness, respectively.

In this analysis, we estimated the average point-in-time difference between

City Connects and comparison Bracken scores in a repeated measures context

using Hierarchical Linear Models (HLM) methodology.15 The differences in

City Connects and comparison students’ Bracken scores were estimated after

controlling for demographics: gender, race, socio-economic status, initial grade

in formal schooling, and cohort. Figure 8 shows the differences in student

percentile scores across City Connects and comparison schools, by age.

Figure 8. Difference in Bracken student percentile scores, City Connects Catholic school versus comparison students, by age (2009-10 through 2012-13)

In Figure 8, positive numbers indicate that City Connects students are

outperforming comparison students. The figure shows that City Connects

students begin K0 with slightly lower school readiness than comparison

students. However, because longer exposure to City Connects is associated

-‐4%

-‐2%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

3:0 -‐ 3:2

3:3 -‐ 3:5

3:6 -‐ 3:8

3:9 -‐ 3:11

4:0 -‐ 4:2

4:3 -‐ 4:5

4:6 -‐ 4:8

4:9 -‐ 4:11

5:0 -‐ 5:2

5:3 -‐ 5:5

5:6 -‐ 5:8

5:9 -‐ 5:11

6:0 -‐ 6:2

6:3 -‐ 6:5

6:6 -‐ 6:8

6:9 -‐ 6:11

Diff

eren

ce in

Ave

rage

Sch

ool R

eadi

ness

Per

cen5

les

of C

CCS

and

Com

pariso

n G

roup

s

Age (3 month groupings)

15 A non-parametric time longitudinal model is utilized to minimize the possibility of model misspecification. This has the practical effect of minimizing potential bias in treatment effect estimates due to inaccurate representation of student trajectories.


with higher relative school readiness, students who are continuously

enrolled in City Connects outperform comparison students by the end of

K0. This difference continues to grow over time, becoming statistically

significant by the spring of K1.

In percentile terms, City Connects students on average begin

approximately 3 percentile points below the comparison students but

finish approximately 13 percentile points above comparison students by

the end of kindergarten. Thus, holding age and demographics constant, we

find that longer exposure to City Connects is associated with higher

levels of school readiness. By the spring of the second school year of

exposure to the intervention, City Connects students have statistically

significantly higher school readiness scores than comparison students.

Student Thriving in Elementary School

During 2012-13, City Connects students in grades 3-5 were administered a

survey that measured their perceptions of relationships with peers, their

school, and academic subjects. Across the 16 City Connects schools, 734

students (58% of all students in grades 3-5) took part in the survey.

Survey items (20) were drawn from existing measures. Analysis of the

results confirmed six major “scales” or dimensions of student thriving.

Four scales address relationships between students and the school

(competence in and attitudes toward math; competence in and attitudes

toward reading; perceived relationship with teacher; sense of belonging

and membership in school). Two scales address students’ relationships

with peers (perceived victimization by bullies; self-reported bullying

behaviors). For all scales, higher scores are more positive (e.g., a response

of 1 represents a negative feeling, such as “Don’t like at all,” while a

response of 5 represents a positive feeling, such as “Like a lot”). Mean

scores for the four student-school relationship scales from the 2012-13

survey, by grade, are presented in Figure 9.


Figure 9. City Connects Social Competence Survey, Mean Scores for School Relationship Scales by Grade, 2012-13

a: grade 3 significantly higher than grade 4 (p < 0.05); b. grades 3 and 4 significantly higher than grade 5 (p < .001); c: grade 3 significantly higher than grades 4 and 5 (p < .01);

As Figure 9 shows, third graders scored significantly higher than fourth

or fifth graders on all scales except Attitudes Toward Math (p < .05).

Also, fourth graders scored higher than fifth graders on the Teacher

Relationships scale (p<.01). In general, this is consistent with a trend seen

in research: scores drop somewhat as children move through the later

elementary school grades.

Results from the two peer-relationship scales from the 2012-13 survey, by

grade, are presented in Figure 10.

Figure 10. City Connects Social Competence Survey, Mean Scores for Peer Relationship Scales by Grade, 2012-13

Note: Higher values represent more favorable scores: less Bullying or Victimization a: grade 3 significantly higher than grade 5 (p < 0.05)

As shown in Figure 10, third grade students reported significantly less

bullying behavior than fifth grade students, although little bullying

activity was reported at any grade. It is typical that less bullying is

reported at lower elementary school grades.

0

1

2

3

4

5

Sense of School Membership Rela9onship with Teacher Competence & A@tude: Math Competence & A@tude: Reading

Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5

a b c

0

1

2

3

4

5

Self-‐Reported Bullying Perceived Vic=miza=on

Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5

a


Turning next to a comparison of social competence survey scores across

years, Figure 11 displays mean scores for the six thriving scales for school

years 2011-12 and 2012-13.

Figure 11. City Connects Social Competence Scale Scores, 2011-12 and 2012-13

As seen in Figure 11, while most scores were consistent across time, the

level of perceived victimization improved slightly from 2011-12 to 2012-13.

Because scores for four of the social competence scales differ by grade

in school (see Figures 9 and 10), it is important to consider whether

differences in mean scores from 2011-12 to 2012-13 may reflect grade-related

differences in sample composition from year to year. To better understand

changes over time, scores for students in grade 5 only were compared

across the two years; see Figure 12.

Figure 12. City Connects Social Competence Scale Scores in Grade 5, 2011-12 and 2012-13

*Mean difference was statistically significant from previous year (p<.05).

0

1

2

3

4

5

Sense of School Membership

Rela9onships with Teacher

Competence & A@tude: Math

Competence & A@tude: Reading

Self-‐Reported Bullying

Perceived Vic9miza9on

2011-‐12

2012-‐13

0

1

2

3

4

5

School Membership Rela7onship with Teacher Competence & A?tude: Math

Competence & A?tude: Reading

Self-‐Reported Bullying Perceived Vic7miza7on

2011-‐12 (Grade 5)

2012-‐13 (Grade 5)

*

*


As shown in Figure 12, except for Relationship with Teacher and self-

rated Reading Competence, which decreased slightly, mean scores for

grade 5 students were steady across 2011-12 and 2012-13. This consistency

is important in light of the earlier City Connects finding that fifth grade

scores had significantly improved from 2009-10 to 2010-11.16

The results shown in Figure 12 indicate sustained effects in social

competence for fifth grade students in City Connects Catholic schools.

Summary of Impact on Students

For both elementary and early childhood students in Catholic

schools, results show beneficial impacts of City Connects on

measures of academic achievement and thriving. An analysis

of standardized test score data (Stanford 10) reveals that the

average mathematics achievement level in sixth grade is

significantly higher for City Connects students than comparison

students, and that they demonstrated a significantly higher

rate of growth. Data from a standardized assessment of school

readiness show that by spring of the second year of exposure

to the intervention, City Connects pre-school students have

significantly higher school readiness scores than comparison

students, and longer exposure to City Connects is associated with

higher levels of school readiness. In measures of thriving, results

indicate sustained gains in social competence for City Connects

students.

16 City Connects in Catholic Schools Evaluation Summary Report, 2012, pp. 19-21.


Impact on SchoolsPrincipal Satisfaction

In the spring of 2013, City Connects surveyed principals about their

satisfaction with the program. Fifteen principals received the survey and

14 completed it. (One of the City Connects schools was in the process of

closing at the time of the survey; this principal was not surveyed.) Of those

who completed the survey, 100% reported that they were satisfied with

City Connects as a whole, and 100% would recommend City Connects to a

principal in another school.

Principals were asked whether they were satisfied with the support the

SSC provides to core groups who participate in the intervention. Responses

were unanimous, as shown in Table 6.

Table 6. Percentage of Principals Satisfied with the Supports the SSC Provides in Each Area*

Students (e.g., securing services, providing individual support, running lunch groups) 100%

Teachers(e.g., conducting Whole Class Reviews and assisting with behavior challenges in the classroom)

100%

Families (e.g., family outreach, following up with families, assisting with parent meetings) 100%

Principals (e.g., coordinating Student Support Team, supporting administrative activities) 100%

The School(e.g., their presence on the playground, bus and lunch duty) 100%

Community Partnerships (e.g. maintaining communication with agencies, following up to secure services, coordinating agency work in the school)

100%

*Not all principals responded to every item. Source: City Connects 2013 principal survey.

Thirteen principals responded to an open-ended item about City Connects

benefits: “What was the most valuable thing about having City Connects

in your school this year?” Responses fell into several categories, including

(i) review, support, and services for all students, (ii) supports to teachers,

principals, and families in addition to students, and (iii) community

partnerships. Example responses include:

“The Whole Class Reviews make sure that no child slips through.”

“We were able to offer more students more services because of our partnership with City Connects.”


“SSC was wonderful… has a hands on approach. Always present to students, faculty and principal.”

“[The most valuable thing was] the numerous outside resources

secured by our coordinator.”

Twelve principals responded to an open-ended item about City Connects

areas for change: “How could City Connects improve its value in

your school (or other schools) in the future?” Some principals made

recommendations for deepening the work by promoting the growth of

advanced SSCs, for example through tailored professional development.

Others noted the current need for supports to the early childhood

population (e.g., “More early childhood [professional] development

for Principals and Coordinators. The program is very beneficial and

needed within our schools.”) Finally, some principals did not observe

areas for improvement, and instead called for continued funding and

implementation of the program (e.g., one principal simply stated,

“Continue on,” and another reported, “…we are 100% satisfied with the

value City Connects brings to our school.”)

Teacher Satisfaction

The most recent teacher satisfaction survey was conducted in the spring of

2011.17 The majority of teachers (86%) were satisfied with the City Connects

intervention and 84% would recommend the program to other schools.

Teachers were also asked to rate their satisfaction with the support City

Connects provides for various school areas; see Table 7.

Table 7. Percentage of Teachers Satisfied with City Connects Support for Students, Teachers, and the School

Overall Satisfaction with City Connects Support for:2010-11: Satisfied Teachers

Students (e.g., securing services, providing individual support, running lunch groups) 94%

Teachers (e.g., conducting Whole Class Reviews, assisting with behavior challenges in the classroom) 97%

The School (e.g., coordinating the Student Support Team, outreach to families, partnering with community agencies, their presence on the playground)

94%

17 Of the full set of teachers invited to participate, 149 responded; not every teacher responded to every question.


Teachers generally reported that instructional practices, classroom

behavioral management, and relationships with families all were

strengthened by the use of the City Connects model. Table 8 highlights

the perceived impact of City Connects in several specific areas of practice

across the three years of the intervention.

Table 8. Percentage of Teachers Agreeing with Statements of Impact on Teachers’ Practice, 2008-09 to 2010-11

Impact on Teachers’ Practice

2008-09: Strongly/

Somewhat Agree with Statement

2009-10: Strongly/


2010-11: Strongly/


Whole Class Reviews offered me new options for working with students in my classroom. 65% 73% 86%

School Site Coordinator supported me with consultation on the behavior of one or more students in my class. 84% 91% 79%

School Site Coordinator connected my students to services both within the school and in the community. 53% 70% 69%

School Site Coordinator intervened in crises connected with students. 53% 65% 73%

City Connects has been helpful in making my classroom conducive to learning. 84% 84% 87%

City Connects has been helpful with the behavior of my students. 81% 79% 100%

City Connects has been helpful with increasing my ability to address students with unique needs (i.e., special educational needs).

65% 73% 100%

City Connects has been helpful in increasing the time I have to focus on instruction. 66% 70% 76%

As seen in Table 8, overall, teachers agreed that City Connects impacts

a variety of areas of their practice. In most categories, percentages of

agreement rose in 2010-11. The only category with a substantive drop in

agreement from 2009-10 to 2010-11, “School Site Coordinator supported me

with consultation on the behavior of one or more students in my class,”

may actually reflect a hidden gain: having had City Connects in place for

several years, teachers may feel further supported and equipped to address

behavior needs themselves. This would cohere with the fact that 100% of

the teachers participating in the survey reported that City Connects had

a positive impact on the behavior of students in 2010-11, an increase from

79% in 2009-10. A drop in the need for consultation on behavior issues


would also cohere with the finding that all responding teachers reported

that they felt better equipped to provide services to students with unique

needs. Overall, teachers felt that City Connects helped make the classroom

more conducive to learning, allowing for better academic success.

In their open-ended comments, teachers reported they have more options

for addressing individual needs of students. One teacher noted, “City

Connects helps us to track a student in social/emotional/educational

progress and to address problems quickly and effectively.” Teachers also

discussed a positive change in the work environment, citing increased

collaboration, sense of community, and a shared goal to meet students’

needs. One teacher enjoyed “knowing that there is a support system in place

that helps teachers handle problems better and lets teachers know they do not

have to go [at] it alone.”

Table 9 shows the percentage of teachers who agreed that City Connects

supported them in various specific areas of their work serving students’

needs.

Table 9. Percentage of Teachers Reporting Helpfulness of City Connects Intervention in Addressing Students’ Needs

Impact on Teacher’s Work Serving Students’ Needs2008-09:

Very/Some-what Helpful

2009-10: Very/Some-what Helpful

2010-11: Very/Some-what Helpful

I became more aware of the range of services that could help my students. 78% 85% 61%

City Connects enhanced teacher connection with students’ families. 71% 68% 85%

School Site Coordinator provided support for my relationships with families. 57% 66% 69%

School Site Coordinator listened when I needed someone to talk with regarding issues in my classroom. 88% 91% 83%

I was satisfied with the accessibility of quality services for students. 80% 88% 87%

As shown in Table 9, in 2010-11, 85% of teachers reported that City

Connects facilitated a connection between the teacher and the students’

families (up from 68% the previous year). A majority of teachers reported

that SSCs were helpful in listening to issues regarding their classrooms,

and 87% felt satisfied with the accessibility of quality services available for

students. A point of future improvement to highlight may be the teachers’

awareness of services available to students: only 61% of teachers felt they

became more aware of the range of services, down 24% from the previous


year. Another possible interpretation of this finding is that after several

years with City Connects, teachers are already aware of many of the

services that could benefit their students, and that awareness does not

need to expand as much over time.

Respondents stated:

“City Connects puts the needs of the student at the top of a priority

list.”

“Fewer children are falling through the cracks.”

“Students receive coordinated attention in a timely manner and

their progress is carefully tracked.”

Summary of Impact on Schools

Principals and teachers reported high levels of satisfaction with

City Connects. Principals reported that they particularly valued

the reviews of all students and the services and the increase

in services and resources for students. Teachers especially

endorsed City Connects’ support with behavior and with their

ability to address unique needs of students. Both principals and

teachers reported that City Connects contributes to a culture

of collaboration and shared purpose in addressing students’

individual needs.

Impact on Community PartnersIn 2012-13, City Connects Catholic schools collaborated with 190

community partners. The expansion in range and number of partnerships

has been a central focus of implementation in the past several years.

School Site Coordinators were charged with increasing connections

with community services, including after-school programs, enrichment

opportunities, mental health counselors, summer camps, tutors, mentors,

and providers of family services.

Table 10 lists community partners for 2012-13.


Table 10. City Connects in Catholic Schools, Active Community Partners, 2012-13

826 BostonABCD - Dorchester Neighborhood

Service CenterArbour CounselingBay State FencersBoston Centers for Youth and

FamiliesNazzaro Community CenterOrchard Gardens Community CenterBest Dental of WellesleyBig Brother/Big SisterBird Street Community CenterBlessed Mother Teresa ParishBOKS (formerly Fit Kidz)Boston City SingersBoston College First Year Service ProgramLynch School of Education: Roche

Center for Catholic EducationSchool of Social WorkBoston Institute for PsychotherapyBoston Medical CenterBoston Police DepartmentG.E.A.R. ProgramBoston Public LibraryBoston Public SchoolsBoston School of Music ArtsBoston Stars HockeyBoston Tae Kwon Do AcademyBoston UniversityPhonics ProgramSibling ProgramBoy Scouts of America: Boston

Minuteman CouncilBoys & Girls Club Blue HillCharlestownSouth BostonYawkey of RoxburyBoys and Girls Clubs of DorchesterWalter Denney Youth CenterBrigham and Women’s HospitalCardinal ScholarsCathedral High SchoolCentral Park LanesChampion Tae Kwon Do

Charles River AquaticsCharlestown Youth HockeyChelsea Community SchoolsChildren’s Hospital BostonCommonwealth History MuseumCradles to CrayonsCurtis Hall Community CenterDepartment of Child and Family

Services (DCF)Dorchester House Multi-Service

CenterEarthen VesselsEast Boston Girls Softball LeagueEducation Collaborative (EDCO)Ellis Memorial and Eldredge House,

Inc.Emerald Necklace Martial ArtsEmerson CollegeEmmanuel CollegeFranciscan Hospital for ChildrenGirl Scouts of Eastern MassachusettsGirls LEAP Self-Defense, Inc.Hale Reservation - Hale Summer

Day CampHarvard University - The Arnold

ArboretumHome for Little WanderersJoslin Diabetes ClinicJunior AchievementLife Dimensions Neuropsychological

ServicesLittle People’s PlayhouseMalden Catholic High SchoolMalden-East Boston Youth HockeyMassachusetts General HospitalMassArt - Artward BoundMetroLacrosseNazzaro CenterNeighborhood Children’s Theatre, Inc.North Suffolk Mental Health

AssociationNortheastern University - Service

LearningOTA Watertown Koomar CenterParis Street Community CenterParkway DanceParkway Sports

Peace FirstPolished, LLCPop Warner Football Conference of

Eastern Mass.Porrazzo Skating Rink Ice Skating

RinkPrivate TutoringProject DEEPRoslindale Arts CenterSacred Heart School Dance Program -

Samia DeSimoneSalesian Boys & Girls Club of East

BostonSalvation Army Kroc Corps Community CenterSouth End CorpsSaugus Youth Soccer AssociationSimmons School of Social WorkSouth End Community Health CenterSportsmen’s Tennis ClubSt. Rose School CounselSt. Stephen’s Episcopal ChurchSteppingstone FoundationCollege Success AcademyStrong Women, Strong GirlsSuffolk County District AttorneySuffolk County Sheriff’s Department-

Choice ProgramSuper Soccer StarsSylvan Learning CenterThe Forsyth InstituteTufts Medical CenterUnited South End SettlementsUrban ImprovVerve YogaWinthrop Gymnastics AcademyWinthrop School of Performing ArtsWinthrop Youth HockeyYMCACharlestownDorchesterEast BostonHuntington AveHyde ParkRoxburyZumix


“We were able to have at-risk students referred to our program

smoothly. Our contact at the school was effective at keeping in

touch with us and responding to any concerns we had.”

–City Connects Community partner

Conclusions and Future ImplicationsIn 2012-13, City Connects in Catholic Schools has demonstrated positive

impacts on students, schools, and community partners. Through the

collaboration of all the partners, City Connects has linked students to

services tailored to their individual strengths and needs. The model has

been implemented with fidelity, and strong partnerships with community

agencies have been built.

Benefits to students are reflected in measures of academic achievement

at the elementary school level and in measures of school readiness in

preschool and kindergarten. Principals and teachers report the beneficial

impact of City Connects on their work.

The evaluation findings of City Connects suggest continued success in

implementation of the City Connects model of optimized student support

in participating Catholic elementary schools. The evaluation has identified

several areas for continued improvement:

• Withthenewavailabilityofstandardized(Stanford10)testscores

for City Connects and comparison students, City Connects will

continue to track progress in academic achievement across

schools.

• Throughuseofanelectronicdatacollectionandmanagement

system (SSIS, developed by City Connects), School Site

Coordinators will continue to strengthen partnerships with

community agencies and fill gaps in service provision by

developing and tracking new partnerships.

• CityConnectswillcontinuetoimproveprofessionaldevelopment

meetings by widening offerings (especially in the area of early

childhood) and drawing on participants’ knowledge to uncover

new ways support the practice in individual schools.

• CityConnectswillcontinuetoevaluateandsharebestpractices

that SSCs may find useful in their daily work within schools.

• CityConnectswillcontinueitsworkwiththeBetterWay


Foundation and community agencies to help appropriately serve

the unique needs of the early childhood population now being

served by the City Connects model.

“A culture of problem-solving has emerged in our staff.”

—City Connects Catholic School Teacher

“There [is] not a doubt in my mind that our school is a better place

because of our Site Coordinator and this program.”

–City Connects Catholic School Principal


ReferencesBertelsmann Foundation. (2011). Social justice in the OECD – How do the

member states compare? Sustainable governance indicators 2011. Gütersloh,

Germany: Bertelsmann Stiftung.

Blow, C. M. (2011, October 28). American’s exploding pipe dream. The

New York Times. Retrieved November 22nd, 2011 from http://www.

nytimes.com/2011/10/29/opinion/blow-americas-exploding-pipe-dream.

html?_r=2&hp

Bryk, A.S., Sebring, P.B., Allensworth, E., Luppescu, S., & Easton, J. Q.

(2010). Organizing schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago:

Chicago University Press.

Cattaro, G. M. (2002). Catholic schools: Enduring presence in urban

America. Education and Urban Society, 35, 100-110.

Dearing, E. (2008). The psychological costs of growing up poor. Annals of

the New York Academy of Sciences (Special Issue: Scientific Approaches to

Understanding and Reducing Poverty, S. G. Kaler & O. M. Rennert, Eds.),

1136, 324-332.

Fenzel, L. M., & Domingues, J. (2009). Educating Urban African American

Children Placed At Risk: A Comparison of Two Types of Catholic Middle

Schools. Catholic Education: A Journal of Inquiry and Practice, 13, 30-52.

Hursh, N., DiNatale, P., & Walsh, M. (2010). Report on City Connects in

Dayton Catholic Schools: 2010. Boston College: Center for Optimized

Student Support.

Hursh, N., DiNatale, P., & Walsh, M. (2011). Report on City Connects in

Dayton Catholic Schools: 2011. Boston College: Center for Optimized

Student Support.

Kahn, C. B. & Martin, J. K. (2011). The measure of poverty: A Boston

Indicators Project special report. Boston: The Boston Foundation.

O’Keefe, J. M., & Scheopner, A. J. (2009). Bridging the gap: Urban Catholic

schools addressing educational achievement and opportunity gaps in the

United States. International Studies in Catholic Education, 1, 15-29.

Phillips, M., Brooks-Gunn, J., Duncan, G., Klebanov, P. & Crane, J. (1998).

Family background, parenting practices, and the black–white test score

gap. In C. Jencks and M. Phillips (Eds.), The black-white test score gap.

Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.


Rothstein, R. (2010). How to fix our schools. Issue Brief #286. Washington,

DC: Economic Policy Institute, October 14, 2010. Available: www.epi.org.

Tavernise, S. (2012) Education gap grows between rich and poor, studies

say. New York Times, February 9, 2012.

Walsh, M.E., & DePaul, G. (2008). The essential role of school-community

partnerships in school counseling. In H. L. K. Coleman & C. Yeh

(Eds.), Handbook of school counseling (pp. 765-783). Baltimore: MidAtlantic

Books & Journals.

Appendix A. City Connects in Catholic Schools Personnel

Executive Staff

Mary E. Walsh, Ph.D., Executive Director of City Connects

Matthew J. Welch, Ed.M., Program Director of City Connects in Catholic

Schools (2011–13)

School Professionals

Cathedral Grammar School

Sr. Dorothy Burns, CSJ, Principal

Joan Jackson, School Site

Coordinator

East Boston Central Catholic

School

Maryann Manfredonia, Principal

Caitrin O’Rourke, School Site

Coordinator

Holy Name Parish School

Lynne Workman, Principal

Dan Hurley, School Site

Coordinator

Mission Grammar School

Maura Bradley, Principal

Albert Hayle, School Site

Coordinator

Pope John Paul II Catholic

Academy, Columbia

Claire Barton Sheridan, Principal

Sarah Cochran, School Site

Coordinator


Academy, Lower Mills

Kim Mahoney, Principal

Lisa Warshafsky, School Site

Coordinator


Research Staff

Sarah Backe, Graduate Assistant

Amy Orecchia, Graduate Assistant

Stephanie Sienkiewicz, Graduate Assistant

Ashley Gilbert, Undergraduate Intern

Maggie Ryan, Undergraduate Intern


Academy, Mattapan Square

Lou Ann Melino, Principal

Priya Venkatakrishnan, School

Site Coordinator


Academy, Neponset

Kate Brandley, Principal

Amanda Reyes, School Site

Coordinator

Sacred Heart School

Monica Haldiman, Principal

Sr. Marie Connolly, CSJ, School

Site Coordinator

South Boston Catholic

Academy

Nancy Carr, Principal

Tim Lewis, School Site

Coordinator

St. Brendan School

Maura Burke, Principal

Britta Ashman, School Site

Coordinator

St. John School

Karen McLaughlin, Principal

Caitrin O’Rourke, School Site

Coordinator

St. Patrick School

Mary Lanata, Principal

Katie Horan, School Site

Coordinator

St. Mary of the Assumption

School

Maureen Jutras, Principal

Alicia Rainwater, School Site

Coordinator

St. Rose School

Caitlin Keeton, Principal

Peter MacNeil, School Site

Coordinator

St. Theresa of Avila School

Jane Gibbons, Principal

Dan Fitzgerald, School Site

Coordinator


City Connects in Catholic Schools is a collaborative partnership between

the Catholic Schools Foundation, Boston College, and community-based

organizations to link more than 4,000 students to the services and resources

they need to thrive and to be academically successful. This program is

currently in 16 Catholic elementary schools in the Archdiocese of Boston.

City Connects in Catholic Schools is based at the Center for Optimized

Student Support at the Lynch School of Education, Boston College.

Please direct all inquiries regarding this report to:

Mary Walsh, Ph.D.

Executive Director, City Connects

Kearns Professor of Urban Education & Innovative Leadership,

Lynch School of Education

Boston College

Campion Hall, Room 305D

140 Commonwealth Avenue

Chestnut Hill, MA 02467

www.bc.edu/cccs

Printed by Boston College

JUNE 2014

www.bc.edu/cccs

evaluation summary report 2014

Documents