LEA Name: Thomasville City Schools CIPP 2013

LEA Name: Thomasville City Schools CIPP 2013

Continuous Improvement Performance Plan (CIPP)

2013

LEA Name: ____Wyashia Hoover_____

LEA Number: ___292______

Superintendent/Charter School Administrator: __Keith Tobin______

Exceptional Children Director:__Wyashia Hoover______

Submitted by: __Wyashia Hoover, EC Director______

Date of Submission: __June 25, 2013______

Stakeholders Steering Committee Summary

List dates of the Stakeholders Steering Committee Meetings for the 2012-2013school year.

May 29, 2013

Explain/Describe the Stakeholders Steering Committee’s process for sharingthe LEA data with the followingnon-stakeholder committee members:

Teachers

EC Teachers – data will be shared at department meeting

Regular Ed. Teachers – data will be shared at SIT (school improvement) meetings and on district website

Administrators

Data will be shared at Principals/Directors meetings, as well as district website

School Board

Data shared in board briefing meetings (placed in notebook for review)

Parents

Data plans to be shared during parental involvement activities, as well as on district website.

Others

Data will be posted on district website.

Keep agendas, minutes, calendars, sign in sheets, etc. for meetings with CIPP documentation.

Stakeholders Steering Committee Summary

The recommended Stakeholders Steering Committee members:

EC Director (or designee)
Building Administrator
EC Teacher
General Education Teacher
EC Preschool Representative, if applicable
Parent of a SWD
Business/Agency/Community Leader or a leader from an organization that provides transition services/experiences
SWD age 14 or older (younger is at the discretion of the LEA)
Other(s) at the discretion of the LEA

The committee membership should reflect the demographics of the LEA, particularly the Exceptional Children Population.
Committee Composition
Committee Member Name / Organization/Agency / Role on the Committee / Gender / Ethnicity
Wyashia Hoover / LEA / EC Director / Female / AA
Kevin Leake / LEA / Building Administrator / Male / AA
James Blalock / LEA / EC Teacher / Male / AA
April Willard / LEA / GE Teacher/Reading Coach / Female / Caucasian
Tami Holtzman / LEA / Preschool Coordinator / Female / Caucasian
Robin Lee / Parent / Female / AA
Charles Funches / Business/Agency
Community Leader / Community Leader / Male / AA
LEA / Student / Male / AA
Aaron Kline / LEA / Building Administrator / Male / Caucasian
Tarsha Williams / LEA / Program Specialist / Female / AA
Laura LeClerc / LEA / Behavior Specialist / Female / Caucasian

Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE

Indicator 1:

Measurable and Rigorous State Target
2011-12 / 80%or more of students with individualized education programs (IEPs) graduating from high school with a regular diplomaTCS = 56.2%

_____This charter school does not serve students represented within this indicator. (Proceed to

next indicator.)

Based on the LEA Data Profile

LEA met State Target? _____ Yes __X__ No

If the target was met:

Proceed to the next indicator.

If the target was not met:

Based on an analysis of LEA data, list key factors preventing the LEA from meeting the state target. Develop at least one measurable improvement activity to address this indicator. Document each activity on the CIPP Improvement ActivityWorksheet.

Key factors preventing the TCS from meeting the state target:

Grading practices (possibly not modifying)
Not starting Transition (post-secondary) discussion earlier
Possible incorrect placements
Graduation requirements

Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE

Indicator 2:

Measurable and Rigorous State Target
2011-2012 / 4.7% or less is the dropout rate for students with IEPs in grades 9-12.TCS = 13.1%

_____This charter school does not serve students represented within this indicator. (Proceed to

next indicator.)

Based on the LEA Data Profile

LEA met State Target? _____ Yes __X__ No

If the target was met:

Proceed to the next indicator.

If the target was not met:

Key factors preventing the TCS from meeting the state target:

Lack of student motivation
Grading practices (possibly not modifying)
Not starting Transition (post-secondary) discussion earlier
Possible incorrect placements
Graduation requirements

Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE

Indicator 3:

Measurable and Rigorous State Targets
2011-12 / A. Percentage of LEAs Meeting AMOs: 65.0%
TCS met AMO (Annual Measureable Outcome)
B. Percentage of Participation: 95% for reading & math in all tested grade levels
Participation rates were not calculated.
C. Percentage of Proficiency:
Reading:
Math:

Based on the LEA Data Profile

LEA made AMO for students with disabilities? __X__ Yes _____ No

LEA met all state targets in all grade levels for participation and proficiency? _____Yes _X__No

If all the targetswere met:

Proceed to the next indicator.

If allthe targetswere not met:

Key factors preventing the TCS from meeting the state target:

On-line testing
Need of additional academic support
Lack of student motivation
Cognitively unable to pass/meet proficiency
Environmental factors
Incorrect testing placements/assignments
Lack of teacher training and experience in the area of Reading instruction

Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE

Indicator 4a:

Measurable and Rigorous State Target
2011-12 / A. LEA rate of long-term suspensions and expulsions of SWD in a school year that is less than twice the state average rate (<5.0%-2010-2011). TCS = less than 5 students in the category

Based on the LEA Data Profile

LEA met State Target? _X__ Yes _____ No

If the target was met:

Proceed to the next indicator.

If the target was not met:

Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE

Indicator 5:

Measurable and Rigorous State Targets
2011-12 / Percent of SWD aged 6 through 21 served:
Measurement A:The state target is 65.6% or above for SWD who are inside the
regular class 80% or more of the day; TCS = 62.2%
Measurement B: The state target is 15.3% or below inside the regular class less than 40%
of the day; andTCS = 18.7%
Measurement C: The state target is 2.0% or below in separate schools, residential
facilities, or homebound/hospital placements.TCS = 0.0%

Based on the LEA Data Profile

LEA met State Targets for all Measurements: _____ Yes _X__ No

If all the targets were met:

Proceed to the next indicator.

If all the targetswere not met:

Key factors preventing the TCS from meeting the state target:

Incorrect placements made by IEP teams
Parent requests for smaller, more restrictive environments
Administrators encouraging more restrictive settings
Administrator lack of training/knowledge in the area of least restrictive environment

Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE

Indicator 7:

Measurable and Rigorous State Target
2011-12 / Percent of preschool children aged 3 through 5 with IEPs who demonstrate improved:
Measurement A: Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships);
Outcome 1 - Summary Statement 1 = 85.9% TCS = 100%
Summary Statement 2 = 48.3%TCS = 44.4%
Measurement B: Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early
language/communication and early literacy);
Outcome 2 - Summary Statement 1 = 86.9% TCS = 100%
Summary Statement 2 = 46.6% TCS = 33.3%
Measurement C: Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs.
Outcome 3 - Summary Statement 1 = 86.1% TCS = 100%
Summary Statement 2 = 60.6% TCS = 44.4%

_____ Charter schools do not serve students represented within this indicator. (Proceed to

next indicator.)

For the LEAs that serve students represented within this indicator, the following questions must be answered:

1.What standardized testing instrument(s) is being used as a component of determining entry and exit COSF ratings (1-7)?

-Entry data – any evaluations completed – including speech/language, adaptive behavior, educational, social appraisal, psychological – so tests included might be any of the following: PLS-4, BASC, ABAS-II, Bracken Basic Concept Scale, and WPPSI-III

-Exit data – DIAL-4 K screening (beginning this year)

2.What on-going assessment instrument(s) is being usedto determine exit COSF ratings (1-7)?

Components of the Teaching Strategies Gold assessment; formative assessments created by pre-k teachers; benchmark assessments created by administrators & teachers.

3.How is parent information being collected?

At transition to K meetings and parent questionnaire, (if returned by parent).

4.How are observation data being collected?

From items in child portfolios; anecdotal notes; Teaching Strategies Gold includes observation

5.Are exit COSF ratings from Part C being used to assist in determining your entrance COSF ratings for Part B?

We do not have access to Part C exit COSF ratings. It has never been part of the transition packet Part C passes on and it is not accessible in CECAS (don’t know if it is even entered).

6.Is COSF training (including refresher training) conducted yearly?

Not an official training – just a review of the ratings and decision tree.

Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE

Indicator 8:

Measurable and Rigorous State Target
2011-12 / 50% of parents with a child receiving special education services report that schools facilitated parent involvement as a means of improving services and results for students with disabilities. TCS not sampled.

For those LEAs who were surveyed in the 2011-12 school year and based on the LEA Data Profile complete the following:

LEA met the State Target: _____ Yes _____ No NA

If the target was met:

Proceed to the next indicator.

If the target was not met:

Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B/Effective Transition

Indicator 14:

Measurable and Rigorous State Target
2011-12 /

39.5% enrolled in higher education within 1 year of leaving high school.
62.5% enrolled in higher education or competitively employed within 1 year of leaving high school.
73.5% enrolled in higher education, other postsecondary education or training or competitively employed or some other type of employment within 1 year of leaving high school.

TCS not sampled.

_____This charter school does not serve students represented within this indicator. (Proceed to

next indicator.)

For those LEAs who were surveyed in the 2011-12 school year and based on the LEA Data Profile complete the following:

LEA met the State Target for Measurement C: _____ Yes _____ No NA

If the target was met:

Review the 2013 CIPP and submit by June 30, 2013.

If the target was not met:

Revised: February 20, 2013

LEA Name: Thomasville City Schools CIPP 2013

CIPP Improvement Activity Worksheet

Indicator(s)
Number / Measurable Improvement Activity: / Action Steps to Implement the Activity: / Specify how the implementation of the activity will be documented:
5 / Provide on-going training on least restrictive environment for both teachers and administrators. / 1. Schedule training
2. Inform case managers of training dates
3. Implement training / *Agenda
*Attendance roster
1, 2 / Implement motivational activities, such as invite guest speakers. / 1. Seek willing guest speakers
2. Schedule dates for speakers
3. Advertise/inform students / *Flyer
*Sign-in sheet
2, 5 / Implement PBIS/reward system. / 1. Form/Create new PBIS team
2. Train PBIS team
3. Train school
3. Implement PBIS strategies / *Minutes from PBIS team meetings
*Agenda from PBIS training from DPI
1, 2 / Host an EC student forum to discuss fears/anxieties that students face and how to cope. / 1. Create planning committee, including students
2. Plan/schedule date of event
3. Advertise and inform students of event
4. Host event / *Agenda
*Sign-in/attendance roster
1, 2, 3c / Continue direct instruction program in Reading. / 1. Provide training for teachers that have not been trained
2. Begin implementation in 2013-2014 SY / *Data notebook
*Certificate of Completion
1, 2, 3c / Utilize afterschool programs to focus on academic support. / 1. Make students and parents aware of opportunities for support / *Documentation of discussion in Minutes during IEP meetings
1, 2, 3c / Provide closer tracking/monitoring of students struggling academically. / 1. Case managers review student’s report cards every reporting period
2. Case managers schedule IEP meetings for struggling students to discuss possible interventions / * Documentation of discussion in Minutes during IEP meetings
*Copies of student report cards
3c / Provide information/training to regular ed. teachers regarding testing accommodations in small groups or department meetings. / 1. Program Specialist and/or EC Director attend department meetings in the schools at beginning of school year / *Agenda
*Sign-in Sheet
3c / Disaggregate and discuss data gathered from state testing and district-wide benchmark testing more closely / 1. EC Director require and/or schedule regular data meetings / *Data notebook
*Meeting Agenda
*Sign-in Sheet
1, 2, 3 / Provide additional professional development on Reading Instruction and Strategies / 1. Consult with DPI Literacy Consultant about recommended and available professional development
2. Register teachers / *Registration confirmation
*Certificate of Completion

Revised: February 20, 2013