Continuous Improvement Performance Plan (CIPP)

Continuous Improvement Performance Plan (CIPP) 2013

LEA Name: Wayne County Public Schools

LEA Number: 960

Superintendent/Charter School Administrator: Dr. Steven Taylor

Exceptional Children Director: Dr. Craig McFadden

Submitted by: __Melissa McFatter_____

Date of Submission: _June 14, 2013____ LEA Name: CIPP 2013

Revised: February 20, 2013 2 LEA Name: CIPP 2013

Stakeholders Steering Committee Summary

1. List dates of the Stakeholders Steering Committee Meetings for the 2012-2013 school year. February 7, 2013; May 31, 2013

2. Explain/Describe the Stakeholders Steering Committee’s process for sharing the LEA data with the following non-stakeholder committee members:

A. Teachers Information from the CIPP Stakeholders Steering Committee, which includes our LEAs data and information, is shared at the IEP Chairs meeting held monthly. The IEP Chairs then share this information at their respective schools.

B. Administrators Administrators are informed of the LEAs data through monthly Principal’s meetings.

C. School Board A presentation of EC data and program information is shared with the Board of Education and County Commissioners via the EC website. Our data is also shared at some of the board meetings.

D. Parents Parents are vital to our program. Some of our parents on this committee serve in other capacities in the community. They willingly share this information with the community. Our LEA data is also shared with the televised school board meetings, which helps to get this information out to our parents as well as our website.

E. Others

3. 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 Dr. Craig McFadden Interim EC Director F W Teresa H. Smith Transition Coordinator F W Melissa McFatter EC Coordinator F W Diane Davis EC Coordinator F B Cindy Anderson Program Specialist F W Rhonda Wiggins LEA PK Program Specialist F W

Dr. Steven Taylor LEA Superintendent M W Vivian Echols Spring Creek High F H Kristen Bartley Carver Heights F W Mary Jo Creech Howell’s RHA EC Teacher F W

George Weidiger LEA GE Teacher M W Nancy Reyes LEA F H Donna Page-Harrison CDSA F W Wanda Becton Wages Headstart Preschool F W Johnny McFatter M W Andrea Thomas F B Debbie Walderman Parent F W Dr. Heidi Austin Innovative Approaches F W Jeff Herring VR M W Don Johnstone Sam’s Club M W Charles Brogden Franklin Baking M W Kathleen Shulties Caring Heart F W Beverly Carroll Chamber Business/Agency F W Lynette Smith The ARC Community Leader F B

LEA Student M W

Tyler Edmunson Special Olympics Other M W Jamie Livengood F W Robert Freeman School Liaison SJAFB Other M B

Eddie Radford School Board Other M W

Gail Sasser LEA 504 Coordinator F W Tonya Faison Principal F B Erlene Brogden LEA CTE Director F W

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 diploma _____ This charter school does not serve students represented within this indicator. (Proceed to next indicator.)

Based on the LEA Data Profile 1. LEA met State Target? _____ Yes X No

2. If the target was met:

Proceed to the next indicator.

3. 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 Activity Worksheet.

 Measure is based on a 4 year cohort.  Need for Positive Behavior Intervention and Support in high schools.  Need for research based programs in Curriculum Assistance Classes.

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. _____ This charter school does not serve students represented within this indicator. (Proceed to next indicator.)

Based on the LEA Data Profile 1. LEA met State Target? _____ Yes X No

 State target decreases every year.  Need for Positive Behavior Intervention and Support in high schools.  Historically the dropout rate for our LEA is lower than the state average.

Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE Indicator 3: Measurable and Rigorous State Targets 2011-12 A. Percentage of LEAs Meeting AMOs: 65.0% B. Percentage of Participation: 95% for reading & math in all tested grade levels C. Percentage of Proficiency: Reading: 3rd through 8th grade = 71.6% 10th grade = 69.3% Math: 3rd through 8th grade = 88.6% 10th grade = 84.2%

Based on the LEA Data Profile 1. LEA made AMO for students with disabilities? _____ Yes __X___ No

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

3. If all the targets were met:

4. If all the targets were not met:

 Exceptional Children typically function academically below grade level.  Budget constraints/limitations.  Need for more direct instruction in reading and math curriculum.

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). Based on the LEA Data Profile 1. LEA met State Target? __X___ Yes _____ No

Less than 5 students in the category and data masked for confidentiality.

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; Measurement B: The state target is 15.3% or below inside the regular class less than 40% of the day; and Measurement C: The state target is 2.0% or below in separate schools, residential facilities, or homebound/hospital placements. Based on the LEA Data Profile 1. LEA met State Targets for all Measurements: _____ Yes ___X__ No

2. If all the targets were met:

3. If all the targets were not met:

Measurement A: We did not meet the state target. Progress was noted with an increase of 4.8%. Measurement B: We did not meet the state target. Progress was noted with a decrease of 3.4%. Measurement C: We did not meet the state target. Slippage was noted with a increase of 0.8%.

 We have one public separate school and one private residential facility.  High number of military families that move into our district because of the services offered through our public separate school.  Higher number of students served on the continuum as resource.

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% Summary Statement 2 = 48.3% Measurement B: Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/communication and early literacy); Outcome 2 - Summary Statement 1 = 86.9% Summary Statement 2 = 46.6% Measurement C: Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs. Outcome 3 - Summary Statement 1 = 86.1% Summary Statement 2 = 60.6% _____ 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 (1-6)? We utilize a variety of standardized assessment data to included but not limited to the following: WPPSI III – Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence – Third Edition

DAYC – Developmental Assessment of Young Children

VMI – The Beery – Buktenica Developmental Test of Visual Motor Integration BBCS – Bracken Basic Concept Scale-3rd Edition BDI –2 Battelle Developmental Inventory IDP Provence Infant-Toddler Developmental Profile VABS-2 Vineland Adaptive Behavior PLS – 4 Preschool Language Scale 4th Edition EOWPVT Expressive One Word Picture Vocabulary Test GFTA-2 Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulatuion-2nd Edition DAS-2 Differential Ability Scale 2nd Edition SB-V Stanford Binet-V PDMS-2 Peabody Developmental Motor Scale-2 GARS-2 Gilliam Autism Rating Scale CARS Childhood Autism Rating Scale BASC-2 Behavior Assessment System for Children-2nd Edition DECA Devereaux Early Childhood Assessment ESI Early Screening Inventory ABAS-2 Adaptive Behavior Assessment 2 ADOS Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule GADS Gilliam Asperger’s Diagnostic System Revised: February 20, 2013 11 LEA Name: CIPP 2013

Bayley-3 Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development

Exit: Depending on the child’s need, any of the above assessment measures may be utilized to determine that appropriate level of skills have been obtained. The DECA or ESI is administered in our inclusive classroom settings and maybe utilized as part of the exit COSF.

2. What on-going assessment instrument(s) is being used to determine exit COSF ratings (1-7)? A variety of functional and/or standardized assessments; data collection from IEP goals and benchmark; observations; parent, service provider, and regular early childhood teachers interviews and checklist

3. How is parent information being collected? Parent input is obtained upon through questionnaires and developmental checklist.

4. How are observation data being collected? Observations are completed in a variety of settings that include but not limited to daycare, NCPK, Head Start, home, service provider location, public separate school or any location that the child may be present. Observations completed by teachers, parents, service provider, and assessment team may be included in COSF scoring.

5. Are exit COSF ratings from Part C being used to assist in determining your entrance COSF ratings for Part B? Part C COSF rating scales are not yet available to us for use in the entry COSF. Information used from Part C includes IFSP, evaluations, service provider’s notes and reports.

6. Is COSF training (including refresher training) conducted yearly? Yearly COSF refresher provided through professional development. Individual or small group COSF training as needed or for new teacher orientation.

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

1. LEA met the State Target: _____ Yes _____ No

LEA was not sampled in 2011-2012.

Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B/Effective Transition

Indicator 14:

Measurable and Rigorous State Target 2011-12 A. 39.5% enrolled in higher education within 1 year of leaving high school. B. 62.5% enrolled in higher education or competitively employed within 1 year of leaving high school. C. 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.

_____ 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: 1. LEA met the State Target for Measurement C: _____ Yes _____ No

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

LEA was not sampled in 2011-2012.

CIPP Improvement Activity Worksheet

Indicator(s) Measurable Improvement Activity: Action Steps to Implement the Activity: Specify how the implementation of the Number activity will be documented: 1, 2 Implement a Transition Resource class 1. Provide materials to implement ECU’s Project STEPP 1. Classroom observations Transition Curriculum.

3 Expand implementation of Inside Algebra 1. Provide professional development 1. Data logs to one additional middle school. 2. New Teachers to program will collaborate with current 2. Student Achievement school implementing Inside Algebra. 3. Classroom observations 3. Provide materials to implement the program. 4. Formative and Summative 4. Provide on-site teacher coaching. Assessments 3 Expand implementation of Corrective 1. Provide professional development 1. Data logs Reading to one additional middle school. 2. Provide materials to implement the program. 2. Student Achievement 3. Provide on-site teacher coaching. 3. Classroom observations 4. Formative and Summative Assessments 3 Expand NCSIP site. Explore additional Elementary School for NCSIP implementation 1. Data logs site. 2. Student Achievement 1. On-site staff presentation (introducing the project) 3. Classroom observations 2. Identify the staff that will participate in the project. 4. Formative and Summative 3. Conduct needs assessment. Assessments 4. Provide professional development. 5. Provide materials to implement the program. 6. Provide on-site teacher coaching. 1, 2, 5 Implementation of Positive Behavior 1. Provide Module 1 Training for: 1. PBIS data logs Intervention and Support Eastern Wayne Elementary 2. Meeting agendas Spring Creek Elementary 3. On-site visits 4. ODR Reports/SET Evaluations 2. Provide Module 2 Training for: 5. Implementation Inventories Meadow Lane Elementary Greenwood Middle North Drive Grantham Mt. Olive Middle

3. Initially trained but in need of targeted assistance to implement: Dillard Middle Eastern Wayne Elementary Eastern Wayne Middle Spring Creek Elementary

Tommy’s Road Elementary Carver Heights Elementary School Street School Wayne Academy

4. Initially trained, involved in 4 meetings per year, on-site school visits and SET evaluations: Edgewood Grantham Meadow Lane Elementary Brogden Middle School Greenwood Brogden Primary Mount Olive Middle Wayne Academy Carver Elementary Dillard North Drive Eastern Wayne Elementary Eastern Wayne Middle Spring Creek Elementary Tommy’s Road Elementary Carver Heights Elementary School Street School

5 Improve SWD outcomes (IEP 1. Provide staff development on LRE and service delivery 1. Rosters/Agendas development and LRE). options by October 2013. Post presentation on website at conclusion of training for any new teachers or those 2. Request for Central Office LEA who would like to access the resource. attendance at meetings/Minutes

2. Provide EC Basic Training: Training to be held in September and October 2013 and February 2014). This training is not mandatory. This training is available to any new EC teacher or to any EC teacher who would like a refresher.

3. Attend IEP meetings (Central Office EC Staff) when LRE is in question.

4. Collect NC Student Exit Surveys for post-secondary survey.

Revised: February 20, 2013 17