Continuous Improvement Performance Plan
(CIPP)
2013
LEA Name: Caswell County Schools
LEA Number: 170
Superintendent: Dr. Douglas Barker
Exceptional Children Director: Nelson Showalter
Submitted by: Nelson Showalter
Date of Submission: June 13, 2013
LEA Name: Caswell County Schools (170)
CIPP 2013
Stakeholders Steering Committee Summary
1.
List dates of the Stakeholders Steering Committee Meetings for the 2011-2012 school year.
- May 28, 2013 (Preschool Team)
- May 30, 2013 (Reading/SIP Team)
- June 11, 2013 (Final review)
2.
Explain/Describe the Stakeholders Steering Committee’s process for sharing the LEA data with
the following non-stakeholder committee members:
3.

Teachers – Presentation of the CIPP plan and activities was presented to the Exceptional
Children Staff at the beginning of the school year.

Administrators - A presentation of the CIPP plan and activities was presented to the principals
and assistant principals by the Director of Exceptional Children prior to the beginning of the
school year.

School Board - CIPP plan was posted on the Caswell County Exceptional Children Department
webpage.

Parents – CIPP plan was posted on the Caswell County Exceptional Children Department
webpage.

Others – CIPP plan was posted on the Caswell County Exceptional Children Department
webpage.
Keep agendas, minutes, calendars, sign in sheets, etc. for meetings with CIPP documentation.
- Meetings held on:
o May 28, 2013
o May 30, 2013
o June 11, 2013
Revised: February 20, 2013
2
LEA Name: Caswell County Schools (170)
CIPP 2013
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
Nelson Showalter
LEA
Jerome Wilson
LEA
Vicentia Brooks
LEA
Lisa Lassiter
LEA
EC Teacher
GE
Teacher/Counselor
Shana LeGrant
LEA
Preschool
TBA
EC Director
Building
Administrator
Gender
Ethnicity
Male
White
Male
Black
Female
Black
Female
Black
Female
Black
Parent
White
TBA
Business/Agency
Community Leader
TBA
LEA
Student
Jennifer Kurian
LEA
School Psychologist
Female
White
Calla Wilson
LEA
EC Teacher
Female
White
Revised: February 20, 2013
3
LEA Name: Caswell County Schools (170)
CIPP 2013
Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE
Indicator 1: Graduation Rate
2011-12
Caswell
County
Schools
Measurable and Rigorous State Target
80% or more of students with individualized education programs (IEPs) graduating from
high school with a regular diploma
61.5% of students with individualized education programs (IEPs) graduated from high school
with a regular diploma in Caswell County Schools
- This data is below the state target.
- The data is an increase of 11.5% from the previous year.
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.
Progress towards meeting the graduation rate increased from 2010/2011. There is still a significant
difference between the students with disabilities graduation rate versus the set target by the state.
An important contribution to the increase is due to the consistency in administration which has
been working on positive incentives towards the achievement for graduation and encouraging the
students to remain in school. Additionally, the experienced EC teachers have made connections
with the students for academic support in hopes to reduce dropouts or failing grades, which will be
a problem in the upcoming year when the school replaces half its EC staff.
It is a struggle to ensure that schedules of students and service times are properly coordinated. The
staff and time that are required to provide appropriate services for students with disabilities is
always a challenge. Between the need for more separate classrooms due to the increased number
of students remaining in school until they are 22, the requirements to provide highly qualified staff
for OCS courses, and the numerous inclusion settings in the different core classes, this expectation
seems near impossible.
A greater challenge is ensuring that the students have a successful transition into high school. The
problems that the ninth graders face with the higher demands for course work completion and the
level of the curriculum causes many general and EC students to have difficulties in core subjects
that requirement a passing grade before promotion into the next level. The EC students typically
are below grade level standards as is evident based on the Indicator 3 (Assessment Data). It is
observed that Algebra I and English I are courses that students are more likely to struggle and fall
behind in. The school continues to make efforts to provide strong teachers and co-teaching support
in these subjects when possible.
Revised: February 20, 2013
4
LEA Name: Caswell County Schools (170)
CIPP 2013
Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE
Indicator 2: Dropout Data
2011-2012
Caswell
County
Schools
Measurable and Rigorous State Target
4.7% or less is the dropout rate for students with IEPs in grades 9-12.
11.8% of students with individualized education programs (IEPs) dropped out from high
school in Caswell County Schools
- This data is above the state target.
- The data continues to increase over the past couple of years
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.
The dropout data has increased over the last two years. Two years ago, students with disabilities in
Caswell County Schools had met the state target. Unfortunately, the students during the last two
years have elected to dropout from school before completing the diploma requirements. It is
difficult to determine a primary cause for the rate of dropouts for students with disabilities. The
administration is making efforts to encourage the students to graduate. The EC teachers are in
communication frequently with the students considered most likely to be at risk.
After analyzing dropout surveys of students, the data indicates that the most consistent reason
provided is that the work is too difficult (failing classes), or that they did not seem to fit. A couple
of students elected to go into the workforce to perform manual labor jobs that did not require high
school diplomas. As usually occurs, there have been a couple of pregnancies. The most
disappointing issue has been when the dropouts that vanish without any communication or hints of
problems in school.
Since the most common cause for dropping out is when students have difficulty/failing classes, it
will be important for the school/teachers to make frequent contact with the students and their
teachers. The school needs to identify the students at risk and provide them support through coteaching, curriculum assistance, and tutorial services. Communication is greatly needed.
Revised: February 20, 2013
5
LEA Name: Caswell County Schools (170)
CIPP 2013
Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE
Indicator 3: State Achievement Data
2011-12
Measurable and Rigorous State Targets
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: Proceed to the next indicator.
4. If all the targets were 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.
For the 2011/2012 school year, Caswell County Schools did not meet the AMO target. Only
two of the six schools had enough students in the sub-category of students with disabilities to
be measured (Oakwood Elementary and Dillard Middle). Oakwood met the AMO target.
Dillard did not meet the AMO target.
Caswell County Schools did meet the target for participation by grade level for every grade and
subject. There were only three students that did not participate county-wide on the state
assessments.
Unfortunately, the proficiency rates for students with disabilities fell below the new AMO
targets in every grade and subject other than 4th grade math. There was a decline in the
achievement scores from the previous year. The achievement scores at the middle school
significantly dropped which may have been due to the changes in administration and new
curriculum.
The schools have been using researched based instructional programs, but the staff input shows
that the fidelity of the programs have not been consistant. They also have shared that the
implementation of the program interferes with scheduling and services in other areas for the
students. The middle school staff has decided to stop using the research based program in
order to improve the quality of co-teaching services. It will be important for each school to
review the schedules of the students/teachers with disabilities to ensure high quality instruction
while improving the individual skills of each student.
Revised: February 20, 2013
6
LEA Name: Caswell County Schools (170)
CIPP 2013
The system used to have a Reading Foundations trainer but the teacher left the system in 2012.
The system needs to identify a strong teacher that can be trained to be a trainer for Reading
Foundations. The system also needs to identify an individual to become trained as a Math
Foundations teacher as well. If Caswell County can train trainers then we would have more
flexibility to train our entire staff on the core fundamentals for teaching all students.
The system is also moving towards the implementation of RtI at several schools. The
administration is beginning to view the importance of data collection and progress monitoring
as the state continues to implement new programs to assess the student outcome and teacher
instruction. It will be valuable to have a systematic approach in the implementation of RtI to
ensure that it focuses on student data based on their knowledge of the Core Curriculum.
Revised: February 20, 2013
7
LEA Name: Caswell County Schools (170)
CIPP 2013
Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE
Indicator 4a: Discipline/Suspensions
2011-12
Caswell
County
Schools
Measurable and Rigorous State Target
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).
Data for 2011/2012 school year is not available at this time.
- Part of the reason for no data is possibly the ‘n’ factor for data collection
Based on the LEA Data Profile
1. LEA met State Target? __X__ Yes
_____ No
2. If the target was met: Proceed to the next indicator.
3. If the target was not met:
Revised: February 20, 2013
8
LEA Name: Caswell County Schools (170)
CIPP 2013
Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE
Indicator 5: Settings/Service Times
2011-12
Caswell
County
Schools
Measurable and Rigorous State Targets
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.
Measurement A: 71.6%
Measurement B: 10.3%
Measurement C: 1.0%
Based on the LEA Data Profile
1. LEA met State Targets for all Measurements:
__X__ Yes
_____ No
2. If all the targets were met: Proceed to the next indicator.
3. If all the targets were not met:
Revised: February 20, 2013
9
LEA Name: Caswell County Schools (170)
CIPP 2013
Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE
Indicator 7:
2011-12
Measurable and Rigorous State Target
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%
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)?
Based on a survey from the providers for preschool services, the following standardized testing
instruments have been used to determine ratings for COSF entry and exit:
- GFTA-2, PLS-5, HCAPP, CELF, Fluharty, Peabody-FM, VMI, Brigance, WPPSI,
BASC, ABAS, EOWPVT-4, ROWPVT-4.
2. What on-going assessment instrument(s) is being used to determine exit COSF ratings (1-7)?
The following on-going assessments have been used to determine ratings for COSF entry and exit:
- Progress/clinical notes, observations for teacher(s), Developmental Continuum, Pre-K
skills assessments, work samples.
3. How is parent information being collected?
Parents share information at initial/IEP/exit meetings. Teachers collect information from parents
through personal interviews at a meeting, or by phone or written notes. Parents are encouraged to
bring any additional information into the meetings. Parents complete certain components of
evaluation summaries that provide assessment on student skills like the Adaptive Behavior Scales
and Social History.
4. How are observation data being collected?
Teachers maintain progress/clinical notes on the student after providing services or completion of
instructional units. Teachers use Pre-K checklist on skills after lessons. Teachers write quarterly
progress reports to be provided to the parents.
Revised: February 20, 2013
10
LEA Name: Caswell County Schools (170)
CIPP 2013
5. Are exit COSF ratings from Part C being used to assist in determining your entrance COSF
ratings for Part B?
No. These exit ratings have not been shared with the staff up to this point. CDSA reports are used
when available. After the joint CDSA/LEA meeting, a plan will be developed to better use the
information provided by CDSA.
6. Is COSF training (including refresher training) conducted yearly?
COSF training is conducted at the beginning of each year in an overview of procedural updates.
We conducted refresher training in the spring. Individual review sessions were also conducted to
refresh the process with the specific individuals involved in completing COSF forms as needed.
Caswell County had some higher and lower outcomes than expected compared to the SEA. The
activities for the indicator for child outcome summary consist of the following:
- Conduct annual training on the COSF process for new and experienced preschool providers in
order to address the difference between typical peers versus those with disabilities.
Revised: February 20, 2013
11
LEA Name: Caswell County Schools (170)
CIPP 2013
Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE
Indicator 8:
2011-12
Measurable and Rigorous State Target
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
NOT SAMPLED for 2011/12
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.
Revised: February 20, 2013
12
LEA Name: Caswell County Schools (170)
CIPP 2013
Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B/Effective Transition
Indicator 14:
2011-12
Measurable and Rigorous State Target
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.
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 NOT SAMPLED for 2011/12
2. If the target was met:
Review the 2013 CIPP and submit by June 30, 2013.
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.
Revised: February 20, 2013
13
LEA Name: Caswell County Schools (170)
CIPP 2013
CIPP Improvement Activity Worksheet
Indicator(s)
Number
Graduation
(Indicator 1)
Dropout
(Indicator 2)
Measurable Improvement Activity:
Implement a curriculum assistance course
with a reading program high school for
students with disabilities deemed to be atrisk of failing core classes for each
semester.
Achievement
(Indicator 3)
Discipline
(Indicator 4)
Achievement
(Indicator 3)
Achievement
(Indicator 3)
Achievement
(Indicator 3)
Discipline
(Indicator 4)
Implement effective co-teaching at the
middle school for students with
disabilities in the general curriculum.
Continue implementation of SIP
reading/math programs with fidelity.
Collaborate with schools to develop a
working model of Responsiveness of
Instruction that focuses on the core
curriculum/student behaviors with less
emphasis on streamline referrals.
Revised: February 20, 2013
Action Steps to Implement the Activity:
Specify how the implementation of the
activity will be documented:
1) Meet with high school staff to coordinate a schedule that
includes curriculum assistance
2) Train the teacher (if new) on the reading program used
to support reading and life skills for at-risk students in
high school
3) Track the yearly progress of each student (grades,
credits, discipline, dropout status.
4) Compare long-term data of students enrolled in
curriculum assistance records as compared to nondisabled and disabled students not enrolled in CA.
1) Administrative summary report
1) Collaborate with administration in the development of
effective scheduling and student assignments
2) Train staff on the do’s and don’ts with co-teaching
1) Copy of summary notes
3) Conduct formal/informal observations of the co-teachers
by monitoring collaboration with instruction and
planning.
4) Collaborate with the general education teachers during
PLCs to develop plans to support the Core Curriculum.
3) Observation summary report from
administration
1) Revisit the SIP Reading plan to determine future
program implementation
2) Conduct fidelity checks at least twice a year on teachers
implementing a Reading program
3) Maintain a data notebook
1) Revised SIP plan
4) Train a trainer for Reading Foundations and the Reading
programs
5) Explore the possibility to become a Math site.
4) Copy of workshop attendance
1) Attend additional trainings from DPI on RtI to support
LEA/school teams
2) Update intervention forms for the district to target
specific needs based on the core curriculum
3) Develop a long-term plan for effective implementation
1) Copy of workshop attendance
2) Agenda, Sign-in Sheet
3) Class roster and data form
4) Class roster and data form
2) PLC/sign-in sheet
4) PLC/sign-in sheet
2) Documented fidelity checks
3) Copy of data notebook logs
5)
Copy of attendance at a math
foundations/conference
2) Copy of new forms
3) Copy of school plans
14
LEA Name: Caswell County Schools (170)
Achievement
(Indicator 3)
Discipline
(Indicator 4)
Parental
Involvement
(Indicator 8)
PostSecondary
Transition
Implement the use of data notebooks that
targets student outcomes on the IEP goals
(academic/behavioral) and the core
curriculum.
CIPP 2013
1) Train staff on the purpose to monitor IEP goals/core
curriculum progress
2) Train staff on procedures to collect data as the student
progresses on goals
3) Share data notebooks with parents and teachers
1) Agenda, Sign-in Sheet
1) Conduct make-it/take-it training sessions for parents on
home-based activities that support daily instruction for
students.
2) Support parents with the awareness of the IEP process
and parental rights through IEP participation and
trainings
3) Coordinate an awareness fair for parents on supports for
them and their children
4) Meet with rising 8th grade parents discuss options of
diplomas (general, OCS, or certificate)
1) Agenda, Sign-in Sheet
Monitor annual post-secondary outcomes
of students based on 1-year postsecondary status after graduation/exited
students.
1) Conduct annual post-secondary surveys to monitor the
1-year progress of students after graduation/exited
students.
1) Survey forms and results
Conduct routine training sessions for new
and experienced PK-12 EC
teachers/therapists that prepare staff and
administrators to ensure that policies and
procedures are met at the beginning of the
year with reviews at least quarterly during
the year.
1) Summer training session for administrators on EC
Procedures, Discipline Guidelines, LEA
Responsibilities, IEP Process
2) IEP Training with new teachers on the paperwork and
effective IEP development
3) IEP Review training with staff on IEP paperwork,
Initial/PK placement guidelines, Behavioral Support
Procedures, Service Delivery Models, Progress
Monitoring/COSF
4) Monthly reports of compliance concerns and procedures
sent to principals
5) Conduct CPI (Restraint Training for staff to reduce
disciplinary issues
1) Agenda, Sign-in Sheet
Coordinate opportunities for parents to
become more aware of school/community
related services that will benefit
awareness and student outcomes.
2) Agenda, Sign-in Sheet
3) Sign-in logs and exchange forms
2) IEP attendance logs, agendas, sign-in
sheets
3) Agenda, Sign-in Sheet
4) Agenda, Sign-in Sheet
(Indicator 14)
Compliance
Monitoring
(Indicators
4, 5, 7, 9, 10,
11, 12, 13, 15)
Revised: February 20, 2013
2) Agenda, Sign-in Sheet
3) Agenda, Sign-in Sheet
4) Compliance outcome report
5) Agenda, Sign-in Sheet
15