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______________
LEA Name: Thomasville City Schools
CIPP 2013
Stakeholders Steering Committee Summary
1.
List dates of the Stakeholders Steering Committee Meetings for the 2012-2013 school year.
May 29, 2013
2.
Explain/Describe the Stakeholders Steering Committee’s process for sharing the LEA data with
the following non-stakeholder committee members:
A. 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
B. Administrators
Data will be shared at Principals/Directors meetings, as well as district website
C. School Board
Data shared in board briefing meetings (placed in notebook for review)
D. Parents
Data plans to be shared during parental involvement activities, as well as on district website.
E. Others
Data will be posted on district website.
3.
Keep agendas, minutes, calendars, sign in sheets, etc. for meetings with CIPP documentation.
Revised: February 20, 2013
2
LEA Name: Thomasville City Schools
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
Wyashia Hoover
LEA
Kevin Leake
LEA
James Blalock
LEA
April Willard
LEA
Tami Holtzman
LEA
Robin Lee
Charles Funches
Business/Agency
Community Leader
LEA
Role on the
Committee
Gender
Ethnicity
EC Director
Building
Administrator
Female
AA
Male
AA
EC Teacher
GE Teacher/Reading
Coach
Preschool
Coordinator
Male
AA
Female
Caucasian
Female
Caucasian
Parent
Female
AA
Community Leader
Male
AA
Male
AA
Male
Caucasian
Aaron Kline
LEA
Student
Building
Administrator
Tarsha Williams
LEA
Program Specialist
Female
AA
Laura LeClerc
LEA
Behavior Specialist
Female
Caucasian
Revised: February 20, 2013
3
LEA Name: Thomasville City Schools
CIPP 2013
Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE
Indicator 1:
Measurable and Rigorous State Target
80% or more of students with individualized education programs (IEPs) graduating from
high school with a regular diploma TCS = 56.2%
_____ This charter school does not serve students represented within this indicator. (Proceed to
next indicator.)
2011-12
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.
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
Revised: February 20, 2013
4
LEA Name: Thomasville City Schools
CIPP 2013
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
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.
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
Revised: February 20, 2013
5
LEA Name: Thomasville City Schools
CIPP 2013
Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE
Indicator 3:
2011-12
Measurable and Rigorous State Targets
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
1. LEA made AMO for students with disabilities? __X__ Yes
_____ 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.
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
Revised: February 20, 2013
6
LEA Name: Thomasville City Schools
CIPP 2013
Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE
Indicator 4a:
2011-12
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). TCS = less than 5 students in the
category
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:
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
7
LEA Name: Thomasville City Schools
CIPP 2013
Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE
Indicator 5:
2011-12
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; TCS = 62.2%
Measurement B: The state target is 15.3% or below inside the regular class less than 40%
of the day; and TCS = 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
1. LEA met State Targets for all Measurements:
_____ Yes
_X__ No
2. If all the targets were met:
Proceed to the next indicator.
3. 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.
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
Revised: February 20, 2013
8
LEA Name: Thomasville City Schools
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% 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 used to 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.
Revised: February 20, 2013
9
LEA Name: Thomasville City Schools
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. 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:
1. LEA met the State Target:
_____ Yes
_____ No NA
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
10
LEA Name: Thomasville City Schools
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.
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:
1. LEA met the State Target for Measurement C:
_____ Yes
_____ No NA
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
11
LEA Name: Thomasville City Schools
CIPP 2013
CIPP Improvement Activity Worksheet
Indicator(s)
Number
5
1, 2
Measurable Improvement Activity:
Provide on-going training on least
restrictive environment for both teachers
and administrators.
Implement motivational activities, such as
invite guest speakers.
Action Steps to Implement the Activity:
1. Schedule training
2. Inform case managers of training dates
3. Implement training
1. Seek willing guest speakers
2. Schedule dates for speakers
3. Advertise/inform students
1. Form/Create new PBIS team
2. Train PBIS team
3. Train school
3. Implement PBIS strategies
1. Create planning committee, including students
2. Plan/schedule date of event
3. Advertise and inform students of event
4. Host event
1. Provide training for teachers that have not been trained
2. Begin implementation in 2013-2014 SY
Specify how the implementation of the
activity will be documented:
*Agenda
*Attendance roster
*Flyer
*Sign-in sheet
2, 5
Implement PBIS/reward system.
1, 2
Host an EC student forum to discuss
fears/anxieties that students face and how
to cope.
1, 2, 3c
Continue direct instruction program in
Reading.
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.
* 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. Case managers review student’s report cards every reporting
period
2. Case managers schedule IEP meetings for struggling students
to discuss possible interventions
1. Program Specialist and/or EC Director attend department
meetings in the schools at beginning of school year
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
*Minutes from PBIS team meetings
*Agenda from PBIS training from DPI
*Agenda
*Sign-in/attendance roster
*Data notebook
*Certificate of Completion
*Agenda
*Sign-in Sheet
12