EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN PROGRAMS

STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING MAY 28, 2013

PENDER COUNTY SCHOOLS CIPP 2013

CIPP Overview

Continuous Improvement Performance Plan Developed annually by each LEABased on previous year’s data Aligned with the State Performance Plan

outcome indicatorsOther monitoring activities include:

Program compliance on-site reviews Targeted on-site visits Dispute resolution process Data based reviews

LEA CIPP Development

Indicator 1: data on graduation ratesIndicator 2: dropout ratesIndicator 3: state assessmentsIndicator 4: suspensionsIndicator 5: least restrictive environmentIndicator 7: preschool outcomesIndicator 8: parent satisfactionIndicator 14: post-school outcomes

Indicator 1

Measurable and Rigorous State Target: 80% or more of students with IEPs graduating from high school with a regular diploma

Based on LEA Data Profile: PCS did not meet the target…. @ 63.8% (up from 61.7% in CIPP 2012)

Improvement Activity:

Indicator 2

Measurable and Rigorous State Target: 4.7% or less is the dropout rate for students with IEPs in grades 9-12

Based on LEA Data Profile: PCS did meet the target…. @ 2.2% (down from 4.5% in CIPP 2012)

Improvement Activity:

Indicator 3

Measurable and Rigorous State Target: A. 55% of LEAs met AYP B. 95% participation in EOG/EOC reading/math, all

grades C. % of proficiency (based on NCLB targets for all subgroups)

Reading: grades 3-8=44.5%.....grade 10=50.9% Math: grades 3-8=59.9%.....grade 10=51.1%

Based on LEA Data Profile: PCS… A. Did not calculate at state level B. Met C. Did not meet

Improvement Activity:

Indicator 4a

Measurable and Rigorous State Target: LEA rate of long term suspensions and expulsions of SWD that is less than twice the state average rate (5%)

Based on LEA Data Profile: PCS did meet the target (too low to calculate)

Improvement Activity:

Indicator 5

Measurable and Rigorous State Target: A. 65.6% + for SWD at regular level of service B. 15.3% - for SWD at resource level of service C. 2.0% - for SWD in separate schools, residential

facilities, or H/H placements

Based on LEA Data Profile: A. Did not meet…. @ 55.6% B. Met…. @ 11.1% C. Met…. @ 0.6%

Improvement Activity:

Indicator 7

Measurable and Rigorous State Target: % of PreK w/ IEPs who demonstrate improved: A. Positive social emotional skills

Outcome 1= 85.9% + Outcome 2= 48.3% +

B. Acquisition and use of knowledge/skills (early language/literacy) Outcome 1= 86.9% + Outcome 2= 46.6% +

C. Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs Outcome 1= 86.1% + Outcome 2= 60.6% +

Based on LEA Data Profile: State targets increased by ~10%... PCS has already met C.1. outcomes.

Improvement Activity:

Indicator 8

Measurable and Rigorous State Target: 50% of parents of SWDs report that schools facilitate parent involvement as a means of improving services and results

Based on LEA Data Profile: PCS was not sampled.

Improvement Activity:

Indicator 9

LEA data indicate disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services that is the result of inappropriate identification…

Based on LEA Data Profile: PCS is not on the WARNING LIST

Indicator 10

LEA data indicate disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories that is the result of inappropriate identification…

Based on LEA Data Profile: PCS is not on the WARNING LIST

Indicator 11

Percent of students referred for whom a referral was received and placement determined within 90 days…

Based on LEA Data Profile: 08-09: 87.9% 09-10: 93.53% 10-11: 93.6% 11-12: 98.0% 12-13: 100%

Indicator 14

Measurable and Rigorous State Target: A. 39% enrolled in higher education w/in 1 yr after HS B. 62% enrolled in higher education or competitively

employed w/in 1 yr after HS C. 73% enrolled in higher education, other

postsecondary education/training, or competitively employed w/in 1 yr after HS

Based on LEA Data Profile: PCS was not sampled.

Improvement Activity:

Activities

Discussion of activities by EC Leadership team. Steering Committee members assist with aligning activities to Indicators.

Revised EC Staff Scope of DutiesNCSIP-Reading 3 year plan-ReviewEC Curriculum Planning

NCSIP-Reading

http://www.ncsip.org

Does the ongoing plan identify: a progression of staff skills?student growth?strategies for meeting the 5 indicators of NCSIP?

Project implementation Foundations Training Program implementation Student progress evaluation Parent involvement