indicatorwayne.ss8.sharpschool.com/userfiles/servers/server_424… · web view2011. lea name:...

Continuous Improvement Performance Plan (CIPP)2011

LEA Name: __Wayne______________________________

LEA Number: __960___________

Superintendent: ___Dr. Steven Taylor_________________________

Exceptional Children Director: _Jane Walston__________________

Submitted by: __Jane Walston______________________

Date of Submission: _June 30, 2011_______________

LEA ___Wayne_______________ CIPP 2011

Stakeholders Steering Committee Summary

1. List dates of the Stakeholders Steering Committee Meetings for the 2010-2011 school year.June 6, 2011

2. Explain/Describe the Stakeholders Steering Committee’s process for sharing the LEA data with the following:

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 BoardA 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. ParentsParents 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 for review at verification visits.

Revised 4/26/11 2

LEA __Wayne_________________ CIPP 2011

Stakeholders Steering Committee Summary

The recommended Stakeholders Steering Committee members: EC Director (or designee) Building Administrator Parent of a SWD EC Preschool Representative, if applicable EC Teacher General Education Teacher SWD age 14 or older (younger is at the discretion of the LEA) Business/Agency/Community Leader or a leader from an organization that provides

transition services/experiences 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/AgencyRole on the Committee Gender Ethnicity

Jane Walston WCPS EC Director F W

Beverly Carroll Chamber Community Leader F W

Craig McFadden WCPS Assistant Supt. M W

Edward L. Radford WCPS Board Member M W

Ralph Smith WCPS

504 Coordinator/Director of Science Education M W

Johnny McFatter Parent M W

Jeff Herring Vocational Rehab Agency Member M W

WCPS Student M H

Nancy Norris Parent F H

Mary Jo Creech WCPS Howell’s Residential F W

Pat Burden WCPS Principal F B

Robert Freeman SJAFB School Liaison M B

Nancy Reyes WCPS Preschool Teacher F H

Tonya Faison WCPS CTE Lead Teacher F B

Mike Pendergraft Carlie C’s Manager Business Member M W

Revised 4/26/11 3

Cindy Anderson WCPSEC Program Specialist F W

Rhonda Wiggins WCPSEC Preschool Specialist F W

Diane Davis WCPS EC Coordinator F B

Melissa McFatter WCPS EC Coordinator F W

Teresa Smith WCPSEC Transition Coordinator F W

Revised 4/26/11 4

LEA ___Wayne________________ CIPP 2011

Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE

Indicator 1: Percent of students with individualized education programs (IEPs) graduating from high school with a regular diploma

Measurement: Four year Cohort Graduation Rate for students entering 9th grade in 2006-07 for the first time is the rate for students with IEPs graduating with a regular diploma in 2009-10 or earlier.

Measurable and Rigorous State Target

2009-10 80% or more of students with IEPs graduating from high school with a regular diploma

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

NOTE: All LEAs serving grades represented within this indicator must include improvement activities on the CIPP Activities sheet to address students with IEP’s graduating from high school with a regular diploma.

1. LEA met State Target? _____ Yes ____X__ No

2. If the target was not met, complete the following:A. Explain the progress or slippage of your LEA toward meeting the State Target for 2009-

10 school year.

Although Wayne County did not meet the state target, we continue to make progress toward the target.

WCPS’ graduation rate in 08-09 was 54.7 %. The rate in 09-10 was 56.7 %, an increase of 2%. Our CIPP activities continue to have a positive impact.

B. Analyze the LEA activities (listed on the last page) for this target using the CIPP Improvement Activity Review Checklist. Summarize the results of the analysis including status of implementation.

Activities are focused on improving proficiency on the 10th grade statewide math assessment. This aligns with the system’s improvement plan as well as the state improvement plan. Using research-based strategies and interventions should improve student outcomes and increase the number of students that graduate with a diploma. We plan to begin piloting a program in high school curriculum assistance classes for direct instruction in math during the fall of 2011.

Monthly IEP chairperson meetings are utilized to highlight topics related to improving graduation rates for students with disabilities.

Use of Positive Behavior Intervention and Support in middle schools helps with student retention and focuses on successfully completing high school. Plans are to recruit at least one high school to implement PBIS in 2011-2012.

Revised 4/26/11 5

C. Document the action steps for implementing each activity.Improvement Activities for Math:

Math lead team members will be selected and have had a meeting by October 3, 2011. This team will be lead by an EC Program Specialist; this team will include regular education and EC teachers. The math lead team will meet at least twice each semester.

EC Program Specialist will work with DPI staff to provide math foundations training during the 2011-2012 school year. This training will be available to both EC and Regular Education teachers.

The math lead team will review research based enrichment programs and determine which program to use as an intervention by January 13, 2012.

High school team, led by an EC Program Specialist, will review programs for curriculum assistance classes and determine which programs to purchase by August 1, 2011. Program will be piloted in curriculum assistance classes during the first semester of 2011-2012.

Monthly IEP Chair Meetings (Continue): On the 3rd Monday of the month, we hold IEP Chair Meetings. Each school sends at least one representative, usually the IEP Chair. The monthly IEP Chair Meetings provide a time for professional development with an emphasis on referrals, evaluations, eligibility and various DPI updates. We also use this time to apprise our staff of any upcoming events. These meetings are usually held in the afternoon and run for about an hour and a half.

PBIS Initiative (Continue): PBIS modules will be offered for initial participation in this initiative as well as modules for continued participation in the school-wide behavior initiative. More schools are being recruited for the 2010-2011 school year. Anticipated date – June 1, 2011.

Schools implementing PBIS and needed training for 2010-2011:North Drive Elementary (Module 2)Grantham (Module 1)Brogden Middle School (Module 1)Mount Olive Middle (Module 2)Greenwood MiddleMeadow Lane Elementary

Recruiting or initially trained, but needing targeted assistance to implement:Edgewood Developmental SchoolEastern Wayne ElementaryCarver Heights ElementaryRosewood Middle

Possible recruits:Wayne Academy (will need Module 1 training)Spring Creek Elementary (will need Module 1 training)PreschoolGoldsboro High SchoolDillard Middle

Revised 4/26/11 6

LEA __Wayne_________________ CIPP 2011


Indicator 2: Percent of students with IEPs dropping out of high school

Measurement: States must report using the dropout data used in the ESEA graduation rate calculation and follow the timeline established by the Department under the ESEA.

The definition for dropout is an individual who: 1) was enrolled in school at some time during the previous school year; and 2) was not enrolled at the beginning of the current school year; and 3) has not graduated from high school or completed a State- or district-approved educational program; and 4) does not meet any of the following exclusionary conditions: a) transfer to another public school district, private school, or State- or district-approved educational program (including correctional or health facility programs); b) temporary absence due to suspension or school-excused illness; or c) death, as reported in North Carolina’s Consolidated State Performance Report (CSPR) Part I, December 17, 2010.


2009-10 5.5% or less is the dropout rate for students with IEPs in grades 9-12.


NOTE: All LEAs serving grades represented within this indicator must include improvement activities on the CIPP Activities sheet to address dropping out of high school.

1. LEA met State Target? _____ Yes __X___ No


10 school year.

WCPS had a small increase (.8%) in the number of students with IEPs who dropped out of school in 09-10.

Slippage can be attributed to an increase in the number of students in high school with an IEP.


Activities are focused on improving proficiency on the 10th grade statewide math assessment. This aligns with the system’s improvement plan as well as the state improvement plan. Using research-based strategies and interventions should improve student outcomes and increase the number of students that graduate with a diploma. We plan to begin piloting a program in high school curriculum assistance classes for direct instruction in math during the fall of 2011.

Revised 4/26/11 7

Monthly IEP chairperson meetings are utilized to highlight topics related to improving graduation rates for students with disabilities.

Use of Positive Behavior Intervention and Support in middle schools helps with student retention and focuses on successfully completing high school. Plans are to recruit at least one high school to implement PBIS in 2011-2012.








Schools implementing PBIS and needed training for 2010-2011:North Drive Elementary (Module 2)Grantham (Module 1)Brogden Middle School (Module 1)Mount Olive Middle (Module 2)Greenwood MiddleMeadow Lane Elementary


Possible recruits: Revised 4/26/11 8

Wayne Academy (will need Module 1 training)Spring Creek Elementary (will need Module 1 training)PreschoolGoldsboro High SchoolDillard Middle

Revised 4/26/11 9

LEA ___Wayne________________ CIPP 2011


Indicator 3: Participation and performance of students with IEPs on statewide assessments: A. LEA met the State AYP objectives (reading and math) for progress for the disability

subgroup B. Participation rate for students with IEPs C. Proficiency rate for students with IEPs

Measurement: A. LEA met the State’s AYP objectives (reading and math) for progress for the disability subgroup. B. Participation rate equals the number of students with IEPs in grades assessed divided by the number of students with IEPs in that grade, times 100.C. Proficiency rate equals the number of students with IEPs, scoring level 3 or above in grade assessed, divided by the number of students with IEPs assessed in that grade, times 100.

Measurable and Rigorous State Targets

2009-10 A. 55% of LEAs met AYPB. Percentage of Participation: 95 for reading & math in all tested grade levelsC. Percentage of Proficiency: Reading: 3rd through 8th grade = 43.2 10th = 38.5 Math: 3rd through 8th grade = 77.2 10th = 68.4

NOTE: All LEAs must include improvement activities on the CIPP Activities sheet to address students’ with IEPs participation and proficiency rates.

1. LEA made AYP for students with disabilities? _____ Yes ___X__ No

2. LEA met all state targets for participation and proficiency? _____ Yes __X___ No

3. If the target was not met, complete the following for each target NOT met:A. Explain the progress or slippage of your LEA toward meeting the State Target(s) for 2009- 10 school year.

Participation Rate: We met or exceeded the state targets for participation of students with IEPs on statewide assessments in reading and math for every grade level except for grade 10. The State has not yet replaced the OCS NCEXTEND2—this is still impacting our rates.

Proficiency Rate – Reading: We did not meet any of the state targets for reading proficiency in any grade level. However, it is important to note that we made progress in every grade level except for 3rd and 8th grades. The following reflects our progress/slippage:

3rd Grade: -3.94th Grade: +1.85th Grade: +26th Grade: +13.27th Grade: +3.68th Grade: -710th Grade: +3.7

Revised 4/26/11 10

Proficiency Rate – Math: We did not meet any of the state targets for math proficiency in any grade level. The pattern as seen in reading proficiency remains true for math with progress shown in every grade level except for 3rd and 8th grades. The following reflects our progress/slippage:

3rd Grade: -3.94th Grade: +8.85th Grade: +5.36th Grade: +27th Grade: +28th Grade: -2.810th Grade: +10.7

When analyzing the data for math and reading, there is no clear explanation for the slippage in grades 3 and 8. District wide assessments for non-disabled students do not show a similar pattern.


Our focus this year continues to be on math while we move forward with the work we have on-going in the area of reading. Implementation of Math Foundations will be critical for our teachers. Math training dates and times are pending.

For some of our high school students at a piloted site (Eastern Wayne High School), we will implement a curriculum program in the curriculum assistance classes to address math deficits. This will be implemented at the beginning of the 2011-2012 school year. Professional development will be on-going (group sessions along with one-on-one sessions with curriculum trainers).

Continued training will be provided for EC and Regular Education administrators with a focus on service delivery models.






Monthly IEP Chair Meetings (Continue): On the 3rd Monday of the month, we hold IEP Chair Meetings. Each school sends at least one representative, usually the IEP Chair. The monthly IEP Chair Meetings provide a time for professional development with an emphasis on referrals,

Revised 4/26/11 11

evaluations, eligibility and various DPI updates. We also use this time to apprise our staff of any upcoming events. These meetings are usually held in the afternoon and run for about an hour and a half.

Staff development on LRE and service delivery options will be offered for all EC teachers and administrators by October 19, 2011.

Revised 4/26/11 12

LEA ____Wayne_______________ CIPP 2011


Indicator 4: Rates of suspensions and ExpulsionsA. LEAs with rates of suspension and expulsions of SWD for greater than 10 consecutive

days in the school year that is greater than twice the state average rateB. LEAs with rates of suspensions and expulsions by race/ethnicity of SWD for greater

than 10 consecutive days in the school year that is greater than twice the state average rate.

Measurement: A. LEA data indicate a significant discrepancy in the rates of suspensions and expulsions of SWD

for greater than 10 consecutive days in the school year.

B. LEA data indicate a significant discrepancy, by race/ethnicity in the rates of suspensions and expulsions of SWD for greater than 10 consecutive days in the school year; and policies, procedures, or practices that contribute to the significant discrepancy and do not comply with requirements relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards.


2009-10 A. LEA rate of suspensions and expulsion of SWD for greater than 10 consecutive days in a school year that is greater than twice the state average rate (<4.3%)

B. LEA rate of suspensions and expulsions, by race/ethnicity of SWD for greater than 10 consecutive days in a school year that is greater than twice the state average rate (<4.3%); or if the LEA rate indicates a significant discrepancy, by race/ethnicity (>= 4.3%) the LEA’s policies, procedures or practices do not contribute to the significant discrepancy and comply with requirements relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards.

NOTE: All LEAs must include improvement activities on the CIPP Activities sheet to address decreasing suspension and expulsion rates for students with disabilities for both components of this indicator.

1. LEA met State Target A? __X___ Yes _____ No

2. LEA met State Target B? _____ Yes _____ No __X___ NA

3. For each target not met, complete the following:A. LEA must review data (areas of disability, reasons for, and in which grades and schools of

SWD who are suspended or expelled for greater than 10 consecutive days for 2009-10 school year). Summarize the results of this review.


C. Document the action steps for implementing each activity.

Revised 4/26/11 13

LEA ___Wayne________________ CIPP 2011


Indicator 5: Percent of students with IEPs aged 6 through 21 who are served in: A. Regular setting – Inside the regular class 80% or more of the day

B. Separate setting – Inside the regular class less than 40% of the day and C. Separate schools, residential facilities, or homebound/hospital placements

Measurement: A. Percent = the number of students with IEPs served inside the regular class 80% or more of the day divided by the total number of students aged 6 through 21 with IEPs times 100 B. Percent = the number of students with IEPs served inside the regular class less than 40% of the day divided the total number of students aged 6 through 21 with IEPs times 100 C. Percent = the number of students with IEPs served in separate schools, residential facilities, or homebound/hospital placements divided by the total number of students aged 6 through 21 with IEPs times 100


2009-10 Measurement A: The state target is 64.6% or above. Measurement B: The state target is 15.7% or below. Measurement C: The state target is 2.0% or below.

NOTE: All LEAs must include improvement activities on the CIPP Activities sheet to address Least Restrictive Environment rates.

1. LEA met State Targets? _____ Yes __X___ No

2. If the target(s) was not met, complete the following for each target NOT met:A. Explain the progress or slippage of your LEA toward meeting the State Target for 2009-

10 school year.

Measurement A: We did not meet the state target. Slippage was noted.Measurement B: We did not meet the state target. However, progress was noted.Measurement C: We did not meet the state target. Slippage was noted.

The LEA was able to note progress in Measurement B due to an increased effort to provide instruction in more inclusive settings. Slippage was noted in the other areas due to a constantly changing population of military students, including those families who request to come to this LEA because of our public separate school and a private residential facility.


The following activities were found to be relevant for the improvement of Indicator 5:

Revised 4/26/11 14

1. Staff development regarding service delivery options with an emphasis on least restrictive environment

2. EC Basic Training (teachers and administrators)3. EC Help Sessions4. Monthly IEP Chair Meetings5. Continued weekly compliance review6. Continuation and expansion of PBIS7. System-wide professional development for all EC teachers

C. Document the action steps for implementing each activity.Improving Student Outcomes:

Staff development on LRE and service delivery options will be offered to all EC teachers by October 19, 2011.

EC Basic Training (Continue): This training is designed to help new EC teachers understand the process for conducting annual reviews and reevaluations. We open this training up to all EC teachers. Training will be as follows: September 2011; October 2011; January 2012.

(Continue)-EC staff from the central office will be a member of IEP teams if school level teams need assistance in making LRE decisions. The school will submit a request for central office attendance at their meeting ten to fourteen days in advance. This form is located in their blue EC notebooks.

EC Help Sessions (Continue): These sessions are designed to assist teachers with questions and concerns regarding policies, procedures and compliance. Teachers register for these monthly sessions. These sessions are held on the 4th Monday of every month and last for two hours.

Weekly Compliance Review (Continue): EC Coordinators and Program Specialists review EC records for compliance weekly. The weekly compliance review focuses on monitoring district records in accordance to federal and state guidelines. Feedback is then given to individual teachers and schools. Our scheduled day to review records is on Tuesday. Schools are divided up into two groups (A week and B week). At the beginning of the school year, schools will be given the 2011-2012 compliance schedules.



Schools implementing PBIS and needed training for 2010-2011:North Drive Elementary (Module 2)Grantham (Module 1)Brogden Middle School (Module 1)Mount Olive Middle (Module 2)

Revised 4/26/11 15

Greenwood MiddleMeadow Lane Elementary


Possible recruits:Wayne Academy (will need Module 1 training)Spring Creek Elementary (will need Module 1 training)PreschoolGoldsboro High SchoolDillard Middle

Revised 4/26/11 16

LEA ____Wayne_______________ CIPP 2011


Indicator 7: Percent of preschool students with IEPs who demonstrate improved:A. Outcome 1: Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships),B. Outcome 2: Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early

language/communication and early literacy), andC. Outcome 3: Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs

Measurement: See spreadsheet for calculations a through e for measurement A, B, and C. Use summary statement for each of the three Outcomes (A, B, & C). Summary Statement 1: Of those preschool children who entered the preschool program below age expectations in each Outcome, the percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program Summary Statement 2: The percent of preschool children who were functioning within age expectations in each Outcome by the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program.


2009-10 Baseline DataMeasurement A: Outcome 1 - Summary Statement 1 = 85.9% Summary Statement 2 = 48.3% Measurement B: Outcome 2 - Summary Statement 1 = 86.9% Summary Statement 2 = 46.6% Measurement C: 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.)

NOTE: All LEAs serving students represented within this indicator must include improvement activities on the CIPP Activities sheet to address improving preschool student outcomes in the areas of positive social-emotional skills, acquisition and use of knowledge and skills, and use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs.

The LEA serving students represented within this indicator must answer the following questions:

1. What standardized testing instruments(s) are you using as a component of determining entry and exit COSF ratings (1-7)?Entry: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 EditionDAYC – Developmental Assessment of Young ChildrenVMI – The Beery – Buktenica Developmental Test of Visual Motor IntegrationBBCS – Bracken Basic Concept Scale-3 rd Edition BDI –2 Battelle Developmental InventoryIDP Provence Infant-Toddler Developmental ProfileVABS-2 Vineland Adaptive Behavior

Revised 4/26/11 17

PLS – 4 Preschool Language Scale 4 th Edition EOWPVT Expressive One Word Picture Vocabulary TestGFTA-2 Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulatuion-2 nd Edition DAS-2 Differential Ability Scale 2 nd Edition SB-V Stanford Binet-VPDMS-2 Peabody Developmental Motor Scale-2GARS-2 Gilliam Autism Rating ScaleCARS Childhood Autism Rating ScaleBASC-2 Behavior Assessment System for Children-2 nd Edition DECA Devereaux Early Childhood AssessmentESI Early Screening InventoryABAS-2 Adaptive Behavior Assessment 2ADOS Autism Diagnostic Observation ScheduleGADS Gilliam Asperger’s Diagnostic System Bayley-3 Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development Exit: Depending on the child’s need, any of the above assessment measures maybe 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) are you using 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 are you collecting parent information?Parent input is obtained upon through questionnaires and developmental checklist

4. How are you collecting observation data?Observations are completed in a variety of settings that include but not limited to daycare, More At Four, Head Start, home, service provider location, or any location that the child may be present. Observations completed by teachers, parents, service provider, and assessment team maybe included COSF scoring.

5. Are you using exit COSF ratings from Part C 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 fro Part C that includes IFSP, evaluations, service provider’s notes and reports.

6. Is COSF training (including refresher training) conducted yearly?Yearly COSF refresher through professional development

Revised 4/26/11 18

LEA __Wayne_________________ CIPP 2011


Indicator 8: Percent of parents with a child receiving special education services who report that schools facilitated parent involvement as a means of improving services and results for students with IEPs

Measurement: Percent equals the number of respondent parents who report schools facilitated parent involvement as a means of improving services and results for students with IEPs divided by the total number of respondent parents of students with IEPs times 100.


2009-10 45% 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.

NOTE: All LEAs must include improvement activities on the CIPP Activities sheet to address parent involvement.

Revised 4/26/11 19

LEA ___Wayne________________ CIPP 2011

Monitoring Priority: Disproportionate Representation – Child with a Disability

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.

Measurement: District data indicate the district has disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services that is the result of inappropriate identification.


2009-10 0% disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services that is the result of inappropriate identification

The LEA does not have disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education across all disability categories that is a result of inappropriate identification.

All LEAs must include improvement activities on the CIPP Activities sheet to address this indicator.

Revised 4/26/11 20

LEA ___Wayne________________ CIPP 2011

Monitoring Priority: Disproportionate Representation – Child with a Disability

Indicator 10: LEA data indicate disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories that is the result of inappropriate identification.

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


2009-10 0% disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories that is the result of inappropriate identification

The LEA does not have disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories that is a result of inappropriate identification.

All LEAs must include improvement activities on the CIPP Activities sheet to address this indicator.

Revised 4/26/11 21

LEA ___Wayne________________ CIPP 2011

Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B/Child Find

Indicator 11: Percent of students for whom a referral was received and placement determined within 90 days

Measurement: A. Number of students for whom a referral for an evaluation was received excluding those students

that transferred into or out of the LEA within the 90 days or transferred into the LEA after the 90 days expired or those that parents repeatedly failed or refused to produce student for an evaluation

B. Number of students whose referral, evaluations, eligibility, and if appropriate, IEP development, and placement determination were completed within 90 days

Account for children included in ‘a’ but not included in ‘b’. Indicate the range of days beyond the timeline when the evaluation was completed and any reasons for the delays.

Percent = [B divided by A] times 100.


2009-10 100% of students for whom a referral was received and placement determined within 90 days

NOTE: All LEAs must include improvement activities on the CIPP Activities sheet to address meeting the required timeline.

1. All LEAs must describe the mechanism for tracking initial referrals.For the 2011-2012 school year, Wayne County will begin tracking initial referrals in CECAS. Once the referral is completed, the school IEP Chair will submit the referral to their school psychologist. The school psychologists will then be responsible for getting the DEC-1 information to the central office for entry into CECAS. The central office EC staff will monitor this data monthly and submit monthly reports to the psychologists as well as school principals. At our monthly IEP chair meetings, schools will be presented with their indicator 11 data.

2. LEA met State Target? _____ Yes ___X__ No

3. If the target was not met, complete the following for each target NOT met:A. Explain the progress or slippage of your LEA toward meeting the State Target for 2009-

10 school year. Wayne County had slippage of .37 in this area. Although slippage is noted, we stayed relatively the same from last year. This area has been a weakness for us because we have not had a tracking system in place. We feel that the tracking system once implemented will hold our staff more accountable and make them more aware of the timeline.


Revised 4/26/11 22

The analysis found the following to be sound activities for improvement of the 90-day timeline: (1) Inputting referral data into CECAS (2) EC Help Sessions, (3) Weekly compliance review and (4) Monthly IEP Chair Meetings. The EC Help Sessions are facilitated by EC central office staff to ensure accurate and timely records for students that have transferred in or are being initially placed. The weekly compliance review focuses on monitoring district records in accordance to federal and state guidelines. This is conducted by WCPS EC central office staff. The monthly IEP Chair Meetings provide a time for professional development with an emphasis on referrals, evaluations and eligibility.

Bi-Monthly Preschool Coordinating Council and preschool database to monitor status of children from notification to placement is also considered highly effective for meeting the criteria.

C. Document the action steps for implementing each activity.Input referral information into CECAS: Once schools complete a referral (DEC-1), they will give a copy of this to their school psychologist. Beginning with the 2011-2012 school year, our psychologists will be responsible for getting the DEC-1 information to the EC department at the central office for entry into CECAS.

EC Help Sessions (Continue): These sessions are designed to assist teachers with questions and concerns regarding policies, procedures and compliance. Teachers register for these monthly sessions. These sessions are held on the 4th Monday of every month and last for two hours.

Weekly Compliance Review (Continue): EC Coordinators and Program Specialists review EC records for compliance weekly. The weekly compliance review focuses on monitoring district records in accordance to federal and state guidelines. Feedback is then given to individual teachers and schools. Our scheduled day to review records is on Tuesday. Schools are divided up into two groups (A week and B week). At the beginning of the school year, schools will be given the 2011-2012 compliance schedules.


Revised 4/26/11 23

LEA __Wayne_________________ CIPP 2011

Monitoring Priority: Early Childhood Transitions

Indicator 12: Percent of students referred by Part C prior to age 3, who are found eligible for Part B, and who have an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthdays

Measurement: A. Number of students who have been served in Part C and referred to Part B for eligibility

determinationB. Number of those referred determined to be NOT eligible and whose eligibilities were determined

prior to their third birthdaysC. Number of those found eligible who have an IEP developed and implemented by their third

birthdaysD. Number of students for whom parent refusal to provide consent caused delays in evaluation or

initial servicesE. Number of students who were referred to Part C less than 90 days before their third birthdays

Percent = [C divided by (A – B – D – E)] x 100.


2009-10 100% of students referred by Part C prior to age 3, who are found eligible for Part B and will have an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthdays

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

NOTE: All LEAs serving students represented within this indicator must include improvement activities on the CIPP Activities sheet to address students who were referred from Part C to Part B for eligibility determination by their third birthdays.

1. All LEAs must describe the mechanism for tracking Part C to Part B referrals.At approximately 2 years and 3 months the Greenville CDSA provides a Child Find Notification list. Children are then entered into the Wayne County Preschool database. A review date is also entered and children are scheduled to come up at our regularly scheduled PCC (Preschool Coordinating Council) meeting at 2 years 6 months. If a transition planning conference has been held the database is update to reflect date. If a transition planning conference has not been held contact is made with the local CDSA branch office for follow up. Between 2 years 9 months and 3 years DEC 1 meeting, evaluation, and eligibility is completed and documented in PCC database.

2. LEA met State Target? ___X__ Yes _____ No


10 school year.

Not Applicable

Revised 4/26/11 24


Not Applicable


Not Applicable

Revised 4/26/11 25

LEA ___Wayne________________ CIPP 2011

Indicator 13: Percent of students aged 16 and above with an IEP that includes appropriate measurable postsecondary goals that are annually updated and based upon an age appropriate transition assessment, transition services, including courses of study, that will reasonable enable the student to meet those postsecondary goals and annual IEP goals related to the student’s transition services needs. There also must be evidence that the student was invited to the IEP Team meeting where transition services are to be discussed and evidence that, if appropriate, a representative of any participating agency was invited to the IEP Team meeting with the prior consent of the parent or student who has reached the age of majority.

Measurement: A. Percent of students aged 16 and above with an IEP that includes appropriate measureable

postsecondary goals that are annually updated and based upon an age appropriate transition assessment, transition services, including courses of study, that will reasonably enable the students to meet those postsecondary goals, and annual IEP goals related to transition services needs. There must also be evidence that the student was invited to the meeting where transition services are to be discussed and evidence that if appropriate, a representative of any participating agency was invited to the IEP Team meeting with the prior consent of the parent or student who has reached the age of majority, divided by the (number of students with an IEP age 16 and above) times 100

B. Percent of noncompliance identified in the 2008-09 school year and corrected within one year times 100


2009-10 A. 100% of students aged 16 and above with an IEP that includes appropriate measureable postsecondary goals that are annually updated and based upon an age appropriate transition assessment, transition services, including courses of study, that will reasonably enable the students to meet those postsecondary goals, and annual IEP goals related to transition services needs. There must also be evidence that the student was invited to the meeting where transition services are to be discussed and evidence that if appropriate, a representative of any participating agency was invited to the IEP Team meeting with the prior consent of the parent or student who has reached the age of majority.

B. 100% of noncompliance identified in the 2008-09 school year and corrected within one year.


NOTE: All LEAs serving students represented within this indicator must include improvement activities on the CIPP Activities sheet to address compliance of required transition component of the IEP for students aged 16 and above.

Revised 4/26/11 26

Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B/Effective Transition

LEA __Wayne_________________ CIPP 2011

1. LEA met State Target A? __X___ Yes _____ No

2. LEA met State Target B? _____ Yes _____ No __X___NA

3. If either target(s) was not met, complete the following:A. Explain the progress or slippage of your LEA toward meeting the State Target for 2009-

10 school year.

Not Applicable


Not Applicable


Not Applicable

Revised 4/26/11 27


Indicator #13/Continued

LEA __Wayne________________ CIPP 2011

Indicator 14: Percent of youth who are no longer in secondary school, had IEPs in effect at the time they left school, and were:

A. Enrolled in higher education within one year of leaving high school.

B. Enrolled in higher education or competitively employed within one year of leaving high school.

C. Enrolled in higher education or in some other postsecondary education or training program; or competitively employed or in some other employment within one year of leaving high school.

Measurement: The percent of responders that indicated:

A. Enrollment in higher education within one year of leaving high school.

B. Enrollment in higher education or competitively employed within one year of leaving high school.

C. Enrollment in higher education or in some other postsecondary education or training program; or competitively employed or in some other employment within one year of leaving high school.


2009-10 A. 39% enrolled in higher education within 1 year of leaving high school.B. 62% enrolled in higher education or competitively employed within 1 year of leaving

high school.C. 73% 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.


NOTE: All LEAs serving students represented within this indicator must include improvement activities on the CIPP Activities sheet to ensure positive postsecondary outcomes.

WCPS was not sampled in 2009-2010.

Revised 4/26/11 28


LEA ___Wayne________________ CIPP 2011

Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B/General Supervision

Indicator 15: General supervision system (including monitoring, complaints, hearings, etc.) identifies and corrects noncompliance as soon as possible but in no case later than one year from identification

Measurement: Percent of noncompliance identified in the 2008-09 school year corrected within one year of identification

A. Number of findings of noncomplianceB. Number of corrections completed as soon as possible but in no case later than one year from

identification

Percent = (B divided by A) times 100


2009-10 100% of noncompliance (identified in 2008-09) corrected as soon as possible but in no case later than one year (2009-10) from identification (reported in October 2009 submission)

NOTE: All LEAs must include improvement activities on the CIPP Activities sheet to address identification and correction of noncompliance as soon as possible but in no case later than one year from identification.

1. All LEAs must describe the mechanism for the identification, correction, and verification of correction of noncompliance.

(See chart on next page)

2. LEA met State Target? __X___ Yes _____ No _____NA

3. If the target was not met, complete the following for each target NOT met:A. Explain the progress or slippage of your LEA toward meeting the State Target for 2009-

10 school year. Not Applicable

B. Analyze the LEA activities (listed on the last page) for this target using the CIPP Improvement Activity Review Checklist. Summarize the results of the analysis including status of implementation.Not Applicable

C. Document the action steps for implementing each activity.Not Applicable

Revised 4/26/11 29

Wayne County Exceptional Children Program

Continuous Improvement Monitoring System

Flow Chart

Development and Submission of CIPP

Compliance Verification

Targeted On-Site Verification Visits

Focused Monitoring

A. Development and submission of the Continuous Improvement Performance Plan (yearly); -Internal Record Review-Self-determination of non-compliance. -Submission of record review documentation with timelines and corrective actions to correct non-compliance. -Submission of verification of correction of non-compliance in baseline data.

B. Documentation of correction submitted to SEA in CIPP.

C. Verification through CECAS

D. Evidence of change documented through the yearly submission of CIPP.

A. Pre-Onsite-Compliance review of all initials, transfers, and reevaluations resulting in change of category-Compliance Verification Summary form completed

B. Review of CECAS data sheets

C. Monitor a % of EC records for compliance. -Compliance Checklists -DPI Deficit Sheets -Actions to Take form completed

A. Monitoring Specific Records of Concern -Compliance Verification Summary form completed

B. Monitor a % of EC records for compliance. -Compliance Checklists -DPI Deficit Sheet -Actions to Take

Areas of Focus:

A. TransitionB. Disproportionality

Revised 4/26/11 30

CIPP Compliance Verification

Targeted On-Site Visits

Focused Monitoring

LEA ____Wayne_________________________ CIPP 2011CIPP Activities Sheet

Indicator(s)Number

Measurable Improvement Activities: Person(s) Responsible

NeededResource(s)

Documentation of Implementation

1, 2, 3, 14Improvement Activities for Math: 1-Organize a Math Lead Team 2-Work with DPI to organize dates for Math Foundations (Strategies) Training 3-Review, Purchase and Implement Research-Based Program (Intervention) for all elementary and middle schools 4- Review, Purchase and Implement programs for curriculum assistance in all high schools

1-EC Staff2-EC Staff3-EC Staff in consultation with RE4-EC Staff, School Admin

1-EC Staff and teachers2-DPI Consultant3-Materials for consideration4-Materials for consideration

1-Agenda, Minutes, School Survey2-Agenda, Roster, CEU Documentation, Evaluations3-Data Notebooks4-Meeting Agenda, Minutes, Data/assessments

5, 9, 10, 14Improving student outcomes: 1- Provide staff development on LRE and service delivery options by February 2012. 2- Provide EC Basic Training

To be held in September and October 2011 and February 2012.

3- Attend IEP meetings when LRE is in question

1-EC Staff 2-EC Staff3-EC Staff

1-DPI or Contracted Consultant, WCPS Staff2-Policies and Procedures3-Meeting Invitation

1-Roster, Agenda, CEU documentation, Evaluations2- Roster, Agenda, CEU documentation, Evaluations3-Request for Central Office LEA attendance at meeting, Minutes

5, 11, 12, 13, 15

Continue EC Help Sessions Training held on the 4th Mondays of the month

EC Staff Policies and Procedures; Checklists

Sign-up Sheets; Calendar

5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15

Continue Weekly Compliance Reviews Reviews completed on Tuesday of every week

EC Staff Policies and Procedures; DPI Consultant

Processed CECAS forms; Periodic Count; Calendar

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 11, 12, 13, 15

Continue Monthly IEP Chair Meetings Meetings held on the 3rd Monday of the month

EC Staff DPI Updates; Regional Meetings/ Memos; EC Database; EC Notebook

Sign-in Sheet; EC Notebook; Agenda; Calendar

1, 2, 4, 5 Continue PBIS Initiative Behavior Scheduling PBIS Data logs, meeting agendas, SET

Revised 4/26/11 31

Schools implementing PBIS and needed training for 2011-2012:

North Drive Elementary (Module 2)Grantham (Module 1)Brogden Middle School (Module 1)Mount Olive Middle (Module 2)

Greenwood Middle (Module 2)Meadow Lane Elementary (Module 1)

Recruiting or initially trained, but needing targeted assistance to implement:

Edgewood Developmental SchoolEastern Wayne ElementaryCarver Heights ElementaryRosewood Middle

Possible recruits:Wayne Academy (will need Module 1 training)Spring Creek Elementary (will need Module 1

training) Goldsboro High School (will need Module 1 training) Dillard Middle School (will need Module 1 training) Preschool (will need Module 1 training)

Support Staff; DPI Consultant; Admin; District-wide Staff

with regional consultant; training materials

visits/reports

8, 12 Promote Parental Awareness and Involvement: 1- EC Website 2- Collaborate and attend Wayne County Autism Society meetings 3- Attend and facilitate Special Olympics Wayne County meetings and events 4- Collaborate with Community Agencies 5- Provide parent training at Summer Institute (EC Training) 6- EC Newsletter twice per year

EC Staff (All)

1-Website2-Schedule of Meetings3-Schedule of Meetings4-Schedule of Meetings/ Invitations5-Agenda, presentation6-Website

1-Website2-Email/Invitation3-Agenda4-Invitation, Minutes5-Conference Evaluations6-Website

1-15 Review CIPP activities monthly EC Staff Schedule of 1-Calendar, Minutes

Revised 4/26/11 32

Meetings

11 Input Referral data into CECAS for Tracking/Monitoring EC Staff CECAS 1-Monthly Indicator 11 reports2-Montly IEP Chair meeting agenda

Revised 4/26/11 33

indicatorwayne.ss8.sharpschool.com/userfiles/servers/server_424… · web view2011. lea name:...

Documents