1 / 16

PENDER COUNTY SCHOOLS CIPP 2013

PENDER COUNTY SCHOOLS CIPP 2013. Exceptional Children programs Steering committee meeting May 28, 2013. CIPP Overview. Continuous Improvement Performance Plan Developed annually by each LEA Based on previous year’s data Aligned with the State Performance Plan outcome indicators

naif
Download Presentation

PENDER COUNTY SCHOOLS CIPP 2013

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. PENDER COUNTY SCHOOLS CIPP 2013 Exceptional Children programs Steering committee meeting May 28, 2013

  2. CIPP Overview • Continuous Improvement Performance Plan • Developed annually by each LEA • Based on previous year’s data • Aligned with the State Performance Plan outcome indicators • Other monitoring activities include: • Program compliance on-site reviews • Targeted on-site visits • Dispute resolution process • Data based reviews

  3. LEA CIPP Development • Indicator 1: data on graduation rates • Indicator 2: dropout rates • Indicator 3: state assessments • Indicator 4: suspensions • Indicator 5: least restrictive environment • Indicator 7: preschool outcomes • Indicator 8: parent satisfaction • Indicator 14: post-school outcomes

  4. 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:

  5. 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:

  6. 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:

  7. 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:

  8. 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:

  9. 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:

  10. 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:

  11. 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 

  12. 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 

  13. 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%

  14. 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:

  15. Activities Discussion of activities by EC Leadership team. Steering Committee members assist with aligning activities to Indicators. • Revised EC Staff Scope of Duties • NCSIP-Reading 3 year plan-Review • EC Curriculum Planning

  16. 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

More Related