1. education
2. special education

Quality Improvement Process (QIP)
Strategies to Improve Outcomes for Students with Disabilities
District and Partner Information
District / School Names:
Auburn Enlarged City School District
Grades K-8
RSE-TASC Region:
Mid-West
SEQA Region:
Central
Effective Dates for
QIP: January 2014 –
June 2015
District Contact Person: Krista
Martin/Assistant Director of Special
Education
Special Education School Improvement Specialist
(SESIS) Responsible for QIP: Kathleen Granelli
School Year:
2013-2014
2014-2015
Type of Submission: (check one)
Initial QIP Development: Date: 1/2014
Midpoint Report of Progress: Date: _9/30/14__
Final Report: Date:
List QIP Team Members and Their Titles
Cindy Bovi-AIS Teacher
Kathleen Granelli – SESIS Cayuga-Onondaga BOCES
Jennifer Whipple-Director of Special Education
Kimberly Granato-Special Education Teacher
Krista Martin-Assistant Director of Special Education
Patricia Foster-Special Education Teacher
Nicholas Musso-General Education Teacher
Ronald Gorney-Principal
Thomas Bolster-General Education Teacher
Current Status of District/Building
Current Status Identified Through IDEA or Regional Planning:
Auburn Enlarged City School District is a focus district with each of the seven schools within the district being designated a focus
school.
Demographic Data:
Auburn Enlarged City School District (from 2012-­‐13 school year) District/school information* designati
on
District
(focus)
AHS
(focus)
AJHS
(focus)
Casey
Park
(focus)
Genesee
(focus)
Herman
(focus)
Owasco
(focus)
Seward
(focus)
Enrollment
4300
% title 1
%
Free/reduced
% LEP
% SWD
ELA
performance
levels 3&4
Math
performance
levels 3&4
Did not make
AYP in ELA
95%
43%
12%
11%
1400
92.68%
34%
<1
14%
85%
79%
588
94%
42%
.3%
15%
27.4%
30.7%
96%
70%
0
13%
14%
21%
White, SWD,
ED
SWD
44%
52%
white
535
42%
Attendance
rate
70%
94.27%
Did not make
AYP in Math
White
508
30%
95%
30%
0
28%
29%
29%
ED
428
35%
95%
36%
0
8%
64%
75%
ED
46%
56%
SWD, ED
SWD
White, SWD, ED
ELA Data/district:
Grade
3
4
5
6
7
8
2010-11
48%
47%
50%
68%
44%
47%
2011-12
54%
52%
46%
54%
53%
45%
2012-13
20%
20%
18%
24%
27%
29%
*%proficient scoring at levels 3 or 4
A significant decrease in percentage of students scoring at proficiency is noted from the 2011-­‐2012 to the 2012-­‐2013 school year.
NYSTP English Language Arts Data 2010-2011
% Proficient (scoring at level 3 or at level 4)
Grade Level
District
Casey Park
Genesee
Herman
Owasco
Seward
East MS
West MS
3
48%
36%
46%
60%
64%
40%
4
47%
51%
36%
51%
48%
47%
5
50%
42%
38%
58%
61%
49%
6
68%
67%
73%
7
44%
45%
46%
8
47%
50%
50%
2012-2013 Math/ELA Data:
Summary of Analysis of Need: Student Outcomes
Additional documents/data/information/reports available on AECSD website and reviewed for the purpose of this QIP:
• RtI Manual
• Academic Intervention Plan
• Counseling Services Plan
• DCIP
• SCEP’s for all 7 schools in the district
• Special Education District Plan
• Past QIP
• SEQA review
• Graduation Action Plan
• LEA Improvement Plan
• 2013 ELA/Math data
• District Mission Statement and Goals
• Individual School Mission and Goals
Priority Needs for Improved Student Outcomes: (List student outcome area for which QIP goal will be developed)
1- Increase numbers of students with disabilities using strategies to complete independent work with less than 2 more additional
prompts than provided to the larger group.
Summary of Analysis of Need: Instructional Practices and System Capacity
SESIS conducted walk throughs in co-teaching settings, general education settings without the support of a special education
teacher, general education settings with the support of an aide, resource room settings, and special class settings.
High Frequency Practices observed in classrooms during the RSE-TASC walk-through included:
• Students with disabilities are working on content aligned with the content of the work of their grade level peers.
• Students with disabilities complete the cued routines in the stated time limit.
• Both proactively and as a response to disruption, staff use strategies like scanning, interacting frequently with students, and
purposeful movement.
• Teachers make statements that are welcoming, caring and encouraging.
Low Frequency Practices observed in classrooms during the RSE-TASC walk-through included:
• While the objective of the lesson is visible and specific to that lesson, the objective of the lesson was not consistently stated
by the teacher. (2/22, 1/9, 1/16, 2/9, 0/8, 2/10, 0/15)
• Teacher engages students in an activity to activate students’ prior knowledge of the lesson skill/content. (4/11, 2/9, 2/16, 3/9,
2/8, 6/10, 3/15)
•
•
•
•
Lesson closure: teacher conducts a short formative assessment of students’ level of understanding. (5/15, 5/11, 3/9, 5/16,
3/9, 0/8, 3/10)
Teacher explicitly teaches strategies for responding to higher-order questions: e.g., problem-solving, generalization,
evaluative, inferential, application. (2/15, 3/11, 0/9, 2/16, 3/9, 0/8, 4/10)
Teacher gives timely feedback to students. (4/15, 2/11, 1/9, 1/16, 5/9, 0/8, 3/10)
Teacher gives specific feedback to students. (10/15, 2/11, 0/9, 1/16, 4/9, 0/8, 3/10)
Inconsistent Practices observed in classrooms during the RSE-TASC walk-through included:
• Elements of active teaching (I Do). (4/10, 2/8, 3/9, 11/16, 7/9, 6/11, 7/15)
• Elements of independent practice (You Do). (4/10, 2/8, 3/9, 11/16, 7/9, 6/11, 7/15)
• Elements of guided practice (We Do). (4/11, 8/9, 14/16, 3/9, 2/8, 7/10, 14/15)
Instructional Practices to Improve or Implement In Order to Attain Student Outcome Goal:
• Explicit Direct Instruction
• Specially Designed Instruction
• Continuation of integrated co-teaching best practices
Aligned Priority Needs for RSE-TASC Support:
• Continuing professional development and support for implementation of integrated co-teaching best practices provided to coteaching teams (to include general education and special education staff)
• Professional development on and support for implementation of specially designed instruction
• Professional development on and support for implementation of explicit direct instruction
• Professional development on implementing engagement strategies with all students
Student-Based Outcome Goal #1
Measurable Goal:
By June 2015, SWD in grades K-8 will be able to accurately complete independent work with less than 2 more additional prompts
than is provided to the whole group.
Data Collection – 10/2014, 12/2014, 3/2015, 6/2015
Data Collection – Kathy Granelli - SESIS
Goal Progress Monitoring Data: Date _10/2014_____
Goal Progress Monitoring Data: Date _12/2014_____
Goal Progress Monitoring Data: Date _3/2015_____
Goal Progress Monitoring Data: Date _6/2015_____
Activities Supporting Goal
Professional development and coaching on elements of explicit
instruction/specially designed instruction to include:
• Formative assessment, independent practice and guided
practice
• Structures for student engagement
• Comprehension and higher order questioning across the
content areas
Continue to create and facilitate integrated co-teaching workshops to
present and share best practices, strategies and materials to
promote positive outcomes for students with disabilities.
Collect base line data in co-teaching classes using the RSE-TASC
walk through tool focusing on elements of explicit instruction.
SESIS Role in
Implementing Each
Activity
Projected
Implementation
Date(s)
Train and coach
1/2014-6/2015
Facilitate, present, plan and
co-teach with staff
1/2014-6/2015
Conduct walk throughs to
collect data; analyze data to
plan professional
development focus
1/2014-6/2015
Actual
Implementation
Date(s)
Evidence of Impact on Instructional Practices: (How the impact of the above activities will be demonstrated)
By June 2015, teachers in K-8 integrated co-taught classrooms will be providing guided practice, independent practice, corrective
feedback and use of engagement strategies for all students in all ELA co-taught classrooms.
Data Collection – Every 3 months
Data Collection – Kathy Granelli - SESIS
Evidence of Impact on Practices Data: Date _10/2014_____
Evidence of Impact on Practices Data: Date _12/2014_____
Evidence of Impact on Practices Data: Date _3/2014_____
Evidence of Impact on Practices Data: Date _6/2014_____
Evidence of Impact on System Capacity: (How the impact of the above activities will be demonstrated)
By June 2015, building and district leaders will analyze walk through data collected by the SESIS on a quarterly basis.
Data Collection – 10/2014, 12/2104, 3/2015, 6/2015
Data Collection – Kathy Granelli – SESIS
Evidence of Impact on System Capacity Data: Date _10/30/2014_____
Evidence of Impact on System Capacity Data: Date _12/30/2014_____
Evidence of Impact on System Capacity Data: Date _3/30/2015_____
Evidence of Impact on System Capacity Data: Date _6/30/2015_____
Gaps in Implementation of Planned Activities or
Achievement of Goal
Next Steps or Strategies to Address Implementation Gap(s)