.






Divisions for Special Education Services and Supports
1870 Twin Towers East
Atlanta, Georgia 30334
404-656-3963
Fax: 404-651-6457



Date : 02/04/2008



FOCUSED MONITORING REPORT

Increasing the Performance of Students With Disabilities
on Statewide Assessments




Candler County



Tom Bigwood
Superintendent of Schools



Hezekiah Campbell
Director of Special Education

.

Introduction and Statutory Authority

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) guarantees a free and appropriate public education be available to students with disabilities. The IDEA provides federal funds to assist states in carrying out this responsibility and to comply with the associated regulations. 34 CFR Section 300.600 of the IDEA requires that states ensure that local systems comply with federal regulations and meet the state’s educational standards as they provide educational programs for students with disabilities. The Divisions for Special Education Services and Supports (DSESS) of the Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE) provides this general supervision and monitoring of local systems through a variety of activities identified as Georgia’s Continuous Improvement Monitoring Process (GCIMP).


GCIMP is composed of multiple means for monitoring the local systems’ provision of a compliant and quality education for students with disabilities. These include, but are not limited to, evaluation of timelines for entry into special education, student record review, special education budget review, dispute resolution, district improvement plans, data profiles, and Focused Monitoring. A manual has been distributed to all district special education directors detailing the components of GCIMP.


The State Advisory Panel for Special Education serves as the stakeholder committee for the GaDOE and advises the state on the development and implementation of the GCIMP, including Focused Monitoring. The stakeholders reviewed state data on the Performance Goals and Indicators for students with disabilities and determined that the two priority indicators for FY08 (2007-2008 school year) would be increasing the performance of students with disabilities on statewide assessments when given appropriate accommodations and decreasing the percentage of students with disabilities who drop out of school. For the performance indicator, the 2007 assessment data for all systems were reviewed and compared to systems with similar size populations of students with disabilities, and ranked within the similar size groups. Those systems with the lowest performance of students with disabilities in either reading or mathematics were selected for Focused Monitoring. For the dropout indicator, the 3 most recent years’ data were averaged and those systems with the highest dropout rates were selected for Focused Monitoring. For FY08, a total of 17 systems were identified for Focused Monitoring for reading or mathematics achievement and 3 systems were identified for dropout rate.

Focused Monitoring

Candler County School System was selected for Focused Monitoring in the area of mathematics achievement because the data indicated need for improvement when compared to other systems in the size group D (250-499). The purpose of the Focused Monitoring site visit to Candler County School System was to identify reasons why the performance of students with disabilities in mathematics remains low and to begin to assist the system to identify strategies that improve achievement.


.

The Monitoring Team

The GaDOE authorized the following team to conduct on-site monitoring in the Candler County School System from 01/15/2008 to 01/17/2008
Kachelle White, Team Leader, Divisions for Special Education Services and Supports, GaDOE
Frank Nesbit, District Liaison, Divisions for Special Education Services and Supports, GaDOE
Shauwan Daniels, Special Education Administrator
Lisa Vaughn, Parent of a student with a disability
April Smith, Parent of a student with a disability
Data Related to Focused Monitoring

The Spring 2007 assessment data was used to identify the performance in mathematics. The data used was as follows:



Percent of Students with Disabilities Who Met or Exceeded Standards

Assessment data in Mathematics 2006 2007
3rd-8th grade CRCT 56.80 38.00
GHSGT 64.00 0.00

A review of the data shows that when Candler County School System is compared with the 50 other systems in the same size group, the percent of students with disabilities meeting standards in mathematics is low. A review of previous years’ data also shows that the percentage of students with disabilities meeting standards in mathematics was low. A review of the data also indicates that Candler County  is no longer significantly disproportionate in the identification, placement or discipline of students with disabilites. As part of the Focused Monitoring activities, the LEA Implementation Plan submitted by the system for FY 2007 was reviewed. The Candler County School System does have an Improvement Plan goal that targets improving performance in mathematics.

The system will be required to revise activities, using the findings contained in this report in its efforts to move forward in improving the achievement of students with disabilities. Please refer to the section "Required Evidence of Improvement" for specific information. Systems that fail to make AYP and fail to meet compliance criteria within one year may be subject to sanctions from the GaDOE.



.

Additional Data

Prior to the on-site visit, available and related data were reviewed and considered. Data reviewed included:

Focused Monitoring survey from 137 professionals
Focused Monitoring survey from 0 parents of students with disabilities
Individual school test data and enrollment data
Individual student test data
System Data Profiles
System special education budget
Student and teacher rosters

Other:
Data made available by the system upon arrival
On-site Process and Activities

The on-site activities of Focused Monitoring occurred during the week of: 01/15/2008 to 01/17/2008. During that time the following activities took place:

Conducted a parent meeting with 13 attendees
Visited 4 schools
Reviewed 26 student special education records
Conducted 9 classroom observations
Interviewed the director of special education
Interviewed 12 general education teachers
Interviewed 9 special education teachers
Interviewed 17 parents
Interviewed 5 principals/assistant principals
Interviewed 1 curriculum director(s)
Interviewed:
Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent, School Psychologist,

Summary of On-Site Findings:

The monitoring team found system noncompliance in the following area(s):

Some students with disabilities are not receiving a free appropriate public education. (FAPE)

Some students with disabilities are not educated to the maximum extent appropriate with students who are not disabled. (LRE)
Required Evidence of Improvement:

The system's 2010 assessment data must meet the annual measureable objective of 66.70% proficiency in mathematics by making AYP for the students with disabilities subgroup. Systems that fail to meet the target and fail to meet compliance criteria within one year may be subject to sanctions from the GaDOE.

.

ON-SITE FINDING - No. 1

Some students with disabilities are not receiving a free appropriate public education. (FAPE)



Applicable Federal Regulations:


  • 34 CFR 300.101 FAPE
  • 34 CFR 300.106 ESY
  • 34 CFR 300.105 Assistive Technology
  • 34 CFR 300.320 IEP



    • Supporting Evidence:


    35% of the IEPs reviewed for students with disabilities that did not meet expectations on the CRCT for math discussed a math deficit in the present levels of academic and functional performance, but had no specific math goals to address their math deficit or classroom accommodations specific to math.

    None of the IEPs reviewed recommended Extended School Year Services (ESY). In addition, professional interviews indicated a lack of knowledge on what ESY is and how to determine if a student needs ESY.

    According to system data, ESY services have not been provided to any special education student in Candler County for the past 2 years.

    54% of the IEPs reviewed did not contain a discussion of statewide assessment (CRCT) results. 

    Several IEPs included grading modifications based on effort, attitude and participation rather than basing grades on the students' progress toward grade level curriculum.

    Only two of the IEPs reviewed indicated that the student was receiving assistive technology which could assist them in accessing the general education curriculum.  In addition, professionals interviewed revealed a need for increased professional development on utilizing assistive technology for students with high incidence disabilities (learning disabilities, other health impaired, emotional behavioral disorders).

    Several IEPs reviewed had Georgia Performance Standard statements as goals. IEP goals should be developed based on what the student needs in order to access grade level standards, when appropriate, not as GPS goals.

    Observations revealed that the strategies, practices and the structure of a standards based classroom in both general and special education classess were not consistently evident (word walls related to current lesson, student work).

    Professional interviews and observations suggest that not all students with disabilities that are receiving math in a special education classroom are receiving grade level curriculum, when appropriate.

    The majority of the IEPs reviewed did not include a statement of how the child's disability affects the child's involvement and progress in the general curriculm.



    Required Evidence of Correction By 01/16/2009:


    Based on random selection of IEPs of students with disabilities who do not meet standards on statewide testing in mathematics, documentation must be evident that FAPE is being provided to students with disabilities by:

    1. Present levels of academic and functional performance that address mathematics deficits as indicated by statewide test scores and classroom performance and how the student’s disability impacts involvement and progress in the general education curriculum.
    2. Appropriate individualized accommodations that are directly related to deficits described in the present levels of academic and functional performance.
    3. Measurable goals addressing individual student deficit, as appropriate.

    Documentation that decisions regarding the need for assistive technology devices and services are based on students’ IEP goals, access to curricular and extracurricular activities, and progress in the general curriculum to include:

    1. List of students who are receiving assistive technology services to include disability area, the technology provided and specific deficit addressed.
    2. Random review of student IEPs in order to document the consideration of assistive technology and that the decision is supported by the present levels of academic and functional performance.

    Documentation that decisions regarding the need for Extended School Year (ESY) services are supported by consideration of all required factors, to include:

    1. List of students receiving ESY to include disability area, service, location, and hours per week of ESY services.

    Documentation of a system of monitoring student progress through the utilization of formative assessment data for the identification and remediation of specific math deficits. Progress monitoring data must be submitted to DSESS three times a year to culminate with the 2010 CRCT data.

    .

    ON-SITE FINDING - No. 2

    Some students with disabilities are not educated to the maximum extent appropriate with students who are not disabled. (LRE)



    Applicable Federal Regulations:


  • 34 CFR 300.114 LRE



    • Supporting Evidence:


    Candler County did not meet the state target of 57% of their students with disabilities (SWD) included in the general education setting over 80% of the time.  Candler’s data places them at 33% of their SWD in the general education setting over 80% of the time.

    24% of professionals interviewed indicated that they feel some of their students with disabilities are not appropriately placed for math.

    Several professionals indicated that some students with disabilities need a special education class for math, but it is not available due to scheduling or personnel, and is not based on the individual child’s need.

    According to the professional survey, only 19.71% of the professionals feel that co-taught classes in their school/district are very effective in providing instruction and increasing the performance of students with disabilities.




    Required Evidence of Correction By 01/16/2009:


    Based on random selection of student records, documentation that students are educated in their Least Restrictive Environment to include:

    1. IEPs that document a consideration of the full continum of placement options, placement decision which are supported by the present levels of academic and functional performance and placement based on the individual need of the learners.

    2. List of mathematics classes with a description of the level of support provided (e.g. co-teaching, collaborative or supported instruction, special education).

    .

    SYSTEMIC ISSUES IMPACTING STUDENT PERFORMANCE - No. 1


    Applicable Georgia Keys to Quality:


    Instruction Standard 3: High expectation for all learnes are consistently evident, with students playing an active role in setting personal learning goals and monitoring their own progress based upon clear evaluation criteria.


    Supporting Evidence:


    According to the professional survey, 40.15% of the respondents reported that “sometimes” students with disabilities are held to high expectations, with appropriate accommodations.  Interviews and comments from the professional survey also document the need to reinforce the commitment to high expectations for all students' achievement in Candler County.

    .

    OTHER PROFESSIONAL CONCERNS



    The GaDOE strongly urges the system to examine the following concerns and take steps to resolve issues as appropriate:


    Candler County is strongly encouraged to develop a handbook of rules, policies, practices and procedures regarding special education and related areas to ensure consistency within and across schools.

    Candler County would benefit from increased parental involvement among their parents of students with disabilites. The parents who attend the parent meetings and responses from parent phone calls indicated the need for workshops to educate parents on special education laws, terminology, transition opportunities and to promote increased communication and involvement.

    .

    CAP Development


    With the assistance of their local stakeholders and school administrators, the Candler County School System must develop a Corrective Action Plan (CAP). The CAP must 1) address the cited compliance items and 2) include a long range plan to improve the performance of students with disabilities on statewide assessments. The improvement activities must be added to the system’s LEA Improvement Plan in the consolidated application. The Candler County School District CAP must be completed and submitted through the MyGaDOE portal by 03/17/2008.

    Focused Monitoring Funds


    Funds have been allocated for Systems in Focused Monitoring in FY08. These funds are allotted by system size and will be available after the CAP has been approved. Candler County School System will have up to $20,000 available to use toward implementing the CAP and Improvement Plan. If the school district chooses to access these additional funds, the use of the funds must be clearly identified in the resources section of the CAP. Since funds are allocated in the current fiscal year, carryover can be granted to ensure implementation of the CAP activities. Systems may, of course, reallocate other funds to supplement these improvement actions also.

    .

    CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES
    IN Candler County SCHOOL DISTRICT
    Date Due:03/17/2008
    Area of noncompliance : Some students with disabilities are not receiving a free appropriate public education. (FAPE)
    The following activities have been planned in a logical order to correct the cited noncompliance and effect continuous improvement:

    Activities Planned

    Actions/Strategies/Interventions or Programs
    All IEPs for SWD will be written to include Present Level of Academic and Functional Performance describing math deficits as indicated by state tests and classroom performance on how the student’s disability impacts involvement and/or progress in general education classroom.
    Professional Learning
    On-going Training in IEP development for all special education teachers to include present levels of academic and functional performance based on data from CRCT and additional formative assessment and benchmarks. On-going follow up with each school’s Professional Learning Team to address concerns with on-line IEP program and/or IEP development
    Resources or Materials Needed
    GLRS Specialists, Sample IEP, PowerPoint Handouts, Video recording equipment, Release time (1/2 day scheduled a month) to review IEPs from alternating sites to check for accuracy.
    Person or Position Responsible for Supervision of Implementation
    Special Education Administration, Special Education Lead Learners, Building-level Administration
    Timeline for Implementation
    02/13/2008
    Means of Evaluations
    Agendas for trainings, Sample IEPs received at the Central Office using a system-developed checklist
    Documentation of CAP activities due to the DES with dates
    Sample IEPs, agenda, Extended School Year referral log – disability area, service, location and hours per week 6/6/08 9/26/08 1/16/09
    Evidence of Impact
    Increased student achievement as a result of comprehensive IEPs as required by IDEA 2004.
     

    Actions/Strategies/Interventions or Programs
    Extended School Year (ESY) will be considered for all students with disabilities annually.
    Professional Learning
    Training for all special education teachers on factors to consider in determining ESY and consideration of all students regardless of disability.
    Resources or Materials Needed
    GLRS Specialists, Sample IEP, PowerPoint Handouts, Video recording equipment, Release time (1/2 day scheduled a month) to review IEPs from alternating sites to check for accuracy.
    Person or Position Responsible for Supervision of Implementation
    Special Education Administration, Special Education Lead Learners, Building-level Administration
    Timeline for Implementation
    02/13/2008
    Means of Evaluations
    Agendas for trainings, Sample IEPs received at the Central Office using a system-developed checklist
    Documentation of CAP activities due to the DES with dates
    Extended School Year referral log – disability area, service, location and hours per week 6/6/08 9/26/08 1/16/09
    Evidence of Impact
    Increased student achievement as a result of comprehensive IEPs as required by IDEA 2004.
     

    Actions/Strategies/Interventions or Programs
    New policies, practices and procedures for documentation of the identification, evaluation, placement, IEP, and assessment will be developed and a handbook will be available (electronically) to all teachers at the beginning of the new school term. Provide technical support for all special education teachers on IEP on-line.
    Professional Learning
    Follow-up training for Special Education Lead Learners with SemsTracker with Business Rules that include a force field that requires data via Conference Call.
    Resources or Materials Needed
    SemsTracker Conference Call FM Funds $500.00 Staff Handbook completed by May 15, 2008.
    Person or Position Responsible for Supervision of Implementation
    Special Education Administration, System Psychologist, Special Education Lead Learners
    Timeline for Implementation
    03/20/2008
    Means of Evaluations
    Staff Handbook, sample IEPs
    Documentation of CAP activities due to the DES with dates
    Staff Handbook, sample IEPs 6/6/08 9/26/08 1/16/09
    Evidence of Impact
    Increased student achievement as a result of comprehensive IEPs as required by IDEA 2004.
     

    Actions/Strategies/Interventions or Programs
    To ensure parent input and increased understanding of the special education process a Parent Mentor will be hired half time.
    Professional Learning
    The Parent Mentor will be trained at statewide conferences and regional conferences, as well as at the local level. The Parent Mentor will have a designated Mentor to guide practices for the system.
    Resources or Materials Needed
    Funding sources: DOE Grant
    Person or Position Responsible for Supervision of Implementation
    Parent Mentor Designee from surrounding county
    Timeline for Implementation
    06/01/2008
    Means of Evaluations
    Agenda for Parent Trainings (activities), Phone-logs, Anecdotal Records of training events, Samples of Parent Evaluations
    Documentation of CAP activities due to the DES with dates
    Anecdotal Records of training events, Samples of Parent Evaluations 6/6/08 9/26/08 1/16/09
    Evidence of Impact
    Increased parental involvement of SWD in the school setting as well in required meetings
     

    Actions/Strategies/Interventions or Programs
    All IEPs for SWD will be written to include measurable goals based on the present levels of academic and functional performance based on the individual need of the learner.
    Professional Learning
    All special education teachers will participate in training to write and implement IEPs based on the individual need of the learner to include math deficits supported by individualized accommodations, and supplementary aids and services as appropriate to access the general education curriculum. Academic Coaches and Special Ed Lead Learners will work collaboratively in goal writing to develop “Smart Goals” that will help progress monitor improvement in mathematics. Funding: none Academic Coaches and Special Education Lead Learners will receive/provide follow-up training by the System Testing Coordinator – with the Accommodations Manual: A Guide to Selecting, Administering and Evaluating the use of Administration Accommodations for SWD – GA DOE (Oct. 2006 as updated)
    Resources or Materials Needed
    GLRS specialists, FDRESA specialists, Georgia Performance Standards, Course materials, handouts, CDs, etc…. Funding from Title I, Title II, Title VI-B flow-through
    Person or Position Responsible for Supervision of Implementation
    Special Education Administration, Curriculum Director, System - Testing Coordinator, Building Level Administrators, Academic Coaches, Lead Learners from MES, MIS, MMS, MHS, and PLC
    Timeline for Implementation
    05/24/2008
    Means of Evaluations
    Agendas for trainings, review of IEPs by Special Education Lead Learners and Special Education Administrator through use of developed checklist, Sample IEPs
    Documentation of CAP activities due to the DES with dates
    Agenda, sample IEPs, samples of administrative walk-throughs, observations, and consultation with feedback to monitor math instruction for SWD per school 6/6/08 9/26/08 1/16/09
    Evidence of Impact
    Increased student achievement as a result of comprehensive IEPs as required by IDEA 2004.
     

    Actions/Strategies/Interventions or Programs
    SWD in all instructional settings will receive grade level mathematics instruction that is consistent, rigorous and representative of high expectations (pull out, self-contained, and general education setting). All SWD will be provided access to the general education curriculum and grade level standards supported by accommodations.
    Professional Learning
    Training for all special education and general education teachers, administrators and support staff in: implementation of the adopted district-wide math texts and supplemental math materials; Knowledge of math GPS; Differentiation and Strategies for math instruction. Grade level general education textbooks and materials will be provided to all special education classrooms. All special education teachers will receive instruction in math content from core teachers and Academic Coaches. GA DOE GPS Training for all Math teachers (co-teaching team member). Math content specific training based on GPS standards: (1) for hands-on engaging strategies for all regular and special education teachers/paraprofessionals K-8 and (2) for most effective co-teaching/inclusion strategies for all regular and special education teachers/ paraprofessional K-12. Training and implementation of the Six (6) Elements of an Effective Math Lesson.
    Resources or Materials Needed
    RESA/GLRS, specialists, Academic Coaches, Training notebooks and other materials, Training PowerPoints, Master Teachers and Academic Coaches will provide instructional support to all general and special education teachers working with SWD in math.
    Person or Position Responsible for Supervision of Implementation
    Special Education Administration; Curriculum Director, Special Education Lead Learners, Building-level Administration, Academic Coaches
    Timeline for Implementation
    09/24/2008
    Means of Evaluations
    Sample Training logs, lesson plans, Agendas, samples of GPS Units, samples of Walk-through by administrators and/or Academic Coaches (math) to verify that supplemental math materials are being used in addition to the regular curriculum, classroom observations with feedback
    Documentation of CAP activities due to the DES with dates
    Sample Training logs; lesson plans; samples of Walk-through observations by administrators, samples of Formative and Summative assessment summary data reports to include benchmark test data, CRCT/GHSGT results, 6/6/08 9/26/08 1/16/09
    Evidence of Impact
    Increase number of students meeting or exceeding standards on the CRCT and the GHSGT.
     

    Actions/Strategies/Interventions or Programs
    All SWD who did not meet expectations on CRCT / GHSGT will attend a supplemental mathematics instructional period daily which provides a clinical approach to deficit remediation.
    Professional Learning
    Training for all special education and general education teachers, administrators and support staff in: implementation of the adopted district-wide math texts and supplemental math materials; Knowledge of math GPS; Differentiation and Strategies for math instruction. Touch Math – in house training / if needed GLRS No cost
    Resources or Materials Needed
    Touch Math K - $1,000.00; 1st - $1,500.00; 2nd - $ 1,500.00;3rd - $ 2,000.00; MIS - $300.00; Funding Source: FM Funds Study Island (2nd-5th Grade) $1,600.00 Funding Source: FM Funds Orchard Software (6th-8th Grade) $1,000.00 Funding Source: FM Funds
    Person or Position Responsible for Supervision of Implementation
    Special Education Administration; Curriculum Director, Special Ed Lead Learners, Building-level Administration
    Timeline for Implementation
    08/01/2008
    Means of Evaluations
    Training logs, sample lesson plans, samples of Walk-through by administrators and/or Academic Coaches (math) to verify that supplemental math materials are being used in addition to the regular curriculum, classroom observations with feedback;
    Documentation of CAP activities due to the DES with dates
    Training logs; sample lesson plans; samples of Walk-through observations by administrators; 6/6/08 9/26/08 1/16/09
    Evidence of Impact
    Increase number of students meeting or exceeding standards on the CRCT and the GHSGT.
     

    Actions/Strategies/Interventions or Programs
    Assistive technology will be considered and provided for all SWD to address individual deficits as described in the present level of academic and functional performance.
    Professional Learning
    Assistive Team will attend GPAT Summer Institute Training (6/19-6/21,2008) AT Team will provide training on use of assistive technology for all special education teachers /paraprofessionals and general education teacher so that all students will have consideration for appropriate accommodations in mathematics with emphasis in high incidence populations. AT Team will monitor use of assistive technology and provide support to teachers and students as needed.
    Resources or Materials Needed
    Stipends (4 x $300.00 = $1,200) and registration, hotel/ travel Fees for 5 Staff = $3,000 from FM funding (MES, MIS, MMS, MHS, and Special Ed Administration; GPAT manuals for math; Redelivery – no cost and conducted by assigned special education staff; Purchase of AT materials and/or equipment as a result of each school’s Needs Assessment by the AT Team ($3,000.00) Funding Source: FM Funds
    Person or Position Responsible for Supervision of Implementation
    Assistive Technology Team, Special Education Administration, Technology Administrator
    Timeline for Implementation
    06/19/2008
    Means of Evaluations
    AT Team formed, Sample IEPs and assistive technology logs reviewed by AT, Team, Special Education Lead teachers, and Special Education administration on a monthly basis.
    Documentation of CAP activities due to the DES with dates
    Sample IEPs, Log - List of students by school, disability area, technology provided and specific deficit addressed 6/6/08 9/26/08 1/16/09
    Evidence of Impact
    CRCT/GHSGT results, Benchmark results indicating trend dates.
     


    .

    Area of noncompliance : Some students with disabilities are not educated to the maximum extent appropriate with students who
    The following activities have been planned in a logical order to correct the cited noncompliance and effect continuous improvement:

    Activities Planned

    Actions/Strategies/Interventions or Programs
    All SWD will be taught in their least restrictive environment through consideration of the full continuum of services as documented in the IEP.
    Professional Learning
    LRE training for all administrators to include decision making model, scheduling, FTE, co-planning and utilization of personnel; Administrators will plan, monitor and support the implementation of a system wide LRE expansion project to include maximizing FTE, LRE Decision Making Model, scheduling, and utilization of staff; Student projections to maximize scheduling of co-taught classrooms will be completed by special education teachers and building level administrators.
    Resources or Materials Needed
    GLRS, GA DOE, LRE Training Materials
    Person or Position Responsible for Supervision of Implementation
    Special Education Administration, Special Ed Lead Learners, Building Level Administrators
    Timeline for Implementation
    06/19/2008
    Means of Evaluations
    Agenda, review of building level schedule to monitor class schedules, planning, utilization of staff with emphasis on maximizing inclusive practices and co-teaching opportunities system-wide.
    Documentation of CAP activities due to the DES with dates
    Summary of projections, building level schedules; sample of Building level schedules for inclusive classes and utilization of staff. Sample of Walk-through monitoring co-taught classrooms by Academic Coaches or Administrators 6/6/08 9/26/08 1/16/09
    Evidence of Impact
    Increased inclusive practices providing access to general ed curriculum in math, Increased student achievement as indicated by formative and summative assessments representing trend data.
     

    Actions/Strategies/Interventions or Programs
    SWD will be taught effective mathematics instruction in a full range of instructional settings to include inclusive settings and co-teaching.
    Professional Learning
    Co-teaching for general and special education teachers to include paraprofessionals in training to master expectations of co-taught classrooms and inclusive environments, that include: Decision making model, effective co-teaching practices, six approaches to co-teaching, co-planning, roles and responsibilities, differentiation, flexible grouping, scheduling and utilization of the staff to design a classroom that meets the individual needs of the learner.
    Resources or Materials Needed
    GA DOE materials, GLRS, First District RESA, Special Education Administration, Contracted services with GSU professors $3,400.00 Funding Source: FM Funds
    Person or Position Responsible for Supervision of Implementation
    Special Education Administration, Curriculum Director, Lead Learners, Special Education Lead Learners Building-level Administrators, Academic Coaches, Staff
    Timeline for Implementation
    08/01/2008
    Means of Evaluations
    Consultation and Observations by lead teachers, coaches, building-level administration with feedback, providing on-going monitoring and needs assessment, sample Walk-through by Special Education Administration to ensure system-wide consistent implementation
    Documentation of CAP activities due to the DES with dates
    Samples of Observations / Checklists and consultation with feedback from each school 6/6/08 9/26/08 1/16/09
    Evidence of Impact
    Formative and summative assessments indicating trend data. Increase in the number of students meeting or exceeding on the CRCT and the GHSGT
     


    The following district stakeholders participated in the development of the CAP and assure that all responsible parties will complete tasks as outlined in order to meet the determined "evidence of change."
    Team Member Name Position Phone/Email
    Dr. Tom Bigwood School Superintendent (912) 685-5713 ext 221 / tbigwood@metter.org
    Dr. Hezekiah Campbell Special Education Director (912) 685-5713 ext 218 / hcampbell@metter.org
    Dr. Evelyn J. Campbell Curriculum Director (912) 685-5713 ext 220 / ecampbell@metter.org
    Mary P. Clifton Special Education Coordinator (912) 685-5713 ext 229 / mclifton@metter.org
    Melanie Hall System Psychologist (912) 685-5713 ext 241 / mhall@metter.org
    Cadeisha Cooper MMS Academic Coach (912) 685-5713 ext 436 / ccooper@metter.org
    Lesa Brown MIS Principal (912) 685-5713 ext 312 / lbrown@metter.org
    Doreen Hooper MIS Special Education Lead Teacher (912) 685-5713 ext 329 / dhooper@metter.org
    Robbie Dollar MMS Principal (912) 685-5713 ext 411 / rdollar@metter.org
    Sonya Lanier MMS Special Education Lead Teacher (912) 685-5713 ext 421 / solanier@metter.org
    Pat Spaid MHS Special Education Lead Teacher (912) 685-2134 / pspaid@metter.org
    Carlene Ussery MES Assistant Principal (912) 685-5713 ext 520 / cussery@metter.org
    Carol Smith MES Special Education Lead Teacher (912) 685-5713 ext 548 / csmith@metter.org
    Dr. Alex Jordan GLRS Director (912) 739-1551 / drajordan@bellsouth.net
    Privacy Policy   |   Terms of Use   |   Site Requirements   |   Feedback Copyright © 2005-2008 Georgia Department of Education