1. College Community School Board
Student Services Report
College Community School Board
April 9, 2018

2. Special Education Stats 2016-2017
Year
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Total
10/2012
40 Nonresident
171 Resident
Total: 211
44 Nonresident
139 Resident
Total: 183
41 Nonresident
45 Resident
Total: 86
480
10/2013
51 Nonresident
192 Resident
Total: 243
33 Nonresident
120 Resident
Total: 153
45 Nonresident
51 Resident
Total: 96
492
10/2014
42 Nonresident
200 Resident
Total: 242
25 Non resident
118 Resident
Total: 143
57 Nonresident
Total: 108
493
10/2015
61 Nonresident
231 Resident
Total: 292
24 Nonresident
117 Resident
Total: 141
37 Nonresident
52 Resident
Total: 89
522
10/2016
56 Nonresident
222 Resident
Total: 278
27 Nonresident
131 Resident
Total: 158
70 Resident
Total: 115
551
574 students ( School year)
Level I (240 Resident) Level II (Resident 147)Level III (98 Resident)
These #’s include both resident and non-resident students that we were serving. Information gathered from Grant Wood Weighted Enrollment Detail and Tuition In rosters dated November 18, 2014
10/2015 #’s based on Linda’s rosters from October, 2015
10/2016 #’s based on GWAEA’s Tuition In and Weighted Enrollment Detail Reports

3. Special Education Teachers/Paras Total FTE
Year
Teachers/FTE
Paras FTE
Total # of Students 58
104.60
480 61
102.08
492 64
101.94
493
101.75
522
551
The teachers FTE can be pulled from the year’s rosters or the google doc “SE Teachers List”. The paras FTE is found on the Part C and B Personnel Positions Report.
Under Teachers/FTE don’t count Leah Gass at Edge but count Mary Mcwilliams at PHS.
Total # of students pulled from GWAEA October 2016 Count reports.

4. Special Education – Stats 2016-2017
Number of Students Who Were Staffed into Special Education PK K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Total
12-13 48
13-14 29
14-15 50
15- 16 15 58
16-17 17 13 64
Download report from GWAEA (include both resident and non-resident students)

5. Special Education – Stats 2016-2017
Number of Students Exited from Special Education Services 22 25 14 27 33
These are students who staffed out due to successful completion of IEP services. Information taken from SE Roster. Exit Code: RRE

6. Special Ed Mobility Year New Students Drops Four Oaks District
Heart of Iowa
2014/
2015
104 78 2
131 65
N/A
2015/
2016
125 66 6
102
2016/
2017
112 7 88 68 5

7. % Proficient – IEP Green: Increased from previous year Red: Decreased from previous year
Reading-IEP
CCSD
12-13
13-14
14-15
15-16
CCSD 16-17
4th
23.08%
24.56%
22.20%
19.10%
25.5%
6th
15.00%
22.13%
32.40%
15.70%
6.8%
8th
14.63%
13.43%
22.50%
26.90%
15.8%
11th
28.57%
34.69%
41.90%
10.00%
19.2%
Math-IEP
CCSD 14-15
35.90%
36.84%
42.20%
31.00%
41.2%
27.50%
31.96%
32.00%
18.2%
26.83%
24.62%
25.00%
13.2%
57.14%
48.98%
35.50%
26.70%
50.0%
Revised
See % proficient chart (sub group tab)
New data is from state report card and CCSD pivot table
We know we have gaps, this chart put our data in the context of the state.
Find information on Norm-Referenced Test Reports for Iowa Assessments. Add Proficient and Above Proficient %. 7

8. High School Graduation Rate (%) IEP Group Comparison
2012 All
2012 IEP
2013 All
2013 IEP
2014 All
2014 IEP
2015 All
2015 IEP
2016 All
2016 IEP
CCSD
87.63
48.48
92.13
71.88
94.37
79.31
94.6
83.3
92.53
90.91
Benton
90.58 60
90.48
62.50
90.32 40
97.4
80.0
91.35
N<10
Cedar Falls
95.87
84.44
96.13
83.64
97.18
80.85
95.8
79.1
96.01
73.17
Clear Creek
86.49
37.5
86.73
53.85
90.74
88.1
35.3
13.33
Cedar Rapids
82.8
62.31
80.92
59.07
85.02
71.72
84.0
72.0
83.89
63.87
Iowa City
89.03
52.48
87.90
51.69
90.39
63.64
93.2
75.3
93.85
15.38
Linn Mar
91.67
55.56
89.81
43.86
91.53
54.84
95.2
61.1
92.77
62.5
Marion
92.7
93.64 85
92.54
97.9
81.3
93.75
54.55
Muscatine 82
71.11
76.58
55.10
81.79 70
82.9
57.9
80.86
58.62
Waterloo
74.29
65.77
70.46
51.49
74.18
54.10
80.3
65.0
77.37
58.4
Waukee
98.01
86.67
98.65
93.55
98.06
92.86
98.4
88.9
99.26
Get this report from DE website. A to Z, look for graduation and dropout rate (Bookmarked). There are different reports. Find the one with sub group information.
N<10 - Denotes small cell count (Enrollment, N<10) that has been redacted due to FERPA

9. Four Oaks Stats 2016-2017 Regular Education students admitted: 39
Special Education Students admitted: 72
Level 1 – 8
Level 2 – 5
Level
These #’s reflect students who were admitted to Four Oaks after the school year.

10. Four Oaks Stats
Number of Four Oaks students by grade level that have been placed in the district K
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
10th
11th
12th 1 2 6 3 14 18 10 25 4
Includes both regular education and special education students

11. Four Oaks Student Placement by Building
Four Oaks Stats
Four Oaks Student Placement by Building
PHS
Point
Creek
Heights
Ridge
View
Crest
Hill
Edge 13 9 4 1 82

12. Physical Intervention Summary:
includes our district summary of physical restraints, seclusions, and students that have experienced those physical interventions

13. When we look at the physical intervention summary, we focus on three areas:
the number of seclusions
the number of restraints
the number of students that experience seclusion and or restraint
It is important to understand that one student may experience multiple physical interventions
Cover Data Review

14. Our data overview per month provides information that we use to prepare our staff for behavior trends for the next school year. Strategies we use include:
Historically, December is a higher month for Seclusion/Restraint. For the past two years, we have sent an with strategies and reminders to all of our administrators to share with their staff. The data shows that December was one of our lower months. While there were some seclusions, there were no physical restraints.
February was a higher month for our district. we had an elementary student that was experiencing behavior crisis during that time.
May was a higher time of restraints. This tells us that we need to be more proactive in April with preparing our staff and students for transitions, schedule, and structure changes that occur. This is also a historical trend for our district.
This type of data allows us to plan ahead for professional learning, communication, and strategies to provide more stability and structure

15. System Improvements Continue Building Goals in three areas: Seclusion
Restraint
Student
Updated Seclusion/Restraint Forms (including Debriefing Form & Process)
Mandt Changes - increased efficacy of technical portion of training. Continue to customize and create “new” presentations for the material.
Increased efficacy of seclusion room inspections.
Prior to the start of the year, each building principal creates a goal for the number of seclusions, restraints, and students impacted in their building. This is considered best practice in reducing the number of physical interventions in school buildings.
All forms continue to be updated and improved on an annual basis. Feedback is gathered throughout the district on the ease and functionality of the forms.
A data tracking system was created within Google Forms in order to have real time data access to what the data looks like for the district, buildings, and students.
Our Mandt Training implementation continues to evolve to the needs of our district. In 2016/2017, we increased our technical portion for recertified staff. Our feedback showed that staff felt more comfortable and confident with the targeted technical training.
Our seclusion room inspections are conducted two times per year. Often, they include two people cross checking items to ensure that all required aspects are in place.

16. SPEL Special Education Literacy
• Model evidence-based instructional strategies
• Assist teachers in analyzing data
• Coach and collaborate with teachers to determine appropriate instructional strategies and materials

17. Growth Data Buildings Percent Making Growth
GWAEA Goal #2---Increase the percentage of students who perform at the proficient level.
Grant Wood AEA Priority:
The learning gaps between students with IEPs and those without and for those students in disaggregated sub-groups will be reduced.
Growth Data
Buildings
Percent Making Growth
Percent Making Growth to Eliminate the Gap
Crest, Heights, Hill, Ridge and View
100%
25%
41%

18. Early Literacy Data
"On Target" refers to students scoring in the developmental blue band on the GOLD assessment. This means students skills are falling within appropriate developmental norms.

19. AT Usability Study Accessible Educational Materials
Development of District Purchasing Standards for all Curriculum Materials purchased by CCSD
Processes/structures to develop Accessibility Stations at each CCSD Building
Ongoing PL Design/Implementation for all certified staff (AEM)
Started at Creek--this year a district focus (5-12) Creek, Point and PHS/Delta/Prairie Wood/Edge
Read and Write Google, UPAR-Universal Protocol Accommodations in Reading, 61 % students with IEPs, 44% of students with 504s ALL
$15,000-20,000 Encouraged our team to attend an national conference, working with GWAEA, Waterloo Schools and others in GWAEA to learn and share
This group will be charged with the development of purchasing standards for all curriculum materials for the district (questions to ask publishers, checklist for approval process meeting accessibility standards. In addition, the task force will develop Professional Development for all in regard to AEM, and design and implement building based structures and tools to make accessibility a reality for our students. Who would be the most likely staff to serve on this task force. Think BIG/district representation from what groups?

20. Questions??