Comprehensive Program Improvement Plan (cpip) 2012- 2013 Houston Independent School District




Дата канвертавання25.04.2016
Памер188.45 Kb.



Houston Independent School District



Office of Special Education Services

Comprehensive Program Improvement Plan (CPIP)

2012- 2013




Houston Independent School District

2012-2013 Board of Education

Michael L. Lunceford, District V, President 

Anna Eastman, District I, First Vice President 

Juliet K. Stipeche, District VIII, Second Vice President 

Rhonda Skillern-Jones, District II, Secretary 

Greg Meyers, District VI, Assistant Secretary 

Paula M. Harris, District IV 

Lawrence Marshall, District IX 

Harvin C. Moore, District VII 

Manuel Rodríguez Jr., District III 


Terry B. Grier, Ed.D.

Superintendent of Schools
Sowmya Kumar

Assistant Superintendent for Special Education
Houston Independent School District

Hattie Mae White Educational Support Center

4400 West 18th Street

Houston, Texas 77092-8501


Website: www.houstonisd.org
Subscribe to eNews: www.houstonisd.org/subscribe
Follow us on Twitter: www.twitter.com/HoustonISD

Special Education BLOG: http://hisdsped.wordpress.com/2011/03/04/special-education-program-evaluation/


It is the policy of the Houston Independent School District not to discriminate on the basis of age, color, handicap or disability, ancestry, national origin, marital status, race, religion, sex, veteran status, or political affiliation in its educational or employment programs and activities.

H
ouston Independent School District


Comprehensive Program Improvement Plan

2012-2013
Table of Contents

Program Goals 4
Comprehensive Program Improvement Plan 5
TEA PBMAS Data Report Web Access
HISD PBMAS Longitudinal Data Report Web Access
Special Education Program Review (T. Hehir) Web Access
State Performance Plan Web Access

Overview


The Comprehensive Program Improvement Plan (CPIP) has been developed to provide a clear and focused direction to the efforts of the Office of Special Education Services in its mission to provide outstanding programs and services for students with disabilities enrolled in the Houston Independent School District (HISD). Goals and activities in the CPIP reflect priority areas for attention as identified through the following sources:
Federal Monitoring and Accountability Systems:

  • The State Performance Plan (SPP) evaluates each Texas school district’s efforts to implement the requirements and purposes of IDEA and monitors continuous improvement in 20 indicators related to special education compliance and student performance.

  • Under the accountability provisions in the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, all public school campuses, school districts, and the state are evaluated for Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). Monitoring includes student performance on three measures: Reading/Language Arts, Mathematics, and either Graduation Rate (for high schools and districts) or Attendance Rate (for elementary and middle schools).


State Monitoring and Accountability Systems:

  • The Performance-Based Monitoring Analysis System reports annually on the performance of Texas school districts and charter schools in selected federal program areas. The PBMAS monitors 18 indicators related to special education compliance and student performance.

  • In accordance with 19 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) §97.1072, the Residential Facilities Monitoring (RFM) system provides for standards and procedures for monitoring the special education programs provided to students with disabilities residing in residential facilities.

  • The Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS) monitors the performance of all students, including special education students. AEIS ratings are based on the STAAR (State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness) tests as well as other indicators.


Additional sources:

  • A “Review of Special Education in the Houston Independent School District” conducted by Thomas Hehir and Associates of Harvard University in fall, 2010. Dr. Hehir’s report investigated the effectiveness of the district’s special education program and provided special education leadership with findings and recommendations for improvement.

  • Input from surveys of campus, field office, and central office personnel regarding the efficacy of special education programs.

  • Input from surveys completed by parents upon the conclusion of student annual ARD/IEP (Admission, Review, and Dismissal/Individual Education Program) meetings.

  • Input provided by parents at district-wide parent meetings.

  • Input provided by parents and community representatives at Special Education Community Advisory Committee meetings.

Program Initiatives
HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT POSITIONING STATEMENT: Consistently safe and rigorous education for all students.
THE OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION SERVICES MISSION STATEMENT: To support students with disabilities in gaining college, career readiness, and independent living skills through active engagement in grade level curriculum.
Goal 1: For students ages 3 – 21, the percent of initial evaluations completed within 90 days of receipt of parental consent will increase from 88% to 95%.

Goal 2: For students younger than age 3, the percent who are evaluated, found eligible, and who have an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthdays will increase from 92% to 97%.

Goal 3: The percent of students identified to have dyslexia will increase from 0.4% to 0.8%.

Goal 4: The overrepresentation of African American students in special education will decrease from 9.2% to 7.5%.

Goal 5: The percent of students with disabilities ages 3 – 5 placed in instructional settings of 40 or 41 will increase from 5.1% to 10.5%; ages 6 – 11 from 32.3% to 35.0%; and ages 12 – 21 from 51.9% to 60.0%.

Goal 6: The percent of students with disabilities participating in the STAAR-M reading assessment will decrease from 3.5 to 3.0% and in the STAAR-M math assessment from 3.0% to 2.5%.

Goal 7: A baseline percentage of high school students with disabilities participating in employment opportunities will be established during the 2012-2013.

Goal 8: The percentage of secondary school students with disabilities who are also identified as English Language Learners (ELL) from 31% to 28%.

Goal 9: The overrepresentation of students with disabilities placed in Out-of-School Suspension (OSS) will decrease from 22.6% to 17.9%.

Comprehensive Program Improvement Plan
Goal 1: For students ages 3 – 21, the percent of initial evaluations and ARD/IEP committee meetings completed within 90 days of receipt of parental consent will increase from 88% to 95%.


Action Item

Point of Contact

Benchmarks of Progress (Measurement)

Progress Check Dates

Outcomes

1.1 Revise internal timelines to 60 days.

Senior Manager Child Study

Number of days from consent to ARD/IEP.

December 2012

January


2013

February


2013

March


2013

April


2013

May


2013

June


2013

November Update:

  • Internal timelines revised - Initial evaluations to be completed 45 days from parent consent. Initial ARD/IEP meetings to be completed 60 days from parent consent.

  • Information on the revised timelines presented to evaluators and SLPs.

  • FAQ about internal timelines disseminated.

  • Policies and procedures revised to reflect 45/60 internal timelines for initial referrals for special education evaluation.

December Update:

  • 253 of 257 initial evaluations held within timelines as of December 14, 2012 – 98.4%

  • December 21status report will be submitted to TEA.

January Update:

  • 862 out of 901 initial evaluations held within timelines as of Feb 1, 2013 - 95.6%.




1.1 Continued










February Update

  • As of 02/28/13, 1013 out of 1054 initial evaluations held within timelines = 96.11%

March Update:

  • As of 4/1/13, 1,404 out of 1,461 initial evaluations held within timelines = 96.10%

April Update:

  • As of 4/29/13, 1,386 out of 1,715 initial evaluations held within timelines = 95.86%

  • Summer Testing/Evaluation Timeline Memo sent to principals




1.2 Use EasyIEP escalated alerts to notify Senior Managers of ARD/IEPs not completed within 60 days.


Senior Manager Child Study

Decrease in the number of cases escalated to Senior Managers.

November

2012


December

2012


January

2013


March

2013


April

2013


May

2013



November Update:

  • EasyIEP compliance alerts for Field Office senior managers initiated 10/31/2012.

December Update:

  • Field Office procedure to follow-up daily on alerts implemented.

  • Report developed to assist in equitable case management.

January Update:

February Update:

  • 93 out-of-compliance alerts

March Update:

  • 156 out-of-compliance alerts

April Update:

  • 179 out-of-compliance alerts

  • Summer Testing/Evaluation Timeline Memo sent to principals


1.3 Revise summer evaluation process.

Senior Manager Child Study

Draft of revised process reviewed by Lead Team.

November 2012

January


2013

February


2013

March


2013

April


2013

May


2013


November Update:

  • 2013 summer evaluations procedures completed and reviewed at SPED Lead Team meeting on 11/1/2013.

January Update:

  • 447 reevaluations due in summer 2013.

February Update:

  • 280 reevaluations due in summer 2013.

March Update:

  • 265 reevaluations due in summer 2013.

  • Reevaluations have been assigned and are expected to be completed by June 7, 2013.

April Update:

  • 215 reevaluations due in summer 2013.

  • 232 cases submitted for summer testing as of April 15th.

  • Summer Testing/Evaluation Timeline Memo sent to principals





Goal 2: For students younger than age 3, the percent who are evaluated, found eligible, and who have an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthdays will increase from 92% to 97%.


Action Item

Point of Contact

Benchmarks of Progress (Measurement)

Progress Check Dates

Outcomes

2.1 Review “3 is 3” compliance report twice each month and adjust staffing to meet timelines.

Senior Manager Elementary

The percentage of eligible students served by their third birth date.

November 2012

January


2013

February


2013

March


2013

April


2013

May


2013

June


2013



November Update:

  • 3 is 3 compliance is 100%.

January Update:

  • 3 is 3 compliance is 99.6%

February Update:

  • 3 is 3 compliance is 99.15%.

March Update:

  • 3 is 3 compliance is 99.7%.

April Update:

  • 3 is 3 compliance is 99.72%

2.2 Include the review of “3 is 3” compliance data as a standing agenda item on department chair and evaluation specialist meetings.

Senior Manager Elementary

The percentage of eligible students served by their third birth date.

November 2012



November Update:

  • September & October, 2012, Department Chair and Evaluation Staff meetings included “3 is 3” compliance information.



Goal 3: The percent of students identified to have dyslexia will increase from 0.2% to 0.8%.


Action Item

Point of Contact

Benchmarks of Progress (Measurement)

Progress Check Dates

Outcomes

3.1 Improve the data collection and reporting process for identifying students with dyslexia.

Manager Student Evaluations


Development of 504 Plan Writer initiated with PCG.
Essential components of the report identified, and trials on each section of the report underway.
Data entry, ease of use, and identification of “bugs” piloted during April and May 2013.
District personnel trained in August.

November 2012

December


2012

January


2013

February


2013

March


2013

April


2013

May


2013


November Update:

  • Number of students with dyslexia climbed from 418 in August to 769 on October 31.

December Update:

  • Planning meeting held with PCG on November 27 to discuss program features for 504 Plan Writer. A follow-up meeting will occur in January, 2013.

January Update:

  • Total number of students with dyslexia = 948 (includes special education and 504 only) = 0.46%.

February Update:

  • Phone conference with PCG to review 504 Writer specifications held on 2/27/2013. Weekly phone conferences scheduled.

  • The percent of students identified with dyslexia is .43%

March Update:

- The percent of students

identified with dyslexia is 0.46%

- January and February data

includes duplicates; March data

does not


April Update:



3.2 Increase the knowledge of campus based Section 504 personnel to improve accuracy of data collection and reporting of students with dyslexia.

Manager Student Evaluations

Difference report developed showing the difference in the number of documented students with 504 versus actual number of students with 504.
A list of priority campuses for targeted staff development / onsite technical assistance developed.

November

2012


January 2013

February


2013

May


2013

November Update:

  • Child Study held approximately 10 large group meetings on-site and campus-based to discuss IAT and 504 data access and data entry.

January Update:

  • 7 additional training sessions were held regarding IAT and 504 data access and data entry.

February:

  • Informal needs assessment conducted to determine which high schools require additional assistance. Review session scheduled for high school IAT chairs on March 18. Subsequent review sessions will target specific needs of elementary, middle, and high school staff

April Update:

  • There are currently 1450 Students served under 504.

  • 504 Report

3.3 Analyze students with learning disabilities and DNQ students for possible reclassification under Section 504.

Manager Student Evaluations

Report of potential students for reclassification developed.
Reclassification process developed, communicated and implemented.

November

2012


December 2012

January 2013

February

2013


March

2013


April

2013


May

2013



November Update:

  • Planning meetings scheduled with PCG to discuss development of a product that will capture data on students who do not qualify as students with disabilities but who could possibly benefit from 504.

December Update:

  • Data provided by PCG indicates that 683 students (initial and re-evaluations) did not qualify as students with disabilities and could be candidates for 504.

January Update:

  • 494 non-SPED students designated as 504 are also students with dyslexia.

  • 345 students (initials and re-evaluations) did not qualify as students with disabilities, but could be possible candidates for 504.

February Update:

  • 788 students did not meet criteria for a disability and could possibly be candidates for 504. Out of these 18 are already 504.

  • Total number of students who were referred for evaluation beginning 8/22/2012 = 2,114

  • Percentage = 37.2%

  • Current total of 504 students = 1,396.




3.3 Continued










March Update:

  • DNQ Report

  • Out of 4554 students tested (initials and reevaluations), 608 were DNQ

  • Out of the 608 DNQs, 26 are currently identified as 504.

Data source: Chancery and FIE Writer.

April Update:



  • DNQ Report

  • Out of 5631 students tested 734 students are DNQ (initials and reevaluations).




Goal 4: The overrepresentation of African American students in special education will decrease from 9.2% to 7.5%.


Action Item

Point of Contact

Benchmarks of Progress (Measurement)

Progress Check Dates

Outcomes

4.1 Improve evaluation practices used in the identification and placement of students with specific learning disabilities, intellectual disabilities, and emotional disturbance to identify and eliminate specific sources of bias and error.

Manager, School Psychology


Internal review team meeting and training conducted.
Folders reviewed at assigned schools by internal review teams.
Report incorporating review of findings and recommendations completed.
Report findings shared with department

September 2012

October


2012

November 2012

December 2012

January


2013

February


2013

March


2013

April


2013

May


2013

September Update:

Review of Evaluation Practices

  • Internal review team meeting

  • 20 schools in 5 geographic areas identified for folder reviews – (90 student folders).

  • 4 LSSPs/7 diagnosticians trained in review protocol.

October Update:

  • 5 of 20 school reviews completed.

November Update:

Disproportionality Review Update

  • 20 of 20 school reviews completed.

December Update:

Disproportionality Report Draft

  • Report incorporating review of findings and recommendations completed and will be shared at the support staff meeting on February 1.

January Update:

- The African American difference

rate = 8.5%.

February Update:



Disproportionality Update

- Report was presented at the

Feb 1 support staff meeting

- The African American

Difference rate = 8.6%.














March Update:

  • TX Health and Human Services Commission Center for the Elimination of Disproportionality & Disparity presented at the Social Workers Meeting on March 18.

  • The African American Difference Rate= 8.5%

April Update

  • The African American Difference Rate = 8%

  • Develop a plan for targeted behavioral screening by July 15th.

  • Identify screening Instrument.

  • Identify additional screening criteria.

  • Identify the schools

  • Identify the personnel to conduct the screening.

4.2 Ensure proper procedures are followed by the IAT in the intervention process.


Manager, School Psychology


RtI/IAT trained to appropriately refer students
Psychologists / LSSPs are involved in Tier 3 behavior interventions prior to referring students for evaluation.
Evaluation Specialists are involved in Tier 3 academic interventions prior to referring students for evaluation.

January 2013

February


2013

March


2013

April


2013

May


2013


January Update:

referral for evaluation: 84.5% of

total requests (261 out of 309).

February Update:

- LSSP involved in 84.2% of

total requests (278 out of 330).

- 96.3% of Evaluation Specialists involved in the referral process on their assigned campuses (208 out of 216).

March Update:

Evaluator Pre-referral Involvement

- LSSP involved in 84.6% of

total requests (323 out of 382).

- 95.9% of Evaluation Specialists involved in the referral process on their assigned campuses (208 out of 217).

April Update:

- LSSP involved in 85.0% of

total requests (381 out of 448).



Goal 5: The percent of students with disabilities ages 3 – 5 served in general education for 79% or more of the school day will increase from 5.8% to 10.5%; ages 6 – 11 from 31.9% to 35.0%; and ages 12 – 21 from 54.8% to 60.0%.


Action Item

Point of Contact

Benchmarks of Progress (Measurement)

Progress Check Dates

Outcomes

5.1 The Placement Review Committee will include any student being considered for placement in a general education setting for less than 79% of the school day.


Senior Manager Elementary and Secondary

Increase in the percentage of students in the in general education for 79% to 100% of the school day.

November 2012

February 2013

March

2013


April

2013


May

2013


June

2013


November Update:

  • Staffing form developed to capture behavioral and academic data.

February Update:

- Run reports for initials &

Current placements.

March Update:

- 366 placements considered for

review through



Placement Review Committee

Process.

April Update:


  • 494 Placements considered for review through the placement review committee process.


5.2 Review all students currently receiving special education services for 21%-49% of the school day to determine appropriateness of placement.


Senior Manager Elementary and Secondary

Increase the percentage of students who receive instructional services in the regular education classroom for 79% to 100% of the school day.

November 2012

December


2012

January


2013

February 2013

March

2013


April

2013


May

2013


June

2013


November Update:

  • Create a district-wide report of current student placement.

December Update:

  • LRE rate 3-5 = 6.7%; LRE rate 6-11 = 33.6%; LRE rate 12-21 = 49.0%

January Update:

  • 3-5 = 7.1%; 6-11 = 36.2%; 12-21 = 49.1%

February Update:

  • LRE rate data

  • 3-5 = 7.4%; 6-11 = 36.6%; 12-21 = 49%

March Update:

  • LRE rate data

  • 3-5 = 8.3%, 6-11 = 38.3%, 12-21 = 48.7%

  • HS has given the Placement Review spreadsheet to the department chairs. MS will do the same.

  • Begin staffing (for more than 7.5 hours) 5th graders that are transitioning to 6th grade.

April Update:

  • LRE rate data

  • 3-5 = 8.8%, 6-11 = 40.7%, 12-21 = 48.7%

  • Meet with Department Chairs in June about the LRE process.



5.3 Recruit more students for the Pre-school Least Restrictive Environment (PLRE) program.

Senior Manager Elementary

Increase the number of students in the PLRE.

November 2012

March


2013

April


2013

May


2013

June


2013

November Update:

  • PLRE slots increased from 14 25. 20 additional slots expected by May. 5 additional slots at Houston Gardens.

  • Gather current data for 3-5 year-olds (placement report LRE).

March Update:

  • 21 PLRE students.

  • Total of 22 slots.

April Update:

  • 23 PLRE students

  • One more added at Kolter ES




5.4 Provide speech therapy to 3-5 year old students in the general education classroom.

Senior Manager Elementary

Increase the number of 3-5 year old students receiving speech in the general education classroom.

November 2012

February 2013

March

2013


April

2013


May

2013


June

2013


November Update:

  • Met with speech staff to discuss provision of services in the classroom.

February Update:

  • Met with Speech to review LRE.

  • Meeting will be held with Speech to discuss coding.

March Update:

  • Meeting with Speech will be scheduled to review inclusive practices..

April Update:

  • Speech only students can’t be coded as 40, unless the SPED teacher is providing additional support in the classroom. It must be documented in the IEP that the SPED teacher is an implementer of Speech services.





Goal 6: The percent of students with disabilities participating in the STAAR-M reading assessment will decrease from 3.5 to 3.0% and in the STAAR-M math assessment from 3.0% to 2.5%.


Action Item

Point of Contact

Benchmarks of Progress (Measurement)

Progress Check Dates

Outcomes

6.1 Analyze 2011-2012 2% cap impact data (participation and performance) by campus, and develop a campus priority list.

Senior Manager Programs

Priority campus list.


October 2012


October Update:

AYP Update

  • Priority campus list developed.

  • List will be sorted by school level, uploaded to SharePoint, and shared with Senior Managers at 11/1/12Lead Team Meeting.

  • Senior Manager will share with appropriate Program Specialists.

  • Program Specialists will meet with school team and add STAAR-M to CSP if not already targeted.

  • Review assessment decisions for targeted students.

6.2 Review student level data with priority campuses.

Senior Manager Programs

Meetings with campuses held.

November 2012



November Update:

AYP Update

  • Specific comments added to AYP report.

  • Will meet with program specialist to model a process for reducing number of students taking STAAR-M.

6.3 Develop campus level supports to move identified students into STAAR assessment.

Senior Manager Programs

Decreased STAAR-M participation.

March

2013


March Update:

  • Assessment data collection form given to the department chairs and posted on SharePoint.

  • Monitor placement codes of 42.

  • Check Reading and Math 3-8 & 10.

  • Check STAAR-M.


Goal 7: Establish a baseline percentage of high school students with disabilities participating in employment opportunities.


Action Item

Point of Contact

Benchmarks of Progress (Measurement)

Progress Check Dates

Outcomes

7.1 Develop a system to identify students with disabilities who are participating in employment opportunities.

Senior Manager HS


Data collection system is in place.

October

2012


January,

2013


October Update:

  • Template developed and available on SharePoint.

  • Template to be refined; more specific employment information will be included for individual students; job clusters reviewed for accuracy.

January Update:

  • 82 employers & 40 agency and community partners identified.

7.2 Analyze the data to determine the baseline percentage of students with disabilities participating in employment opportunities.

Senior Manager HS


Baseline percentage determined.

June

2013







Goal 8: Decrease percentage of secondary school students with disabilities who are also identified as English Language Learners (ELL) from 31% to 28%.


Action Item

Point of Contact

Benchmarks of Progress (Measurement)

Progress Check Dates

Outcomes

8.1 Develop and distribute to department chairs a roster of students who are dually identified ELL and SPED to consider for alternative exit.

Senior Manager Alt and Charter

Roster developed and distributed.

LPAC ARD meeting held.

Compare roster by school.


November 2012

January


2013

May


2013


November update:

  • Roster developed and distributed at department chair meetings. 206 students identified as meeting exit criteria.

  • Goal Update LEP Status Change Jan 2013

January Update:

- Current % = 16.8



8.2. Review ELL/SPED information at promotion ARDs from elementary to middle school and from middle school to high school to determine continued ELL eligibility.

Senior Manager Alt and Charter

Promotion ARD documents student LEP status is appropriate

May

2013







Goal 9: The overrepresentation of students with disabilities placed in Out-of-School Suspension (OSS) will decrease from 22.6% to 17.9%.


Action Item

Point of Contact

Benchmarks of Progress (Measurement)

Progress Check Dates

Outcomes

9.1 Develop a priority list of campuses based on the difference rate of suspensions between all students and students with disabilities as defined by PBMAS.

Senior Manager ARD/IEP

Priority campus list developed.

November 2012



November Update:

Sped Discretionary Placement to OSS

  • Priority campus list developed.

  • Will be sorted by school level, uploaded to SharePoint, and shared with Senior Managers at 11/29/12 Lead Team Meeting.

  • Senior Manager will share with appropriate Program Specialists.

  • Program Specialists will meet with school team and add OSS placements to CSP if not already targeted.

  • Identify trends with individual students and consider supports available (e.g., counseling, behavior support).

9.2 Review campus-specific OSS data, through program specialist / senior manager, with each priority campus.


Senior Manager ARD/IEP

Campus support summaries.

February

2013


March

2013


April

2013


May

2013


June

2013



January Update:

  • Current Difference Rate = 16.9%

Elementary School Team

  • Shared with appropriate Program Specialists on 1/18/13.

  • Program Specialists will collaborate with social workers, LSSPs, and campus staff to identify appropriate supports to decrease the number of OSS placements between January18, 2013 and February 28, 2013.

  • Program Specialists will meet with school teams and add OSS placements to the CSP for each campus not already targeted.

  • Meeting to review data and collaborate to revise CSP to address OSS will be conducted by February 28, 2013.

Middle School Team

  • Specialists and LSSPs met to review OSS Data November 30, 2012.

  • Specialists and LSSPs met with campus personnel to address each campus OSS status.

High School Team

  • Shared with appropriate Program Specialists on 1/17/13.

  • Program Specialists will collaborate with LSSPs and campus staff to identify appropriate supports to decrease the number of OSS placements.

  • Program Specialists will meet with school teams to address OSS placements and add to the CSP for each targeted campus by February 28, 2013.




9.2 Continued










February Update:

  • Current Difference Rate: 22.6%

  • Program specialists will be surveyed to determine status of individual campus data.

March Update:

  • Current OSS Difference Rate:

24.3%

  • District wide PBIS plan is being developed in conjunction with Region 4.

April Update:

  • Current OSS Difference rate: 28.8%

  • Region 4 submitted a proposal.

  • 3 levels of support: District support team, leadership team, school implementation team.

  • May 17th: Dr. Heather George will meet with the cabinet. She will meet with the leadership team.



9.3 Develop Coordinated Support Plans to increase alternatives to OSS for each priority campus (i.e., employ PBIS, Review 360 strategies, monitor actions and timelines).


Senior Manager ARD/IEP

Coordinated Support Plan to decrease OSS.

January 2013

February

2013


January Update:

Elementary School Team

  • Senior Managers and Program Specialists will monitor OSS information on SharePoint and continue to work with campuses to develop strategies to increase alternatives to OSS placements.


Middle School Team

February Update:



High School Team

  • Coordinated Support plans updated January 2013 and February 2013




База данных защищена авторским правом ©shkola.of.by 2016
звярнуцца да адміністрацыі

    Галоўная старонка