State of Arizona Department of Education Arizona State Performance Plan Annual Performance Report For Special Education FFY 2013 Highly Effective Schools Division Exceptional Student Services 1535 W Jefferson, Phoenix, AZ 85007 http://www.azed.gov/ SPP/APR FFY 2013 - 2018 FFY 2013 Part B State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) Introduction to the State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) General Supervision System: The systems that are in place to ensure that IDEA Part B requirements are met, e.g., monitoring, dispute resolution, etc. Exceptional Student Services Monitoring Model The Arizona Department of Education, Exceptional Students Services (ESS), revised its monitoring system in 2009 to increase the focus on data for each public education agency (PEA) in the State, while maintaining the IDEA procedural compliance requirements. The monitoring system combines compliance and results in the review of PEA policies, procedures, and practices. Components of the six-year monitoring cycle include a yearly review of the U.S. Department of Education (ED), Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), compliance and results Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 for each PEA. Student file data are reviewed for every PEA each year. ADE/ESS believes that the better the data are across systems, the better a PEA is able to provide quality programs for students with disabilities. Arizona has maintained a six-year cycle for monitoring with assigned monitoring activities always occurring in Year 4 of the cycle. However, ESS can adjust a PEA’s monitoring schedule any time systemic concerns arise during the review of data for the PEA. Conversely, a PEA that maintains exceptional data may have less intensive monitoring activities assigned because the data indicate the PEA is meeting State targets. Regardless of the assigned monitoring year or the monitoring activities assigned, PEAs are required to comply with all requirements under IDEA. There are three monitoring types that can be assigned in this system, which contain progressively more robust activities: Data Review: PEAs that met all State targets for students with disabilities on the results and compliance indicators, corrected any dispute resolution findings in a timely manner (or had no dispute resolution findings), and had current, approved policies and procedures were assigned to review their data only Self-Assessment: PEAs that had compliance issues in one or more of the areas listed above, but had no evidence of systemic concerns completed a self-assessment for their monitoring. On-Site: PEAs that had systemic issues in any of the areas listed above underwent an on-site monitoring led by an ADE/ESS team. Data Review was assigned to PEAs whose data consistently reflected outstanding student outcomes and whose practices supported ongoing compliance with federal and State laws. ESS believes that such programs show compliance sustainability. Such PEAs were required to review Indicators 11 (Child Find—initial evaluation timeline) and 13 (Secondary Transition) as part of the collection of APR data. Self-Assessment was the monitoring type when a PEA showed evidence of strong programs, but was inconsistent in a few areas in which data did not meet the State target. The self-assessment provided an opportunity for the PEA to analyze issues in-depth and to find solutions for improvement and sustainability of those improvements. The review of indicators 11 and 13 was also required. On-Site Monitoring was assigned when a PEA showed evidence of broad issues of noncompliance. On-site monitoring included a thorough review of procedural requirements, as well as a review of student performance data. Procedural compliance, however, is only one element involved in good outcomes for students; improved student performance is an ultimate goal. Therefore, a PEA participating in an on-site monitoring was also required to “drill down” to determine root causes of poor student performance as measured by the SPP/APR results indicators. Each drill down was guided by (but not restricted to) directions and examples provided by ESS. For all assigned monitoring types, ongoing technical assistance played a significant role in the general supervision of PEAs in Arizona. ESS program specialists conducted annual visits with each assigned PEA and provided ongoing technical assistance related to any issue or questions that may have arisen. Targeted training was provided when files and data indicated a need. Dispute Resolution 4/17/2015 Page 1 of 68 FFY 2013 Part B State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) In addition to monitoring findings, noncompliance with IDEA is identified through formal complaints and due process hearings, which are overseen by Dispute Resolution ADE/Dispute Resolution employs four State complaint investigators who work under the supervision of the Director of Dispute Resolution. The director assigns incoming complaints, monitors the investigation progress, and reviews and signs all Letters of Finding. Upon a finding of noncompliance identified by a complaint investigator, corrective action is ordered in a Letter of Findings that either requires the immediate provision of services or the immediate cessation of noncompliance, whichever is necessary. The letter also outlines the necessary steps required to prevent the reoccurrence of noncompliance and states what is considered sufficient documentation to ensure that noncompliance has been addressed and to minimize the effects of the violations. ADE/Dispute Resolution employs a Corrective Action Compliance Monitor (CACM) to collect the required documentation, monitor timelines, and provide technical assistance, as necessary. When both parties to a State administrative complaint agree that a mutually beneficial resolution can be reached without the need for a full investigation, the assigned complaint investigator may assist the parties in reaching an informal resolution. Although no formal resolution agreement is required, if the complaining party indicates that she or he is satisfied with the PEA’s response to the complaint, the complaint investigator will issue a withdrawal letter. If the complaining party changes his or her mind about informal resolution and wants the investigation to go forward, the individual may notify the Dispute Resolution office within five business days and the investigation will move forward. Beginning in August 2005, Arizona switched from a two-tiered due process system to a single-tiered system. Due process hearings are conducted on behalf of the Arizona Department of Education by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). The OAH employs full-time administrative law judges (ALJs), all of whom are attorneys licensed to practice law in Arizona. The ALJs assigned to hear special education due process hearings are knowledgeable about the IDEA and receive yearly training. Arizona has a system that allows for mediation of any dispute between parents and PEAs—it is not necessary for either to file a request for a due process hearing to utilize mediation services. Mediators are available statewide and have been trained on both mediation strategies and IDEA requirements. Incentives, Sanctions, and Enforcement Incentives Related to Monitoring During FFY 2013, the State offered the following incentives for PEAs that, upon completion of their monitoring, exhibited exemplary compliance with IDEA requirements: 1. ADE/ESS provided two paid registrations for either the ESS Directors Institute or the Transition Conference for PEAs that demonstrated 100% compliance on Indicators 11 and 13 in a data review monitoring. 2. ADE/ESS gave one paid registration for either the ESS Directors Institute or the Transition Conference to PEAs that had no findings at the completion of the self-assessment monitoring. Sanctions and Enforcement Related to Monitoring Arizona uses a variety of methods to ensure that all public education agencies meet the requirements of State and federal statutes and regulations related to special education. The following list of the State’s enforcement steps may be imposed based upon the severity of the remaining noncompliance: ESS development of a prescribed corrective action plan (CAP) with required activities and timelines to address the continuing noncompliance. Enforcement of CAP activities as outlined in the current CAP. Review and revision of the current CAP to develop targeted activities that address the continuing noncompliance. Assignment of a special monitor. · 4/17/2015 Interruption of IDEA payments until adequate compliance is achieved. For charter schools not receiving IDEA funds, a request to begin withholding 10% of State funds. Page 2 of 68 FFY 2013 Part B State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) · For charter schools, a request to the appropriate board for a notice of intent to revoke the charter. · With Arizona State Board of Education approval, interruption of Group B weighted State aid or redirection of funds pursuant to 34 C,F,R, §300.227(a). · Request to the Arizona Attorney General for legal action. Sanctions and Enforcement Related to Dispute Resolution Upon a finding of noncompliance identified in a State administrative complaint, corrective action is ordered in a Letter of Findings, and documentation of the corrective action submitted will be reviewed by the Corrective Action Compliance Monitor (CACM). If the corrective action documentation received is incomplete or not completed as specified in the Letter of Findings or if no documentation is received from the PEA by the date specified in the Letter of Findings, then the following steps will be taken by the PEA and ADE/Dispute Resolution: 1. Within five business days following the due date specified in the Letter of Findings, the CACM will attempt to informally communicate with the PEA via phone calls and/or emails for the following purpose(s): 2. 3. · to inquire as to why the corrective action is incomplete and to direct the PEA to immediately submit the completed corrective action documentation; · to provide feedback on any concerns with the documentation submitted, to give clarification on the requirements, and to direct the PEA to revise and resubmit the corrective action documentation within a specified timeframe; or · to inquire as to why the corrective action has not been submitted and to direct the PEA to immediately submit the completed corrective action documentation. · If the delay in submitting the documentation is due to extenuating circumstances and the CACM determines based on those circumstances that it is reasonable to negotiate a new due date for the corrective action to be submitted, the CACM will send a Letter of Understanding, with a copy to the complainant, detailing (a) the CACM’s concerns and the PEA’s explanation, (b) any decisions made to resolve the problem, and (c) a new negotiated due date. If the concerns were not resolved using the informal procedures described above, the CACM will send a Letter of Inquiry to the PEA, with a copy provided to the complainant. A Letter of Inquiry may be sent for any of the following reasons: · The PEA is nonresponsive to the CACM’s attempts at informal communication. · The CACM and the PEA are not able to resolve concerns with the content of corrective action documentation submitted or the PEA’s failure to submit all required corrective action documentation through informal communication. · The CACM is not satisfied with the PEA’s response to informal inquiries for reasons such as the PEA does not intend to complete and submit the corrective action, the PEA refuses to make needed changes to corrective action documentation, or the PEA’s informal explanation of the circumstances causing the delay in submitting corrective action documentation is unacceptable to the CACM. · The PEA fails to submit new or revised corrective action documentation within the informally negotiated timeframe or by the new due date set forth in the Letter of Understanding. · In other cases determined necessary and appropriate by the CACM. · The PEA must provide a Letter of Explanation to ADE/Dispute Resolution within three business days of receipt of the Letter of Inquiry fully answering the inquiry and explaining the circumstances surrounding the non-submission of or failure to complete the corrective action documentation. · If the circumstances are acceptable, then the CACM will send a Letter of Understanding, with a copy to the complainant, detailing (a) the CACM’s concerns and the PEA’s explanation, (b) any decisions made to resolve the problem, and (c) a new negotiated due date. If the circumstances are unacceptable or the PEA does not respond to the Letter of Inquiry as noted above, then the CACM will compose a Letter of Enforcement. If the corrective action documentation submitted was not completed as specified in the Letter of Findings and following 4/17/2015 Page 3 of 68 FFY 2013 Part B State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) informal communication between the CACM and the PEA, the revised and resubmitted corrective action documentation was not satisfactory, the CACM will inform the PEA via Letter of Clarification, with a copy to the complainant, that the corrective action item in question must be revised. A new due date for the revised corrective action will be assigned in this letter and technical assistance will be offered. 4. If, after the steps outlined above have been taken, the corrective action documentation received remains incomplete or has not been received by ADE/Dispute Resolution or the corrective action has not been completed as specified in the Letter of Findings, the CACM will send a Letter of Enforcement to the chief administrator of the PEA, with a copy to the special education director or coordinator and the complainant, detailing the corrective action items that are incomplete, the corrective action items that were not completed as specified in the Letter of Findings, or those items that have not been received. The Letter of Enforcement will outline which of the following enforcement options will be taken: · Interruption of federal funds · Redirection of federal funds to ensure the child receives a free appropriate public education (FAPE) · If applicable, reporting of violations to a sponsoring entity for charter schools and seeking of remedies through the appropriate board. Once all corrective action documentation has been received, reviewed, and accepted by ADE/Dispute Resolution, a Letter of Completion will be sent to the chief administrator, the special education director or coordinator of the PEA, the ADE/ESS education program specialist assigned to assist the public education agency, and the complainant. ESS Fiscal Monitoring Receiving federal grant monies entails both programmatic and financial duties, which include proper programming and expenditure of monies, goals achievement, and related reporting. Information related to the key areas addressed during the fiscal monitoring of federal funds are: 1. Payroll Expenditure Compliance, including Time and Effort 2. Non Payroll Expenditure Compliance 3. Internal Controls 4. Fixed Asset Compliance—Fixed asset refers to tangible, non-expendable, personal property having a useful life of more than one year and an acquisition as defined by the district or charter’s fixed-asset policy 5. Grants Management Compliance ADE chooses approximately 200 LEAs per year for fiscal monitoring using a three-year rotational cycle. However, LEAs with a higher risk can be selected any year. The LEAs go through a risk assessment based on the expenditure report provided by the LEAs and internal data gathered by ESS. If there is a high risk indicated on the expenditure report and internal data, certain expenditures are selected as sample items, and the LEA is required to provide supporting documentation for these sample items. If further concerns arise, the LEA will be contacted and an on-site review will be conducted. This process provides a higher level of monitoring than the monitoring that was done previously, spending resources on those LEAs that need assistance. Technical Assistance System: The mechanisms that the State has in place to ensure the timely delivery of high quality, evidenced based technical assistance and support to LEAs. The ESS technical assistance system involves providing information and guidance on promising practices in educating students with disabilities and also furnishing information and guidance on IDEA and Arizona regulations and policies. This assistance is carried out through site visits, the consultant of the day (COD) telephone line, and materials found on the ESS Web sites, as well as information found on the Promising Practices Web site. Professional Development System: The mechanisms the State has in place to ensure that service providers have the skills to effectively provide services that improve results for students with disabilities. 4/17/2015 Page 4 of 68 FFY 2013 Part B State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) Annually, the Arizona Department of Education, Exceptional Student Services, surveys constituents to identify needs in professional development and technical assistance. Needs are also identified through the evaluation of Indicator data and the assessment of compliance with legal mandates. Based on those needs, ESS provides professional development and technical assistance using various instructional designs. As per Learning Forward’s Standards for Professional Learning, all ESS’s professional development promotes active engagement, focuses on increasing educator effectiveness, and applies learning theories, research, and models. Delivery models for this training include single and multi-year implementation grants, face-to face professional development, online professional development, and online modules; this professional development training can be delivered to groups of multiple sizes or to individuals. Many grants include the use of coaches to ensure that learning leads to implementation and change. Participants in all trainings and presentations are surveyed to determine whether preparation, training design, materials, and outcomes met the Standards for Professional Learning. Survey feedback is routinely reviewed and used to revise or develop subsequent training and presentations. The following training opportunities were offered to teaching professionals to meet specific professional development needs in Arizona: Autism Spectrum Disorders Capacity Building Trainings In 2013–2014, the Arizona Department of Education provided a two-year grant training opportunity for education professionals in the area of autism spectrum disorders. This training built skills in evaluation methods and instructional strategies using evidence-based practices, such as peer-mediated instruction, pivotal-response training, video modeling, and functional behavioral assessments. Another focus of this training was environmental design, which predominantly addressed the areas of communication, academics, behavior, and social needs of students on the autism spectrum. AT Tech For Learning Communities During the 2013–14 school year, the Arizona Department of Education presented a 13-day training to promote understanding of the fundamentals of assistive technology (AT) and universal design for learning (UDL). National and State leaders in this field presented assistive technology tools and strategies designed to help students with disabilities achieve their educational goals in the areas of writing, reading, math, motor skills, sensory and communication skills, and mobile learning. Arizona Teams Intervening Early to Reach All Students (AZ TIERS) During this training, district-level teams learned to analyze their performance and other data so they could identify and apply appropriate evidence-based instructional practices and improve their performance data. The TIERS training consisted of three two-day workshops throughout the school year, as well as additional webinar instruction, and required team meeting time for teams to complete activities. This training focused on eight stages of analysis involved in a comprehensive Data Use Framework. The concept for data use defines four phases: preparation, inquiry, planning, and action, and each phase contains two steps. The goal of the training was for teams to utilize data to identify the causes of the reading achievement gaps between students with disabilities and their nondisabled peers and to narrow the gaps by increasing positive outcomes in reading achievement for all students. Team success was evaluated based on the team’s application of the Data Use Framework to: 1. Identify relevant data that address a problem or concern 2. Conduct data analysis and determine actionable causes 3. Develop measurable outcomes and identify strategic activities 4. Implement the plan with integrity and evaluate progress 5. Develop a marketing strategy for their plan that effectively informs stakeholders of their roles and responsibilities in the process 4/17/2015 Page 5 of 68 FFY 2013 Part B State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) Arizona Data Accountability Reading Training (AZ DART) The Arizona Data Accountability Reading Training (DART) provided recognized experts in reading to guide targeted school-level teams in identifying root causes of gaps between the performance of students with special education needs and their general education peers in reading through the review and analysis of student data. Like the Arizona Teams Intervening Early to Reach All Students (AZ TIERS) training, this training focused on eight stages of the comprehensive Data Use Framework. The concept has four phases: preparation, inquiry, planning, and action, with each phase containing two steps. The goal of the training was for teams to utilize data to identify the causes of the reading achievement gaps between students with disabilities and their nondisabled peers and to narrow the gaps by increasing positive outcomes in reading achievement for all students. Teams developed a school-specific action plan that included continued data analysis and targeted professional development to narrow the reading gap and to improve outcomes for all students. Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling Training- of-Trainers Institute (LETRS® TOT Institute) This one-year training was an intensive professional development opportunity for educators who wanted to become effective trainers of literacy educators. Eligible participants were provided with comprehensive and practical knowledge of how children learn to read, write, and spell to improve and focus instruction. Trainees who successfully completed the institute joined the cadre of certified LETRS® trainers who may be called upon to provide training services at a local, regional, or State level. Multi-Tier Behavior Supports Training for K–12 Schools (MTBS) MTBS is a three-year training program in research-based, multi-tiered positive behavior supports for school-wide discipline. Implementation of this tiered framework assisted schools in developing a comprehensive approach for positive behavior management practices. The first-year training was funded by the LEAs involved. A grant supports the school teams in the participation of years two and three based on the successful completion of the previous year’s objectives. Special Education: Achieving Success in Mathematics (SEAS–Math) Grades 3–5 SEAS–Math is a two-workshop school-team training program that emphasized increasing the level of math knowledge and skills for educators teaching grades 3–5 through the acquisition of effective, data-driven teaching methods for whole group and/or small groups or individuals, and the identification of specific strategies and keys to teaching these math strategies to students with disabilities. Secondary Transition Mentoring Project / College and Career Readiness Team Training (STMP/CCRTT) ADE/ESS in partnership with the Research Collaboration at the University of Kansas (KU), Center for Research on Learning, offered funding and training to selected interdisciplinary teams of educators from across Arizona. The Secondary Transition Mentoring Project / College and Career Readiness Team Training (STMP/CCRTT) Project provided systematic professional development that promoted college and career readiness for all students. In 2013, ADE/ESS and KU developed the College and Career Readiness Team Training (CCRTT) to help eligible LEAs provide all students with the competencies they need to become career equipped, socially and emotionally engaged, and lifelong learners. District or school teams developed skills and engaged in activities in multi-tiered instruction and interventions, effective collaboration between stakeholders, and data-based decision making and action planning at the student, classroom, and school levels. Stakeholder Involvement: The mechanism for soliciting broad stakeholder input on targets in the SPP, including revisions to targets. As data and other information became available after the close of the 2013–2014 school year, individuals from the ADE/ESS staff reported to the Special Education Advisory Panel (SEAP), Arizona’s advisory group. The SEAP is composed of a broad 4/17/2015 Page 6 of 68 FFY 2013 Part B State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) range of stakeholders throughout Arizona. Group members represented on the panel include parents of children with disabilities, individuals with disabilities, teachers, early childhood educators, and representatives from charter schools, school districts, institutions of higher education that prepare special education and related services personnel, secure care facilities, and public agencies. The ADE/ESS personnel responded to questions and comments from the SEAP members and considered the panel’s advice in selecting targets for the SPP. The specific tasks requested of the SEAP by the ADE/ESS were: To consider baseline and trend data for each indicator; To assist in determining appropriate targets for each indicator in which a target was required. In addition to the SEAP’s suggestions, ESS requested input from special education administrators through meetings of the regional organizations, small workshops, and large conferences. Finally, ESS created an SPP/APR Target workgroup, which was open to all ESS staff members. The workgroup reviewed baseline and trend data for each indicator and determined appropriate targets. Input from all stakeholder groups was combined and considered in the State’s selection of targets. Reporting to the Public: How and where the State reported to the public on the FFY 2012 performance of each LEA located in the State on the targets in the SPP/APR as soon as practicable, but no later than 120 days following the State’s submission of its FFY 2012 APR, as required by 34 CFR §300.602(b) (1)(i)(A); and a description of where, on its Web site, a complete copy of the State’s SPP, including any revision if the State has revised the SPP that it submitted with its FFY 2012 APR in 2014, is available. The annual performance report (APR) on the State’s progress and/or slippage for FFY 2012 is available on the ADE/ESS Web site at http://www.azed.gov/special-education/resources/spp-apr/ under the list titled Annual Performance Report. The title of the APR is Arizona FFY 2012 Annual Performance Report. The annual public reports were available on the ADE/ESS Web site at http://www.azed.gov/special-education/resources/ under the list titled Public Reports School Year 2012–2013, within 120 days of the February 3, 2014, submission of the APR. These reports list the performance of each school district and charter school in Arizona on the SPP targets. The SPP and APR are disseminated to the public by means of hard copy, email, and the ADE/ESS Web site. Each member of SEAP receives a copy of the SPP and the APR, as does Arizona’s Parent and Training Information Center (Raising Special Kids). The ESS special education listserv, ESS and ECSE specialists, trainings, and conferences serve as the vehicles to notify parents, the PEAs, and the public of the availability of the SPP and APR. Special Education Monitoring Alerts, memoranda pertaining to specific topics including the SPP/APR, are sent to the field electronically on the ESS listserv and distributed by hard copy through the ESS specialists. 4/17/2015 Page 7 of 68 FFY 2013 Part B State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) Indicator 1: Graduation Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE Results indicator: Percent of youth with IEPs graduating from high school with a regular diploma. (20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A)) Historical Data Baseline Data: 2005 FFY 2005 Target ≥ Data 61.00% 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 62.50% 63.00% 64.50% 80.00% 80.00% 80.00% 80.00% 60.40% 63.00% 64.00% 64.90% 65.80% 67.00% 65.00% Key: Gray – Data Prior to Baseline Yellow – Baseline FFY 2013 - FFY 2018 Targets FFY Target ≥ 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 80.00% 80.00% 80.00% 80.00% 80.00% 80.00% Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input As data and other information became available after the close of the 2013–2014 school year, individuals from the ADE/ESS staff reported on student progress to the Special Education Advisory Panel (SEAP). The SEAP members represent a broad range of stakeholders throughout Arizona. Groups represented on the panel include parents of children with disabilities, individuals with disabilities, teachers, early childhood educators, charter schools, school districts, institutions of higher education that prepare special education and related services personnel, secure care facilities, and public agencies. During the SEAP meeting, the ADE/ESS representatives responded to questions and comments from the SEAP members and considered the panel’s advice in determining targets for the future. The specific tasks requested of the SEAP by the ADE/ESS were: To consider baseline and trend data for each indicator; To assist in determining appropriate targets for each indicator in which a target was required for the SPP. In addition to the SEAP’s suggestions, ESS requested input from special education administrators through meetings of the regional organizations, small workshops, and large conferences. Finally, ESS created an SPP/APR target workgroup, which was open to all ESS staff members. Input from all stakeholder groups was considered in the selection of all targets. Prepopulated Data Source Date SY 2012-13 Cohorts for Regulatory Adjusted-Cohort Graduation Rate (EDFacts file spec C151; Data group 696) 9/15/2014 Number of youth with IEPs graduating with a regular diploma 4,685 SY 2012-13 Cohorts for Regulatory Adjusted-Cohort Graduation Rate (EDFacts file spec C151; Data group 696) 9/15/2014 Number of youth with IEPs eligible to graduate 7,470 9/23/2014 2012-13 Regulatory four-year adjusted-cohort graduation rate table SY 2012-13 Regulatory Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate (EDFacts file spec C150; Data 4/17/2015 Description Data 62.72% Overwrite Data Calculate Page 8 of 68 FFY 2013 Part B State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) Source Date Description Data Overwrite Data group 695) FFY 2013 SPP/APR Data Number of youth with IEPs in the current year's adjusted cohort graduating with a regular diploma Number of youth with IEPs in the current year's adjusted cohort eligible to graduate FFY 2012 Data FFY 2013 Target FFY 2013 Data 4,685 7,470 65.00% 80.00% 62.72% Explanation of Slippage Arizona’s graduation rate target (80%) for students with IEPs for FFY 2013 is the same as the annual graduation rate target for all Arizona students under Title 1 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). The State did not meet this target and slipped from the FFY 2012 rate (65%) to the FFY 2013 rate (62.72%). A possible contributing factor for this slippage is that in school year 2012–2013, the minimum subject area course credit requirements for high school graduation in Arizona increased to include one additional credit of science and one additional credit of mathematics (Algebra II or equivalent content). The drop in the percentage of four-year graduates may be related to this increase in the number of course credits required and in the mathematics rigor required for students to earn high school diplomas. Graduation Conditions Field Provide the four-year graduation cohort rate. The four-year graduation rate follows a cohort, or a group of students, who begin as first-time 9th graders in a particular school year and who graduate with a regular high school diploma in four years or less. An extended-year graduation rate follows the same cohort of students for an additional year or years. The cohort is "adjusted" by adding any students transferring into the cohort and by subtracting any students who transfer out, emigrate to another country, or die during the years covered by the rate. Under 34 C.F.R. §200.19(b)(1)(iv), a "regular high school diploma" means the standard high school diploma awarded to students in a State that is fully aligned with the State's academic content standards and does not include a GED credential, certificate of attendance, or any alternative award. The term "regular high school diploma" also includes a "higher diploma" that is awarded to students who complete requirements above and beyond what is required for a regular diploma. Arizona uses a four-year cohort to determine graduation rates: any student who receives a traditional high school diploma within the first four years of starting high school is considered a four-year graduate. A four-year rate is calculated by dividing the sum of all four-year graduates in a cohort by the sum of those who should have graduated and did not transfer to another qualified educational facility or did not leave to be home schooled or were deceased. Students who receive a diploma prior to September 1 of the school year following their fourth year are included as part of the four-year graduation cohort. Conditions to Graduate with a Regular Diploma Conditions students without disabilities must meet in order to graduate with a regular high school diploma: · Complete their PEA’s requirements to receive a regular high school diploma (Arizona Revised Statutes § 15-701.01 (C) and Arizona Administrative Code R7-2-302); and · Achieve passing scores on Arizona’s Instrument to Measure Standards (Arizona Revised Statutes § 15-701.01 (A)). Conditions students with disabilities must meet in order to graduate with a regular high school diploma: · The local governing board of each school district is responsible for developing a course of study and graduation requirements for all students placed in special education programs (Arizona Administrative Code R7-2-302 (6)). · Students with disabilities do not have to achieve passing scores on Arizona’s Instrument to Measure Standards (AIMS) or Arizona’s Instrument to Measure Standards Alternate (AIMS A) to graduate with a regular high school diploma unless specifically required by the Individualized Education Program (IEP) team (Arizona Revised Statutes § 15-763 (A)). 4/17/2015 Page 9 of 68 FFY 2013 Part B State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) Actions required in FFY 2012 response table None Responses to actions required in FFY 2012 response table 4/17/2015 Page 10 of 68 FFY 2013 Part B State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) Indicator 2: Drop Out Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE Results indicator: Percent of youth with IEPs dropping out of high school. (20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A)) Historical Data Baseline Data: 2013 FFY 2005 Target ≤ Data 5.59% 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 5.50% 5.40% 5.30% 5.20% 5.10% 5.00% 4.90% 4.20% 3.60% 7.50% 4.80% 4.66% 4.70% 5.90% Key: Gray – Data Prior to Baseline Yellow – Baseline FFY 2013 - FFY 2018 Targets FFY Target ≤ 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 28.07% 28.00% 27.90% 27.80% 27.70% 26.80% Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input As data and other information became available after the close of the 2013–2014 school year, individuals from the ADE/ESS staff reported on student progress to the Special Education Advisory Panel (SEAP). The SEAP members represent a broad range of stakeholders throughout Arizona. Groups represented on the panel include parents of children with disabilities, individuals with disabilities, teachers, early childhood educators, charter schools, school districts, institutions of higher education that prepare special education and related services personnel, secure care facilities, and public agencies. During the SEAP meeting, the ADE/ESS representatives responded to questions and comments from the SEAP members and considered the panel’s advice in determining targets for the future. The specific tasks requested of the SEAP by the ADE/ESS were: To consider baseline and trend data for each indicator; To assist in determining appropriate targets for each indicator in which a target was required for the SPP. In addition to the SEAP’s suggestions, ESS requested input from special education administrators through meetings of the regional organizations, small workshops, and large conferences. Finally, ESS created an SPP/APR target workgroup, which was open to all ESS staff members. Input from all stakeholder groups was considered in the selection of all targets. Prepopulated Data Source Date SY 2012-13 Exiting Data Groups (EDFacts file spec C009; Data Group 85) 6/5/2014 Number of youth with IEPs (ages 14-21) who exited special education by graduating with a regular high school diploma (a) SY 2012-13 Exiting Data Groups (EDFacts file spec C009; Data Group 85) 6/5/2014 Number of youth with IEPs (ages 14-21) who exited special education by receiving a certificate (b) SY 2012-13 Exiting Data Groups (EDFacts file spec C009; Data Group 85) 6/5/2014 Number of youth with IEPs (ages 14-21) who exited special education by reaching maximum age (c) 4/17/2015 Description Data Overwrite Data 4,450 19 Page 11 of 68 FFY 2013 Part B State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) Source Date Description Data SY 2012-13 Exiting Data Groups (EDFacts file spec C009; Data Group 85) 6/5/2014 Number of youth with IEPs (ages 14-21) who exited special education due to dropping out (d) SY 2012-13 Exiting Data Groups (EDFacts file spec C009; Data Group 85) 6/5/2014 Number of youth with IEPs (ages 14-21) who exited special education as a result of death (e ) Overwrite Data 1,752 20 FFY 2013 SPP/APR Data Number of youth with IEPs (ages 14-21) who exited special education due to dropping out [d] Total number of all youth with IEPs who left high school (ages 14-21) [a + b + c + d + e] FFY 2012 Data* FFY 2013 Target* FFY 2013 Data 1,752 6,241 5.90% 28.07% 28.07% Provide additional information about this indicator (optional) Arizona has changed the reporting of this indicator to Option 1 which is a percentage using the number of youth with IEPs (ages 14-21) who exited special education due to dropping out in the numerator and the number of all youth with IEPs who left high school (ages 14-21) in the denominator. A new baseline from FFY 2013 data using the new reporting method was established, and targets were set with stakeholders using the Option 1 data source and measurement. Actions required in FFY 2012 response table None Responses to actions required in FFY 2012 response table 4/17/2015 Page 12 of 68 FFY 2013 Part B State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) Indicator 3A: Districts Meeting AYP/AMO for Disability Subgroup Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE Results indicator: Participation and performance of children with IEPs on Statewide assessments: A. Percent of the districts with a disability subgroup that meets the State’s minimum “n” size that meet the State’s AYP/AMO targets for the disability subgroup. B. Participation rate for children with IEPs. C. Proficiency rate for children with IEPs against grade level, modified and alternate academic achievement standards. (20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A)) Historical Data Baseline Data: 2011 FFY 2005 Target ≥ Data 12.16% 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 23.50% 24.00% 24.50% 25.00% 25.50% 26.00% 26.50% 18.25% 5.40% 5.33% 2.70% 1.39% 2.90% 0% Key: Gray – Data Prior to Baseline Yellow – Baseline FFY 2013 - FFY 2018 Targets FFY Target ≥ 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 0% 0% 0% 2.90% 3.00% 4.30% Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input As data and other information became available after the close of the 2013–2014 school year, individuals from the ADE/ESS staff reported on student progress to the Special Education Advisory Panel (SEAP). The SEAP members represent a broad range of stakeholders throughout Arizona. Groups represented on the panel include parents of children with disabilities, individuals with disabilities, teachers, early childhood educators, charter schools, school districts, institutions of higher education that prepare special education and related services personnel, secure care facilities, and public agencies. During the SEAP meeting, the ADE/ESS representatives responded to questions and comments from the SEAP members and considered the panel’s advice in determining targets for the future. The specific tasks requested of the SEAP by the ADE/ESS were: To consider baseline and trend data for each indicator; To assist in determining appropriate targets for each indicator in which a target was required for the SPP. In addition to the SEAP’s suggestions, ESS requested input from special education administrators through meetings of the regional organizations, small workshops, and large conferences. Finally, ESS created an SPP/APR target workgroup. which was open to all ESS staff members. The ADE/ESS data management coordinator trained data managers and administrators on the data requirements and also requested input for improving the State’s data collection and reporting process. FFY 2013 SPP/APR Data Does your State have an ESEA Flexibility Waiver of determining AYP? Are you reporting AYP or AMO? AYP AMO Yes No Number of districts in the State Number of districts that met the minimum "n" size Number of districts that meet the minimum "n" size AND met AMO FFY 2012 Data* FFY 2013 Target* FFY 2013 Data 613 69 0 0% 0% 0% 4/17/2015 Page 13 of 68 FFY 2013 Part B State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) Actions required in FFY 2012 response table None Responses to actions required in FFY 2012 response table 4/17/2015 Page 14 of 68 FFY 2013 Part B State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) Indicator 3B: Participation for Students with IEPs Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE Results indicator: Participation and performance of children with IEPs on Statewide assessments: A. Percent of the districts with a disability subgroup that meets the State’s minimum “n” size that meet the State’s AYP/AMO targets for the disability subgroup. B. Participation rate for children with IEPs. C. Proficiency rate for children with IEPs against grade level, modified and alternate academic achievement standards. (20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A)) Group Name Baseline Year Reading A Overall 2005 Math Historical Data A Overall 2005 FFY 2005 Target ≥ Data 98.50% Target ≥ Data 98.50% Key: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 95.00% 95.00% 95.00% 95.00% 95.00% 95.00% 95.00% 97.00% 97.10% 97.60% 98.60% 97.40% 98.60% 98.60% 97.00% 95.00% 95.00% 95.00% 95.00% 95.00% 95.00% 96.90% 97.00% 97.50% 98.50% 97.30% 98.50% 98.50% Gray – Data Prior to Baseline Yellow – Baseline FFY 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Reading A≥ Overall 95.00% 95.00% 95.00% 95.00% 95.00% 95.00% Math FFY 2013 - FFY 2018 Targets A≥ Overall 95.00% 95.00% 95.00% 95.00% 95.00% 95.00% Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input Targets for this indicator are the same as the State's ESEA targets as given in the State of Arizona ESEA Flexibility Request dated July 13, 2012 (amended October 9, 2014), which is the current Arizona Accountability Workbook. Would you like to use the assessment data below to automatically calculate the actual data reported in your FFY 2013 APR by the grade groups you provided on the Reporting Group Selection page? yes Would you like the disaggregated data to be displayed in your final APR? yes Data Source: SY 2013-14 Assessment Data Groups - Reading (EDFacts file spec C188; Data Group: 589) Date: 12/18/2014 Reading assessment participation data by grade Grade 3 4 5 6 7 a. Children with IEPs 11878 11293 11372 10619 10158 9889 b. IEPs in regular assessment with no accommodations 5759 5113 5031 4957 5395 5471 5666 c. IEPs in regular assessment with accommodations 5024 5094 5283 4646 3760 3344 1875 4/17/2015 8 9 0 10 0 11 0 12 0 HS 8623 Page 15 of 68 FFY 2013 Part B State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) Reading assessment participation data by grade Grade 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 HS d. IEPs in alternate assessment against grade-level standards e. IEPs in alternate assessment against modified standards f. IEPs in alternate assessment against alternate standards 938 971 940 886 888 929 832 Data Source: SY 2013-14 Assessment Data Groups - Math (EDFacts file spec C185; Data Group: 588) Date: 12/18/2014 Math assessment participation data by grade Grade 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 a. Children with IEPs 11878 11293 11372 10619 10158 9889 b. IEPs in regular assessment with no accommodations 4642 4113 4114 4040 4642 4821 5511 c. IEPs in regular assessment with accommodations 6132 6094 6191 5562 4507 3985 1917 938 971 940 886 888 929 825 0 10 0 11 0 12 0 HS 8524 d. IEPs in alternate assessment against grade-level standards e. IEPs in alternate assessment against modified standards f. IEPs in alternate assessment against alternate standards FFY 2013 SPP/APR Data: Reading Assessment Group Name Number of Children with IEPs Number of Children with IEPs Participating FFY 2012 Data* FFY 2013 Target* FFY 2013 Data A Overall 73,832 72,802 98.60% 95.00% 98.60% FFY 2013 SPP/APR Data: Math Assessment Group Name Number of Children with IEPs Number of Children with IEPs Participating FFY 2012 Data* FFY 2013 Target* FFY 2013 Data A Overall 73,733 72,648 98.50% 95.00% 98.53% Public Reporting Information Provide links to the page(s) where you provide public reports of assessment results. The location (URL) of public reports of assessment results conforming to 34 CFR § 300.160 (f) is http://www.azed.gov/research-evaluation/aims-assessment-results/. The FFY 2013 Annual Performance Report (APR) gives information about the participation of students with IEPs. The APR is located on the ADE/ESS Web site at http://www.azed.gov/special-education /resources/spp-apr/ under the list titled Annual Performance Report. 4/17/2015 Page 16 of 68 FFY 2013 Part B State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) Provide additional information about this indicator (optional) Mathematics and reading participation rates are inclusive of all ESEA grades assessed in Arizona (grades 3 through 8 and grade 10) for students with IEPs and inclusive of all assessments (regular and alternate). The calculation includes all students with IEPs in all the grades assessed, including those enrolled for a full academic year and those not enrolled for a full academic year. The differences between the denominators for mathematics and reading can be attributed to the different assessment dates for the different grades and subjects. Mathematics and reading assessments were given to all students in grades 3 through 8 on April 17, 2014. The mathematics assessment was given to students in grade 10 on April 8, 2014. The reading assessment was given to students in grade 10 on February 25, 2014. Actions required in FFY 2012 response table None Responses to actions required in FFY 2012 response table 4/17/2015 Page 17 of 68 FFY 2013 Part B State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) Indicator 3C: Proficiency for Students with IEPs Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE Results indicator: Participation and performance of children with IEPs on Statewide assessments: A. Percent of the districts with a disability subgroup that meets the State’s minimum “n” size that meet the State’s AYP/AMO targets for the disability subgroup. B. Participation rate for children with IEPs. C. Proficiency rate for children with IEPs against grade level, modified and alternate academic achievement standards. (20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A)) Math Reading Historical Data Group Name Baseline Year A Grade 3 2005 B Grade 4 2005 C Grade 5 2005 D Grade 6 2005 E Grade 7 2005 F Grade 8 2005 G HS 2005 A Grade 3 2005 B Grade 4 2005 C Grade 5 2005 D Grade 6 2005 E Grade 7 2005 F Grade 8 2005 G HS 2005 FFY 2005 2009 2010 2011 2012 Target ≥ 62.60% 71.90% 77.00% 80.00% Data 36.30% 43.10% 40.60% 40.70% Target ≥ 56.00% 67.00% 76.00% 56.00% Data 34.10% 42.70% 41.50% 34.10% Target ≥ 54.60% 65.90% 80.00% 54.60% Data 30.30% 42.10% 39.80% 30.30% Target ≥ 56.00% 67.00% 82.00% 56.00% Data 33.20% 41.10% 40.80% 33.20% Target ≥ 59.20% 69.40% 83.00% 59.20% Data 31.00% 43.30% 44.20% 31.00% Target ≥ 54.00% 65.50% 73.00% 54.00% Data 26.70% 28.50% 29.80% 26.70% Target ≥ 48.60% 61.40% 79.00% 48.60% Data 31.00% 39.00% 38.90% 31.00% Target ≥ 34.80% 40.60% 40.80% 72.00% Data 53.00% 65.00% 69.00% 39.40% Target ≥ 29.80% 35.10% 34.70% 70.00% Data 50.00% 63.00% 66.00% 33.00% Target ≥ 44.00% 58.00% 64.00% 68.00% Data 24.00% 29.80% 28.90% 28.70% Target ≥ 19.00% 22.90% 24.40% 68.00% Data 43.00% 57.00% 61.00% 28.70% Target ≥ 17.90% 23.40% 23.30% 67.00% Data 44.00% 58.00% 63.00% 24.80% Target ≥ 18.00% 17.90% 19.10% 61.00% Data 44.00% 58.00% 56.00% 19.90% Target ≥ 16.90% 21.00% 19.40% 67.00% Data 48.00% 61.00% 63.00% 19.50% Key: 2006 2007 Gray – Data Prior to Baseline 2008 Yellow – Baseline FFY 2013 - FFY 2018 Targets FFY 4/17/2015 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Page 18 of 68 Math Reading FFY 2013 Part B State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) FFY 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 A≥ Grade 3 85.00% 87.00% 90.00% 92.00% 95.00% 97.00% B≥ Grade 4 84.00% 87.00% 89.00% 92.00% 95.00% 97.00% C≥ Grade 5 87.00% 89.00% 91.00% 93.00% 96.00% 98.00% D≥ Grade 6 88.00% 90.00% 92.00% 94.00% 96.00% 98.00% E≥ Grade 7 89.00% 91.00% 92.00% 94.00% 96.00% 98.00% F≥ Grade 8 82.00% 85.00% 88.00% 91.00% 94.00% 97.00% G≥ HS 86.00% 88.00% 91.00% 93.00% 95.00% 98.00% A≥ Grade 3 79.00% 83.00% 86.00% 90.00% 93.00% 97.00% B≥ Grade 4 77.00% 81.00% 85.00% 89.00% 92.00% 96.00% C≥ Grade 5 76.00% 80.00% 84.00% 88.00% 92.00% 96.00% D≥ Grade 6 74.00% 78.00% 83.00% 87.00% 91.00% 96.00% E≥ Grade 7 75.00% 79.00% 84.00% 88.00% 92.00% 96.00% F≥ Grade 8 71.00% 76.00% 80.00% 85.00% 90.00% 95.00% G≥ HS 75.00% 79.00% 84.00% 88.00% 92.00% 96.00% Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input The targets are the mathematics and reading annual measurable objectives (AMOs) as given in the State of Arizona ESEA Flexibility Request dated July 13, 2012 (amended October 9, 2014), which is the current Arizona Accountability Workbook. FFY 2013 SPP/APR Data: Reading Assessment Group Name Children with IEPs who received a valid score and a proficiency was assigned Number of Children with IEPs Proficient FFY 2012 Data* FFY 2013 Target* FFY 2013 Data A Grade 3 11,721 4,870 40.70% 85.00% 41.55% B Grade 4 11,178 4,603 34.10% 84.00% 41.18% C Grade 5 11,254 4,759 30.30% 87.00% 42.29% D Grade 6 10,489 4,348 33.20% 88.00% 41.45% E Grade 7 10,043 5,096 31.00% 89.00% 50.74% 4/17/2015 Page 19 of 68 FFY 2013 Part B State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) Group Name Children with IEPs who received a valid score and a proficiency was assigned Number of Children with IEPs Proficient FFY 2012 Data* FFY 2013 Target* FFY 2013 Data F Grade 8 9,744 2,760 26.70% 82.00% 28.33% G HS 8,373 3,982 31.00% 86.00% 47.56% FFY 2013 SPP/APR Data: Math Assessment Group Name Children with IEPs who received a valid score and a proficiency was assigned Number of Children with IEPs Proficient FFY 2012 Data* FFY 2013 Target* FFY 2013 Data A Grade 3 11,712 4,618 39.40% 79.00% 39.43% B Grade 4 11,178 3,423 33.00% 77.00% 30.62% C Grade 5 11,245 3,134 28.70% 76.00% 27.87% D Grade 6 10,488 2,525 28.70% 74.00% 24.08% E Grade 7 10,037 2,448 24.80% 75.00% 24.39% F Grade 8 9,735 2,013 19.90% 71.00% 20.68% G HS 8,253 1,759 19.50% 75.00% 21.31% Explanation of Group B Slippage Although Arizona did not meet the targets for Indicator 3C—proficiency in mathematics or reading, Arizona saw slight improvement in specific grade levels. In reading, each grade level made improvement. In mathematics, there was an increase in proficiency for grades 3, 8, and 10. The largest gain was a 1.81% increase in proficiency for grade 10. Arizona will continue its efforts to increase student achievement in the two subject areas. In FFY 2013, the ADE/ESS supported PEAs in the area of mathematics, targeting a range of grades with the sponsorship of three initiatives—Special Education Using Mathematics for School Improvement Project (SUMS), Dimensions of Algebra and AT (Assistive Technology) is in the mATh. The math initiatives provided research-based interventions, strategies and resources, and coaching to the school-based teams. Explanation of Group D Slippage Although Arizona did not meet the targets for Indicator 3C—proficiency in mathematics or reading, Arizona saw slight improvement in specific grade levels. In reading, each grade level made improvement. In mathematics, there was an increase in proficiency for grades 3, 8, and 10. The largest gain was a 1.81% increase in proficiency for grade 10. Arizona will continue its efforts to increase student achievement in the two subject areas. In FFY 2013, the ADE/ESS supported PEAs in the area of mathematics, targeting a range of grades with the sponsorship of three initiatives—Special Education Using Mathematics for School Improvement Project (SUMS), Dimensions of Algebra and AT (Assistive Technology) is in the mATh. The math initiatives provided research-based interventions, strategies and resources, and coaching to the school-based teams. Public Reporting Information Provide links to the page(s) where you provide public reports of assessment results. 4/17/2015 Page 20 of 68 FFY 2013 Part B State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) The location (URL) of public reports of assessment results conforming to 34 CFR § 300.160 (f) is http://www.azed.gov/research-evaluation/aims-assessment-results/. The FFY 2013 Annual Performance Report (APR) gives information about the participation of students with IEPs. The APR is located on the ADE/ESS Web site at http://www.azed.gov/special-education /resources/spp-apr/ under the list titled Annual Performance Report. Provide additional information about this indicator (optional) Mathematics and reading participation rates are inclusive of all ESEA grades assessed in Arizona (grades 3 through 8 and grade 10) for students with IEPs and inclusive of all assessments (regular and alternate). The calculation includes all students with IEPs in all the grades assessed, including those enrolled for a full academic year and those not enrolled for a full academic year. The differences between the denominators for mathematics and reading can be attributed to the different assessment dates for the different grades and subjects. Mathematics and reading assessments were given to all students in grades 3 through 8 on April 7, 2014. The mathematics assessment was given to students in grade 10 on April 8, 2014. The reading assessment was given to students in grade 10 on February 25, 2014. Actions required in FFY 2012 response table None Responses to actions required in FFY 2012 response table 4/17/2015 Page 21 of 68 FFY 2013 Part B State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) Indicator 4A: Suspension/Expulsion Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE Results indicator: Rates of suspension and expulsion: A. Percent of districts that have a significant discrepancy in the rate of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year for children with IEPs; and B. Percent of districts that have: (a) a significant discrepancy, by race or ethnicity, in the rate of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year for children with IEPs; and (b) policies, procedures or practices that contribute to the significant discrepancy and do not comply with requirements relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards. (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A); 1412(a)(22)) Historical Data Baseline Data: 2005 FFY 2005 Target ≤ Data 2.30% 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 1.55% 1.50% 1.40% 1.35% 1.30% 1.25% 1.20% 1.87% 0.18% 0.18% 0.51% 0.34% 0% 0.30% Key: Gray – Data Prior to Baseline Yellow – Baseline FFY 2013 - FFY 2018 Targets FFY Target ≤ 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input As data and other information became available after the close of the 2013–2014 school year, individuals from the ADE/ESS staff reported on student progress to the Special Education Advisory Panel (SEAP). The SEAP members represent a broad range of stakeholders throughout Arizona. Groups represented on the panel include parents of children with disabilities, individuals with disabilities, teachers, early childhood educators, charter schools, school districts, institutions of higher education that prepare special education and related services personnel, secure care facilities, and public agencies. During the SEAP meeting, the ADE/ESS representatives responded to questions and comments from the SEAP members and considered the panel’s advice in determining targets for the future. The specific tasks requested of the SEAP by the ADE/ESS were: To consider baseline and trend data for each indicator; To assist in determining appropriate targets for each indicator in which a target was required for the SPP. In addition to the SEAP’s suggestions, ESS requested input from special education administrators through meetings of the regional organizations, small workshops, and large conferences. Finally, ESS created an SPP/APR target workgroup. which was open to all ESS staff members. The ADE/ESS data management coordinator trained data managers and administrators on the data requirements and also requested input for improving the State’s data collection and reporting process. FFY 2013 SPP/APR Data Please indicate the type of denominator provided Number of districts in the State Number of districts that met the State’s minimum n-size Number of districts that have a significant discrepancy 4/17/2015 Number of districts in the State FFY 2012 Data* FFY 2013 Target* FFY 2013 Data Page 22 of 68 FFY 2013 Part B State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) Number of districts that have a significant discrepancy Number of districts in the State FFY 2012 Data* FFY 2013 Target* FFY 2013 Data 0 602 0.30% 0% 0% Choose one of the following comparison methodologies to determine whether significant discrepancies are occurring (34 CFR §300.170(a)): Compare the rates of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year for children with IEPs among LEAs in the State The rates of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year for children with IEPs in each LEA compared to the rates for nondisabled children in the same LEA State’s definition of “significant discrepancy” and methodology Arizona uses Statistical Analysis Software (SAS) to calculate rates of suspension and expulsion for children with IEPs. Arizona uses the state bar method to determine significant discrepancy. The State rate of suspensions/expulsions greater than 10 days for all students with IEPs is 0.75%. The State bar, 5.75%, is five percentage points greater than the State rate. A district or charter school has significant discrepancy when its suspension/expulsion rate greater than 10 days for students with IEPs is 5.75% or greater. There must be at least 50 students in the denominator of a suspension/expulsion rate for a district or charter school to be flagged as having significant discrepancy. The denominator represents the overall special education enrollment at the district or charter school. Using the minimum “n” size of 50 students for overall special education enrollment, Arizona excluded 19 PEAs from the calculation (excluded 19 from 602) and used the total number of PEAs (602) in the State in the denominator. Arizona compares the rates of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year for students with IEPs among PEAs in the State. Provide additional information about this indicator (optional) The 2012–2013 data were reported by the PEAs through the Arizona Safety Accountability for Education (Az SAFE) application. The data are the same as the data reported under section 618, Table 5 (Report of Children with Disabilities Subject to Disciplinary Removal) for school year 2012–2013, which was due November 6, 2013. The October 1, 2012, child count data are the same as the State’s data reported under section 618, Table 1, Report of Children with Disabilities Receiving Special Education Under Part B of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. Note that the source of this data is from FFY 2012. The total number of PEAs in Arizona varies from year to year because of the number of charter schools that may open and close from year to year. Actions required in FFY 2012 response table None Responses to actions required in FFY 2012 response table, not including correction of findings FFY 2012 Identification of Noncompliance Review of Policies, Procedures, and Practices (completed in FFY2013 using 2012-2013 data) Description of review The State reviewed the PEAs’ suspension /expulsion data and did not identify any PEAs with a significant discrepancy. 4/17/2015 Page 23 of 68 FFY 2013 Part B State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) Arizona did not make any findings of noncompliance with Part B requirements as a result of the review required by 34 CFR § 300.170 (b). The State DID NOT identify noncompliance with Part B requirements as a result of the review required by 34 CFR §300.170(b) The State DID identify noncompliance with Part B requirements as a result of the review required by 34 CFR §300.170(b). If YES, select one of the following: Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified in FFY 2012 Findings of Noncompliance Identified Findings of Noncompliance Verified as Corrected Within One Year Findings of Noncompliance Subsequently Corrected Findings Not Yet Verified as Corrected 0 0 0 0 4/17/2015 Page 24 of 68 FFY 2013 Part B State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) Indicator 4B: Suspension/Expulsion Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE Compliance indicator: Rates of suspension and expulsion: A. Percent of districts that have a significant discrepancy in the rate of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year for children with IEPs; and B. Percent of districts that have: (a) a significant discrepancy, by race or ethnicity, in the rate of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year for children with IEPs; and (b) policies, procedures or practices that contribute to the significant discrepancy and do not comply with requirements relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards. (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A); 1412(a)(22)) Historical Data Baseline Data: 2009 FFY 2005 Target 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.17% 0% Data Key: Gray – Data Prior to Baseline Yellow – Baseline FFY 2013 - FFY 2018 Targets FFY Target 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% FFY 2013 SPP/APR Data Please indicate the type of denominator provided Number of districts in the State Number of districts that met the State’s minimum n-size Number of districts that have a significant discrepancy, by race or ethnicity Number of those districts that have policies, procedures, or practices that contribute to the significant discrepancy and do not comply with requirements Number of districts in the State FFY 2012 Data* FFY 2013 Target* FFY 2013 Data 3 0 602 0% 0% 0% All races and ethnicities were included in the review State’s definition of “significant discrepancy” and methodology Arizona uses Statistical Analysis Software (SAS) to calculate rates of suspension and expulsion by race or ethnicity for children with IEPs. Arizona uses the state bar method to determine significant discrepancy. The State rate of suspensions/expulsions greater than 10 days for all students with IEPs is 0.75%. The State bar, 5.75%, is five percentage points greater than the State rate. Any district or charter school that suspends or expels 5.75% or more of its students with IEPs of a given race/ethnicity for more than 10 days is flagged for significant discrepancy. There must be at least 50 students in the denominator of a suspension/expulsion rate for a district or charter school to be flagged as having significant discrepancy. The denominator represents the special education enrollment at the district or charter school for a given race/ethnicity. Using the minimum “n” size of 50 students for a given race/ethnicity enrollment, Arizona excluded 27 PEAs from the 4/17/2015 Page 25 of 68 FFY 2013 Part B State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) calculation (excluded 27 from 602) and used the total number of PEAs (602) in the State in the denominator. Arizona compares the rates of suspension and expulsion of greater than 10 days in a school year for students with IEPs among PEAs in the State. Provide additional information about this indicator (optional) The 2012–2013 data were reported by the PEAs through the Arizona Safety Accountability for Education (Az SAFE) application. The data are the same as the data reported under section 618, Table 5 (Report of Children with Disabilities Subject to Disciplinary Removal) for school year 2012–2013, which was due November 6, 2013. The October 1, 2012, child count data are the same as the State’s data reported under section 618, Table 1, Report of Children with Disabilities Receiving Special Education Under Part B of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. Note that the source of this data is from FFY 2012. The total number of PEAs in Arizona varies from year to year because of the number of charter schools that may open and close from year to year. Actions required in FFY 2012 response table None Responses to actions required in FFY 2012 response table, not including correction of findings FFY 2012 Identification of Noncompliance Review of Policies, Procedures, and Practices (completed in FFY2013 using 2012-2013 data) Description of review The State reviewed the PEAs’ suspension/expulsion data by race or ethnicity and identified three PEAs with a significant discrepancy. These PEAs reviewed their policies, procedures, and practices relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards to determine if these contributed to the significant discrepancy. Arizona required these PEAs to have special education policies and procedures in compliance with all regulatory requirements prior to having Part B-IDEA Basic Entitlement Grant funds approved by the ADE/ESS. These PEAs were required to resubmit the discipline policies and procedures for review by ESS program specialists to determine if they were in alignment with the requirements of 34 CFR § 300.530 through § 300.536. The practices of these PEAs were reviewed by means of a self assessment. The PEAs conducted an assessment of their discipline practices, which consisted of a series of questions requiring narrative responses and a review of student files using the State’s monitoring forms. ADE/ESS specialists conducted on-site visits and/or desk audits during the self assessments to validate the decisions made by the PEAs during the file reviews. Upon the completion of this review, Arizona determined that the three PEAs were in compliance with IDEA requirements that pertain to the development and implementation of IEPs, use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards. The State DID NOT identify noncompliance with Part B requirements as a result of the review required by 34 CFR §300.170(b) The State DID identify noncompliance with Part B requirements as a result of the review required by 34 CFR §300.170(b). 4/17/2015 Page 26 of 68 FFY 2013 Part B State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified in FFY 2012 Findings of Noncompliance Identified 0 4/17/2015 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as Corrected Within One Year Findings of Noncompliance Subsequently Corrected Findings Not Yet Verified as Corrected 0 Page 27 of 68 FFY 2013 Part B State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) Indicator 5: Education Environments (children 6-21) Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE Results indicator: Percent of children with IEPs aged 6 through 21 served: A. Inside the regular class 80% or more of the day; B. Inside the regular class less than 40% of the day; and C. In separate schools, residential facilities, or homebound/hospital placements. (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A)) Historical Data Baseline Year FFY 2005 Target ≥ A 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 50.00% 51.00% 52.00% 53.00% 54.00% 55.00% 56.00% 52.30% 55.00% 56.70% 58.60% 60.00% 60.40% 62.00% 16.50% 16.00% 15.50% 15.00% 14.50% 14.00% 13.50% 16.20% 15.00% 14.90% 14.60% 14.80% 14.68% 15.00% 2.50% 2.30% 2.10% 1.90% 1.70% 1.50% 1.30% 2.70% 2.50% 2.70% 2.65% 2.60% 2.80% 2.00% 2005 Data 50.50% Target ≤ B 2005 Data 17.20% Target ≤ C 2005 Data 2.60% Key: Gray – Data Prior to Baseline Yellow – Baseline FFY 2013 - FFY 2018 Targets FFY 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Target A ≥ 63.00% 63.50% 64.00% 64.50% 65.00% 65.50% Target B ≤ 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 14.90% 14.70% 14.50% Target C ≤ 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 1.90% Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input As data and other information became available after the close of the 2013–2014 school year, individuals from the ADE/ESS staff reported on student progress to the Special Education Advisory Panel (SEAP). The SEAP members represent a broad range of stakeholders throughout Arizona. Groups represented on the panel include parents of children with disabilities, individuals with disabilities, teachers, early childhood educators, charter schools, school districts, institutions of higher education that prepare special education and related services personnel, secure care facilities, and public agencies. During the SEAP meeting, the ADE/ESS representatives responded to questions and comments from the SEAP members and considered the panel’s advice in determining targets for the future. The specific tasks requested of the SEAP by the ADE/ESS were: To consider baseline and trend data for each indicator; To assist in determining appropriate targets for each indicator in which a target was required for the SPP. In addition to the SEAP’s suggestions, ESS requested input from special education administrators through meetings of the regional organizations, small workshops, and large conferences. Finally, ESS created an SPP/APR target workgroup. which was open to all ESS staff members. The ADE/ESS data management coordinator trained data managers and administrators on the data requirements and also requested input for improving the State’s data collection and reporting process. Prepopulated Data 4/17/2015 Page 28 of 68 FFY 2013 Part B State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) Source Date Description Data SY 2013-14 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups (EDFacts file spec C002; Data group 74) 7/3/2014 Total number of children with IEPs aged 6 through 21 114,523 SY 2013-14 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups (EDFacts file spec C002; Data group 74) 7/3/2014 A. Number of children with IEPs aged 6 through 21 inside the regular class 80% or more of the day 72,072 SY 2013-14 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups (EDFacts file spec C002; Data group 74) 7/3/2014 B. Number of children with IEPs aged 6 through 21 inside the regular class less than 40% of the day 17,245 SY 2013-14 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups (EDFacts file spec C002; Data group 74) 7/3/2014 c1. Number of children with IEPs aged 6 through 21 in separate schools 1,828 SY 2013-14 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups (EDFacts file spec C002; Data group 74) 7/3/2014 c2. Number of children with IEPs aged 6 through 21 in residential facilities 84 SY 2013-14 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups (EDFacts file spec C002; Data group 74) 7/3/2014 c3. Number of children with IEPs aged 6 through 21 in homebound/hospital placements 285 Overwrite Data FFY 2013 SPP/APR Data Number of children with IEPs aged 6 through 21 served Total number of children with IEPs aged 6 through 21 FFY 2012 Data* FFY 2013 Target* FFY 2013 Data A. Number of children with IEPs aged 6 through 21 inside the regular class 80% or more of the day 72,072 114,523 62.00% 63.00% 62.93% B. Number of children with IEPs aged 6 through 21 inside the regular class less than 40% of the day 17,245 114,523 15.00% 15.00% 15.06% C. Number of children with IEPs aged 6 through 21 inside separate schools, residential facilities, or homebound/hospital placements [c1+c2+c3] 2,197 114,523 2.00% 2.00% 1.92% Actions required in FFY 2012 response table None Responses to actions required in FFY 2012 response table 4/17/2015 Page 29 of 68 FFY 2013 Part B State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) Indicator 6: Preschool Environments Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE Results indicator: Percent of children aged 3 through 5 with IEPs attending a: A. Regular early childhood program and receiving the majority of special education and related services in the regular early childhood program; and B. Separate special education class, separate school or residential facility. (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A)) Historical Data Baseline Year FFY 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Target ≥ A 2012 48.50% 2011 Data 48.01% Target ≤ B 49.80% 45.50% 2011 Data 46.11% Key: Gray – Data Prior to Baseline 44.81% Yellow – Baseline FFY 2013 - FFY 2018 Targets FFY 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Target A ≥ 50.00% 50.00% 50.50% 51.00% 51.50% 52.00% Target B ≤ 44.80% 44.80% 44.60% 44.40% 44.20% 44.00% Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input As data and other information became available after the close of the 2013–2014 school year, individuals from the ADE/ESS staff reported on student progress to the Special Education Advisory Panel (SEAP). The SEAP members represent a broad range of stakeholders throughout Arizona. Groups represented on the panel include parents of children with disabilities, individuals with disabilities, teachers, early childhood educators, charter schools, school districts, institutions of higher education that prepare special education and related services personnel, secure care facilities, and public agencies. During the SEAP meeting, the ADE/ESS representatives responded to questions and comments from the SEAP members and considered the panel’s advice in determining targets for the future. The specific tasks requested of the SEAP by the ADE/ESS were: To consider baseline and trend data for each indicator; To assist in determining appropriate targets for each indicator in which a target was required for the SPP. In addition to the SEAP’s suggestions, ESS requested input from special education administrators through meetings of the regional organizations, small workshops, and large conferences. Finally, ESS created an SPP/APR target workgroup. which was open to all ESS staff members. The ADE/ESS data management coordinator trained data managers and administrators on the data requirements and also requested input for improving the State’s data collection and reporting process. Prepopulated Data Source Date SY 2013-14 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups (EDFacts file spec C089; Data group 613) 7/3/2014 4/17/2015 Description Total number of children with IEPs aged 3 through 5 Data Overwrite Data 15,278 Page 30 of 68 FFY 2013 Part B State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) Source Date Description Data SY 2013-14 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups (EDFacts file spec C089; Data group 613) 7/3/2014 a1. Number of children attending a regular early childhood program and receiving the majority of special education and related services in the regular early childhood program 7,967 SY 2013-14 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups (EDFacts file spec C089; Data group 613) 7/3/2014 b1. Number of children attending separate special education class 6,263 SY 2013-14 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups (EDFacts file spec C089; Data group 613) 7/3/2014 b2. Number of children attending separate school 63 SY 2013-14 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups (EDFacts file spec C089; Data group 613) 7/3/2014 b3. Number of children attending residential facility 0 Overwrite Data FFY 2013 SPP/APR Data Number of children with IEPs aged 3 through 5 attending Total number of children with IEPs aged 3 through 5 FFY 2012 Data* FFY 2013 Target* FFY 2013 Data A. A regular early childhood program and receiving the majority of special education and related services in the regular early childhood program 7,967 15,278 49.80% 50.00% 52.15% B. Separate special education class, separate school or residential facility 6,326 15,278 44.81% 44.80% 41.41% Actions required in FFY 2012 response table None Responses to actions required in FFY 2012 response table 4/17/2015 Page 31 of 68 FFY 2013 Part B State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) Indicator 7: Preschool Outcomes Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE Results indicator: Percent of preschool children aged 3 through 5 with IEPs who demonstrate improved: A. Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships); B. Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/ communication and early literacy); and C. Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs. (20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A)) Historical Data Baseline Year FFY 2005 2006 2007 2008 Target ≥ A1 2009 2010 2011 75.88% 76.38% 81.39% 79.76% 59.30% 59.80% 70.13% 69.98% 68.47% 68.97% 82.02% 72.60% 47.36% 47.86% 69.76% 60.41% 76.95% 77.45% 75.54% 80.16% 57.50% 57.90% 61.85% 69.74% 2012 72.20% 2011 Data 75.88% Target ≥ A2 71.70% 79.90% 58.80% 2011 Data 59.30% Target ≥ B1 58.30% 63.30% 75.00% 2011 Data 68.47% Target ≥ B2 74.50% 79.00% 57.90% 2011 Data 47.36% Target ≥ C1 57.40% 62.00% 71.90% 2011 Data 76.95% Target ≥ C2 71.40% 76.20% 63.20% 2011 Data 57.50% Key: Gray – Data Prior to Baseline 62.70% 67.00% Yellow – Baseline FFY 2013 - FFY 2018 Targets FFY 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Target A1 ≥ 80.00% 80.00% 80.50% 81.00% 81.50% 82.00% Target A2 ≥ 63.30% 63.30% 63.50% 64.00% 64.50% 65.00% Target B1 ≥ 79.00% 79.00% 79.50% 80.00% 80.50% 81.00% Target B2 ≥ 62.00% 62.00% 62.50% 63.00% 63.50% 64.00% Target C1 ≥ 76.20% 76.20% 76.50% 77.00% 77.50% 78.00% Target C2 ≥ 67.00% 67.00% 67.50% 68.00% 68.50% 69.00% Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input As data and other information became available after the close of the 2013–2014 school year, individuals from the ADE/ESS staff reported on student progress to the Special Education Advisory Panel (SEAP). The SEAP members represent a broad range of stakeholders throughout Arizona. Groups represented on the panel include parents of children with disabilities, individuals with disabilities, teachers, early childhood educators, charter schools, school districts, institutions of higher education that prepare special education and related services personnel, secure care facilities, and public agencies. During the SEAP meeting, the ADE/ESS representatives responded to questions and comments from the SEAP members and considered the panel’s advice in determining targets for the future. The specific tasks requested of the SEAP by the ADE/ESS were: To consider baseline and trend data for each indicator; 4/17/2015 Page 32 of 68 FFY 2013 Part B State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) To assist in determining appropriate targets for each indicator in which a target was required for the SPP. In addition to the SEAP’s suggestions, ESS requested input from special education administrators through meetings of the regional organizations, small workshops, and large conferences. Finally, ESS created an SPP/APR target workgroup. which was open to all ESS staff members. The ADE/ESS data management coordinator trained data managers and administrators on the data requirements and also requested input for improving the State’s data collection and reporting process. FFY 2013 SPP/APR Data Number of preschool children aged 3 through 5 with IEPs assessed 3,314 Outcome A: Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships) Number of Children a. Preschool children who did not improve functioning 170 b. Preschool children who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-aged peers 389 c. Preschool children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it 701 d. Preschool children who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers 1,383 e. Preschool children who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers 671 Numerator Denominator FFY 2012 Data* FFY 2013 Target* FFY 2013 Data A1. Of those preschool children who entered or exited the preschool program below age expectations in Outcome A, the percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program. (c+d)/(a+b+c+d) 2,084 2,643 79.90% 80.00% 78.85% A2. The percent of preschool children who were functioning within age expectations in Outcome A by the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program. (d+e)/(a+b+c+d+e) 2,054 3,314 63.30% 63.30% 61.98% Explanation of A1 Slippage In FFY 2013, the percentage of 3–4-year-old students included in the population was 15.8%, while last year, we had 13.3% of preschool students in the 3–4-year-old range. This increase in the number of younger children included in the calculation could have attributed to the slippage in “positive social and emotional skills” area. Explanation of A2 Slippage In FFY 2013, there was a higher percentage of students in the 3–4-year-old range. These students are younger, with less school experience. Another year of exposure to preschool could provide these students with time to catch up and attain developmentally appropriate age-level expectations. Outcome B: Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/communication) Number of Children a. Preschool children who did not improve functioning 192 b. Preschool children who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-aged peers 417 c. Preschool children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it 699 4/17/2015 Page 33 of 68 FFY 2013 Part B State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) Number of Children d. Preschool children who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers 1,392 e. Preschool children who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers 614 Numerator Denominator FFY 2012 Data* FFY 2013 Target* FFY 2013 Data B1. Of those preschool children who entered or exited the preschool program below age expectations in Outcome B, the percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program. (c+d)/(a+b+c+d) 2,091 2,700 79.00% 79.00% 77.44% B2. The percent of preschool children who were functioning within age expectations in Outcome B by the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program. (d+e)/(a+b+c+d+e) 2,006 3,314 62.00% 62.00% 60.53% Explanation of B1 Slippage When considering the area of Acquiring and Using Knowledge and Skills, ADE/ESS saw a large increase in returning teachers’ receiving the “Inter-rater Reliability” certification offered through Teaching Strategies GOLD. As teachers became more reliable observers, they had a better understanding of what types of behaviors to look for to indicate student learning. This focus on the reliability and integrity of data may have led to a slight slippage in the percentage of growth as adjustments in teachers’ understandings were being made. Explanation of B2 Slippage When considering the area of Acquiring and Using Knowledge and Skills, ADE/ESS saw a large increase in returning teachers’ receiving the “Inter-rater Reliability” certification offered through Teaching Strategies GOLD. As teachers became more reliable observers, they had a better understanding of what types of behaviors to look for to indicate student learning. This focus on the reliability and integrity of data may have led to a slight slippage in the percentage of growth as adjustments in teachers’ understandings were being made . Outcome C: Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs Number of Children a. Preschool children who did not improve functioning 191 b. Preschool children who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-aged peers 375 c. Preschool children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it 623 d. Preschool children who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers 1,410 e. Preschool children who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers 715 Numerator Denominator FFY 2012 Data* FFY 2013 Target* FFY 2013 Data C1. Of those preschool children who entered or exited the preschool program below age expectations in Outcome C, the percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program. (c+d)/(a+b+c+d) 2,033 2,599 76.20% 76.20% 78.22% C2. The percent of preschool children who were functioning within age expectations in Outcome C by the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program. (d+e)/(a+b+c+d+e) 2,125 3,314 67.00% 67.00% 64.12% Explanation of C2 Slippage Although there were gains in the number of children who had substantial growth in taking appropriate action to meet their needs, there was slippage in age-level expectations in this area. We found a combination of factors to be contributors; 4/17/2015 Page 34 of 68 FFY 2013 Part B State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) teachers’ having a higher level of training in their ability to recognize children’s actions necessary to meet their needs at each developmental level and having a higher number of 3-year-old students in our program led to slippage in this area. Was sampling used? No Did you use the Early Childhood Outcomes Center (ECO) Child Outcomes Summary Form (COSF)? No Provide the criteria for defining “comparable to same-aged peers” and list the instruments and procedures used to gather data for this indicator. Arizona uses the “Widely Held Expectations” report contained in Teaching Strategies GOLD. This instrument uses a uniform scale that presents scores for each area of development and learning. Using these scaled scores enables teachers to compare groups of children’s scores across areas to determine which areas need additional attention and allows them to better understand each child as a whole. Specifically, the Widely Held Expectations tool assesses children in the areas of socialemotional, physical, language, cognitive, literacy, and mathematics as they relate to the requisite OSEP indicators. Expectations are defined as age ranges for children’s development and learning. While typical progressions are presented for most objectives, they are not rigid requirements, and a range of scores exists for each area and age group. Actions required in FFY 2012 response table The State must report progress data and actual target data for FFY 2013 in the FFY 2013 APR. Responses to actions required in FFY 2012 response table In the FFY 2013 APR for indicator 7, Arizona reported on progress data and actual target data for FFY 2013. 4/17/2015 Page 35 of 68 FFY 2013 Part B State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) Indicator 8: Parent involvement Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE Results indicator: Percent of parents with a child receiving special education services who report that schools facilitated parent involvement as a means of improving services and results for children with disabilities. (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A)) Do you use a separate data collection methodology for preschool children? No Historical Data Baseline Data: 2005 FFY 2005 Target ≥ Data 44.90% 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 45.00% 46.00% 47.00% 48.00% 50.00% 60.00% 65.00% 48.20% 90.00% 88.00% 85.00% 57.00% 60.40% 55.00% Key: Gray – Data Prior to Baseline Yellow – Baseline FFY 2013 - FFY 2018 Targets FFY Target ≥ 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 55.00% 57.00% 59.00% 61.00% 63.00% 65.00% Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input As data and other information became available after the close of the 2013–2014 school year, individuals from the ADE/ESS staff reported on parent involvement to the Special Education Advisory Panel (SEAP), Arizona’s policy advisory group. The SEAP is composed of a broad range of stakeholders throughout Arizona. Group members represented on the panel include parents of children with disabilities, individuals with disabilities, teachers, early childhood educators, and representatives from charter schools, school districts, institutions of higher education that prepare special education and related services personnel, secure care facilities, and public agencies. During the SEAP meeting, the ADE/ESS personnel responded to questions and comments from the SEAP members and considered the panel’s advice in determining targets for the SPP. The specific tasks requested of the SEAP by the ADE/ESS were: To consider baseline and trend data for each indicator; To assist in determining appropriate targets for each indicator in which a target was required for the SPP; In addition to the SEAP suggestions, ESS requested input from special education administrators through meetings of the regional organizations, small workshops, and large conferences. Finally, ESS created an SPP/APR target workgroup that was open to all ESS staff members. The ADE/ESS data management coordinator trained data managers and administrators on the data requirements and also requested input for improving the State’s data collection and reporting process. FFY 2013 SPP/APR Data Number of respondent parents who report schools facilitated parent involvement as a means of improving services and results for children with disabilities Total number of respondent parents of children with disabilities FFY 2012 Data* FFY 2013 Target* FFY 2013 Data 2,537 4,214 55.00% 55.00% 60.20% Since the State did not report preschool children separately, discuss the procedures used to combine data from school 4/17/2015 Page 36 of 68 FFY 2013 Part B State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) age and preschool surveys in a manner that is valid and reliable. Every parent who has a child with an individualized education program (IEP) within the cohort of sampled PEAs has an opportunity to complete the survey using either the Web-based data collection system or a mailed-in paper response. Thus, within the cohort, a census of parents has the opportunity to complete the survey. Describe how the State has ensured that any response data are valid and reliable, including how the data represent the demographics of the State. Valid and Reliable Data Arizona ensures that the data are valid and reliable by offering extensive, ongoing technical assistance to PEAs. Initial survey instructions detail the steps that PEAs must follow to distribute survey instructions and confidential user codes/passwords to all parents who have a child with a disability. PEAs are given surplus user codes/passwords to have ready for the parents of transfer students. PEAs also receive guidance on how to maximize their parental response and involvement rates. Table 8.1 Comparison of Parent Responses by Race / Ethnicity to State Special Education Population Number of Responses Percentage of Responses Number of Special Education Population (Child Count) Percentage of Special Education Population (Child Count) 1,367 32.43 55,013 42.38% 296 7.02% 8,244 6.35 Asian 71 1.68% 1,813 1.40% Black or African-American 188 4.46% 8,232 6.34% 31 0.74% 282 0.22% White 1,917 45.48% 52,295 40.29% Two or More Races 272 6.45% 3,922 3.02% Total 4,214 Race/Ethnicity of Child of Parent Respondent Hispanic/Latino of Any Race American Indian or Alaska Native Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 129,801 Note: 72 respondents did not indicate the race/ethnicity of their child. Table 8.1 shows that the response rate by race/ethnicity is in alignment with the race/ethnicity of children in special education in Arizona for American Indian/Alaskan Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and White racial/ethnic populations. The response rates for Black/African-American (4.46%) and Hispanic parents (32.43%) are lower than the State special education population data rates of 6.34% and 42.38%, respectively. It is possible that the responses in the multi-racial category (which were self-reported as to race/ethnicity) and the responses that did not indicate ethnicity (which combined would account for 8.16% of the responses) may have been reported differently when other data-collection methods were used. Some of these variances in responses by race/ethnicity may be affecting the percentage of Black/African-American and Hispanic/Latino participation. It should be noted that the percentage of respondents who selected the two or more races is significantly higher than the State race/ethnicity statistics for that group. Table 8.2 Comparison of Parent Responses by Child Age Group to State Special Education Population 4/17/2015 Page 37 of 68 FFY 2013 Part B State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) Child Age Group Number of Responses Percentage of Responses Number of Special Education Population (Child Count) Percentage of Special Education Population (Child Count) Ages 3–5 535 12.7 % 15,278 11.77% Ages 6–13 2,276 54.01 % 75,357 58.06% Ages 14–22 1,230 29.19 % 39,166 30.17% Total 4,214 129,801 Note: 173 respondents (4.11%) did not indicate the age of their child. Table 8.2 shows the response rate is in alignment with the age group statistics for parents of children ages 3–5 and 14–22. The response rate is slightly lower than the age group statistics for parents of children aged 6–13. As indicated below, the data accurately represent the demographics of the State. Was sampling used? Yes Has your previously-approved sampling plan changed? No Was a collection tool used? Yes Is it a new or revised collection tool? No Yes, the data accurately represent the demographics of the State No, the data does not accurately represent the demographics of the State Describe the sampling methodology outlining how the design will yield valid and reliable estimates. Data Source The data are taken from the Arizona Parent Involvement Survey. Arizona uses a 25-question parent survey developed by the National Center for Special Education Accountability Monitoring (NCSEAM). The survey is the same survey as the one that has been used in past years and has not been revised. Data Description The Arizona Parent Involvement Survey uses a Web-based data collection system to collect confidential demographic information and parental responses to the 25-question NCSEAM rating scale. A paper version of the survey is available in English and Spanish and in a large font in both languages. Parents complete the demographic data and the 25 survey items. The data from the surveys are analyzed using WINSTEPS statistical software. Following NCSEAM guidelines, a threshold score of 600 has been established for a positive response to the item, “The school explains what options parents have if they disagree with a decision of the school.” The instrument measure implies that agreement with this threshold item indicates a high likelihood of agreement with items located “under” it on the scale. A score of 600 is required for any parent’s survey response to be considered positive. Sampling Procedures Each school year a new cohort of PEAs is selected to administer the survey. The cohort is composed of PEAs: a) b) in the assigned year of the ESS monitoring cycle, or with a total student population of 50,000 or greater. Every parent who has a child with an individualized education program (IEP) attending these PEAs has an opportunity to complete the survey using either the Web-based data collection system or a mail-in paper response. Thus, within the cohort, a census of parents has the opportunity to complete the survey. The ADE/ESS ensures all newly opened PEAs (typically, charter schools) are included in a cohort and administer the parent survey during that cohort year. The use of these procedures allows the State to meet the requirement to report on each PEA at least once during the SPP cycle. 4/17/2015 Page 38 of 68 FFY 2013 Part B State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) A Actions required in FFY 2012 response table None Responses to actions required in FFY 2012 response table 4/17/2015 Page 39 of 68 FFY 2013 Part B State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) Indicator 9: Disproportionate Representations Monitoring Priority: Disproportionate Representations Compliance indicator: Percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services that is the result of inappropriate identification. (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(C)) Historical Data Baseline Data: 2005 FFY 2005 Target Data 0% 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Key: Gray – Data Prior to Baseline Yellow – Baseline FFY 2013 - FFY 2018 Targets FFY Target 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% FFY 2013 SPP/APR Data Please indicate the type of denominator provided Number of districts in the State Number of districts that met the State’s minimum n-size Number of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services Number of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services that is the result of inappropriate identification Number of districts in the State FFY 2012 Data* FFY 2013 Target* FFY 2013 Data 0 0 613 0% 0% 0% All races and ethnicities were included in the review Define “disproportionate representation” and describe the method(s) used to calculate disproportionate representation Definition of Disproportionate Representation Minimum n Size Minimum n Size Disproportionate Representation Weighted Risk Ratio Target Racial/Ethnic Group Racial / Ethnic Groups in Special Education and Related Services Over representation ≥ 3.00 30 30 Methodology 4/17/2015 Page 40 of 68 FFY 2013 Part B State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) The data were analyzed using Statistical Analysis Software (SAS) to produce a weighted risk ratio (WRR) that identified all racial/ethnic groups for all PEAs in the State. Data for over representation were examined. PEAs with a cell size of 30 or more students in the target racial/ethnic group and in the other racial/ethnic groups and that met the weighted risk ratio criteria for over representation were flagged for a review of policies, procedures, and practices by the State. PEAs with a lower cell size in the target groups were not flagged because false positives were identified as a function of the small number rather than as a result of noncompliant policies, procedures, and practices. Arizona included the total number of PEAs in the State (613) in the denominator. Of the 613 PEAs, 12 were eliminated from the analyses because a weighted risk ratio could not be calculated for any racial/ethnic group. Provide additional information about this indicator (optional) Arizona’s Procedures to Determine if Disproportionate Representation Is the Result of Inappropriate Identification Arizona ensures that PEAs’ policies, procedures, and practices are reviewed as required by 34 CFR §§ 300.173, 300.600(d)(3), and 300.602(a). The data are analyzed annually and PEAs may be flagged each year for over representation, according to the State’s definition. When a PEA is flagged, then the policies, procedures, and practices of the PEA are reviewed annually to determine if the disproportionate representation is the result of inappropriate identification. Arizona’s Review of PEAs’ Policies and Procedures On an annual basis, Arizona requires all PEAs to have special education policies and procedures in compliance with the requirements of 34 CFR § 300.111, § 300.201, and § 300.301 through § 300.311 prior to having Part B-IDEA Basic Entitlement Grant funds approved by the ADE/ESS. Each year, if the PEA makes any changes to the policies and procedures, the PEA must resubmit them to the State for review and acceptance. Each year, if the PEA does not make any changes to the policies and procedures, the PEA must submit a Statement of Assurance that says: “ The PEA has not altered or modified the policies and procedures implementing the State and Federal requirements for services to children with disabilities previously submitted to and accepted by the Arizona Department of Education, Exceptional Student Services. If the PEA proposes to alter or modify the policies and procedures previously submitted to the Exceptional Student Services, the PEA must resubmit the policies and procedures to the Exceptional Student Services for review and acceptance.” In addition, the PEAs that are flagged for disproportionate representation must submit their policies and procedures related to child find, evaluation, and eligibility to an ADE/ESS specialist for review. Arizona’s Review of PEAs’ Practices On an annual basis, Arizona calculates the WRR for each PEA and uses the data as a trigger to flag PEAs with disproportionate representation. If a PEA is flagged, then an investigation of the practices is required to determine whether the disproportionate representation is a result of inappropriate identification. Review of practices when a PEA is flagged for over representation the first year: The ESS specialist reviews current monitoring data, if applicable. The PEA conducts a self assessment of the agency’s child find, evaluation, and eligibility practices to determine whether the disproportionate representation is a result of inappropriate identification. The self assessment consists of a series of questions requiring narrative responses and a review of student files using the State’s monitoring forms. The ADE/ESS specialists conduct on-site visits and/or desk audits during the self assessments to validate the decisions made by the PEAs during the file reviews. Upon completion of the self assessments, the PEAs have the option to begin immediately revising their policies, procedures, and practices related to child find, evaluation, and eligibility and to correct any noncompliance. No more than 60 days after completion of the self assessment, the ESS specialists then interview the special education administrators and review student files via on-site visits and/or desk audits to verify correction of instances of any noncompliance, including child specific, and to ensure that regulatory requirements are being implemented based on subsequent file reviews of updated data. 4/17/2015 Page 41 of 68 FFY 2013 Part B State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) Review of practices when a PEA is flagged for over representation for two or more consecutive years: If the PEA did not have disproportionate representation as a result of inappropriate identification the first year, then the ESS program specialist: o Reviews current monitoring data, if applicable, and; o Validates the prior year’s self assessment by reviewing a sample of student files. If the PEA had disproportionate representation as a result of inappropriate identification the first year, then the PEA is required to: o Review current monitoring data, if applicable; o Review the prior year’s self assessment and describe the issues identified; o Describe the steps taken to resolve those issues; o Describe any current concerns regarding possible inappropriate identification; o Describe the resources and technical assistance used to help address the issues related to disproportionate representation within the agency; and o Review individual student files using the State’s monitoring forms: The ADE/ESS specialists conduct on-site visits and/or desk audits during the file reviews to validate the decisions made by the PEAs. The ESS specialists verify correction of instances of any noncompliance, including child specific, through on-site visits and/or desk audits. The ESS specialists ensure that regulatory requirements are being implemented based on subsequent file reviews of updated data. When Arizona makes findings of noncompliance as a result of the review of policies, practices and procedures, the PEA has one year from the date of written notification from the State to correct the noncompliance. Actions required in FFY 2012 response table None Responses to actions required in FFY 2012 response table, not including correction of findings 4/17/2015 Page 42 of 68 FFY 2013 Part B State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified in FFY 2012 Findings of Noncompliance Identified Findings of Noncompliance Verified as Corrected Within One Year Findings of Noncompliance Subsequently Corrected Findings Not Yet Verified as Corrected 0 0 0 0 4/17/2015 Page 43 of 68 FFY 2013 Part B State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) Indicator 10: Disproportionate Representations in Specific Disability Categories Monitoring Priority: Disproportionate Representations Compliance indicator: Percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories that is the result of inappropriate identification. (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(C)) Historical Data Baseline Data: 2005 FFY 2005 Target Data 3.80% 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2.40% 0.35% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Key: Gray – Data Prior to Baseline Yellow – Baseline FFY 2013 - FFY 2018 Targets FFY Target 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% FFY 2013 SPP/APR Data Please indicate the type of denominator provided Number of districts in the State Number of districts that met the State’s minimum n-size Number of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories Number of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories that is the result of inappropriate identification Number of districts in the State FFY 2012 Data* FFY 2013 Target* FFY 2013 Data 3 0 613 0% 0% 0% All races and ethnicities were included in the review Define “disproportionate representation” and describe the method(s) used to calculate disproportionate representation Definition of Disproportionate Representation Minimum n Size Minimum n Size Disproportionate Representation Weighted Risk Ratio Target Racial / Ethnic Group Racial / Ethnic Groups in Special Education and Related Services Over representation ≥ 3.00 30 30 Methodology The data were analyzed using Statistical Analysis Software (SAS) to produce a weighted risk ratio (WRR) that identified all racial/ethnic groups and six disability categories for all PEAs in the State. Data for over representation were examined. PEAs with a cell size of 30 or more students in the target racial/ethnic group and in the other racial/ethnic groups and meeting the 4/17/2015 Page 44 of 68 FFY 2013 Part B State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) weighted risk ratio criteria for over representation were flagged for a review of policies, procedures, and practices by the State. PEAs with a lower cell size in the target groups were not flagged because false positives were identified as a function of the small number rather than as a result of noncompliant policies, procedures, and practices. Arizona included the total number of PEAs in the State (613) in the denominator. Of the 613 PEAs, 12 were eliminated from the analyses because a weighted risk ratio could not be calculated for any racial/ethnic group. Provide additional information about this indicator (optional) Arizona’s Procedures to Determine if Disproportionate Representation Is the Result of Inappropriate Identification Arizona ensures that PEAs’ policies, procedures, and practices are reviewed as required by 34 CFR §§ 300.173, 300.600(d)(3), and 300.602(a). The data are analyzed annually and PEAs may be flagged each year for over representation, according to the State’s definition. When a PEA is flagged, then the policies, procedures, and practices of the PEA are reviewed annually to determine if the disproportionate representation is the result of inappropriate identification. Arizona’s Review of PEAs’ Policies and Procedures On an annual basis, Arizona requires all PEAs to have special education policies and procedures in compliance with the requirements of 34 CFR § 300.111, § 300.201, and § 300.301 through § 300.311 prior to having Part B-IDEA Basic Entitlement Grant funds approved by the ADE/ESS. Each year, if the PEA makes any changes to the policies and procedures, the PEA must resubmit them to the State for review and acceptance. Each year, if the PEA does not make any changes to the policies and procedures, the PEA must submit a Statement of Assurance that says: “ The PEA has not altered or modified the policies and procedures implementing the State and Federal requirements for services to children with disabilities previously submitted to and accepted by the Arizona Department of Education, Exceptional Student Services. If the PEA proposes to alter or modify the policies and procedures previously submitted to the Exceptional Student Services, the PEA must resubmit the policies and procedures to the Exceptional Student Services for review and acceptance.” In addition, the PEAs that are flagged for disproportionate representation must submit their policies and procedures related to child find, evaluation, and eligibility to an ADE/ESS specialist for review. Arizona’s Review of PEAs’ Practices On an annual basis, Arizona calculates the WRR for each PEA and uses the data as a trigger to flag PEAs with disproportionate representation. If a PEA is flagged, then an investigation of the practices is required to determine whether the disproportionate representation is a result of inappropriate identification. Review of practices when a PEA is flagged for over representation the first year: The ESS specialist reviews current monitoring data, if applicable. The PEA conducts a self assessment of the agency’s child find, evaluation, and eligibility practices to determine whether the disproportionate representation is a result of inappropriate identification. The self assessment consists of a series of questions requiring narrative responses and a review of student files using the State’s monitoring forms. The ADE/ESS specialists conduct on-site visits and/or desk audits during the self assessments to validate the decisions made by the PEAs during the file reviews. Upon completion of the self assessments, the PEAs have the option to begin immediately revising their policies, procedures, and practices related to child find, evaluation, and eligibility and to correct any noncompliance. No more than 60 days after completion of the self assessment, the ESS specialists then interview the special education administrators and review student files via on-site visits and/or desk audits to verify correction of instances of any noncompliance, including child specific, and to ensure that regulatory requirements are being implemented based on subsequent file reviews of updated data. Review of practices when a PEA is flagged for over representation for two or more consecutive years: 4/17/2015 Page 45 of 68 FFY 2013 Part B State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) If the PEA did not have disproportionate representation as a result of inappropriate identification the first year, then the ESS program specialist: o Reviews current monitoring data, if applicable, and; o Validates the prior year’s self assessment by reviewing a sample of student files. If the PEA had disproportionate representation as a result of inappropriate identification the first year, then the PEA is required to: o Review current monitoring data, if applicable; o Review the prior year’s self assessment and describe the issues identified; o Describe the steps taken to resolve those issues; o Describe any current concerns regarding possible inappropriate identification; o Describe the resources and technical assistance used to help address the issues related to disproportionate representation within the agency; and o Review individual student files using the State’s monitoring forms: The ADE/ESS specialists conduct on-site visits and/or desk audits during the file reviews to validate the decisions made by the PEAs. The ESS specialists verify correction of instances of any noncompliance, including child specific, through on-site visits and/or desk audits. The ESS specialists ensure that regulatory requirements are being implemented based on subsequent file reviews of updated data. When Arizona makes findings of noncompliance as a result of the review of policies, practices and procedures, the PEA has one year from the date of written notification from the State to correct the noncompliance. Actions required in FFY 2012 response table None Responses to actions required in FFY 2012 response table, not including correction of findings Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified in FFY 2012 Findings of Noncompliance Identified Findings of Noncompliance Verified as Corrected Within One Year Findings of Noncompliance Subsequently Corrected Findings Not Yet Verified as Corrected 0 0 0 0 4/17/2015 Page 46 of 68 FFY 2013 Part B State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) Indicator 11: Child Find Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B / Child Find Compliance indicator: Percent of children who were evaluated within 60 days of receiving parental consent for initial evaluation or, if the State establishes a timeframe within which the evaluation must be conducted, within that timeframe. (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B)) Historical Data Baseline Data: 2005 FFY 2005 Target Data 86.00% 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 84.00% 89.00% 92.00% 96.00% 97.00% 97.00% 97.00% Key: Gray – Data Prior to Baseline Yellow – Baseline FFY 2013 - FFY 2018 Targets FFY Target 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% FFY 2013 SPP/APR Data (a) Number of children for whom parental consent to evaluate was received (b) Number of children whose evaluations were completed within 60 days (or Stateestablished timeline) FFY 2012 Data* FFY 2013 Target* FFY 2013 Data 626 615 97.00% 100% 98.24% Number of children included in (a), but not included in (b) [a-b] 11 Account for children included in (a) but not included in (b). Indicate the range of days beyond the timeline when the evaluation was completed and any reasons for the delays. FFY 2013 Noncompliance Number of findings by incidence of noncompliance Number of findings by incidence corrected prior to one-year timeline as of 1/16/15 11 11 Arizona made 11 findings of noncompliance in FFY 2013. Although the PEAs have one year to correct the noncompliance, all 11 findings have been corrected as of January 16, 2015. Range of Days Beyond the Timeline and Reasons for the Delays Table 11.1 Range of Days Beyond Timeline Range of days Mean 4/17/2015 1–30 9 Page 47 of 68 FFY 2013 Part B State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) Median 8 Mode 3 The 30 days beyond the 60-day timeline occurred at a charter school that was unaware that breaks in the school calendar are still considered in the timeline. The evaluation was completed, although it was past the timeline. The ADE/ESS specialist verified the correction of the child specific noncompliance and verified that a new strategy was developed to ensure compliance with the 60-day evaluation timelines. During follow-up visits to ensure sustainability, the ESS specialist verified that new evaluations are being done within the timeline. Table 11.2 Reasons Given for Delays Unavailability of required personnel (parent, general education teacher, etc.) 1 Miscalculation of 60-day timeline 3 Lack of an adequate timeline tracking system 2 Unavailability of student (absences, illness, etc.) 4 Interruption in school calendar 1 Indicate the evaluation timeline used The State used the 60 day timeframe within which the evaluation must be conducted. The State established a timeline within which the evaluation must be conducted. What is the source of the data provided for this indicator? State monitoring State database that includes data for the entire reporting year Describe the method used to collect these data, and if data are from the State’s monitoring, describe the procedures used to collect these data. Data Source The data for Indicator 11 are from the Arizona monitoring system. A public education agency (PEA) is selected for monitoring each fiscal year based on the results of a review of the agency’s data, including data from the SPP/APR, dispute resolution results, audit findings, and annual determinations. While Arizona has maintained a six-year monitoring cycle with assigned activities always occurring in Year 4, a PEA’s monitoring schedule can be adjusted and Year 4 monitoring activities can occur when the data reviews indicate systemic issues. Data Collection Data are collected from the PEAs during one of three types of monitorings: Data Review — PEAs review student files focusing on Indicator 11. The ADE/ESS specialist validates the compliance calls. The student file forms are submitted to ESS for data entry. Self-Assessment — PEAs review student files and collect data for Indicator 11. The PEAs also focus on identified SPP/APR Indicators in which agency results have not met the State target. The ADE/ESS specialist validates the compliance calls. The student file forms are submitted to ESS for data entry. On-Site — PEAs and the ADE/ESS team review student files, collect data through surveys and interviews, and collect data for Indicator 11. The ADE/ESS staff input data. 4/17/2015 Page 48 of 68 FFY 2013 Part B State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) The data that Arizona collects and reports for this Indicator include all children whose permissions to evaluate were received during FFY 2013 and for whom initial evaluations including eligibility determinations were completed during either FFY 2013 or FFY 2014. Valid and Reliable Data The ADE/ESS assures the validity and reliability of the data as it is collected, maintained, and reported through the State monitoring system. Training is provided to all ESS program specialists who monitor to ensure interrater reliability on compliance calls that are based on regulatory requirements. The ADE/ESS staff conduct trainings for PEA staff who will participate in monitorings. The ESS specialists validate and verify the data through on-site visits or desk audits. Evaluation Timeline Arizona has established a 60-day timeline for initial evaluations. The Arizona Administrative Code (A.A.C.) R7-2-401 (E)(3) states that the initial evaluation shall not exceed 60 calendar days from receipt of informed written consent. However, the 60-day evaluation period may be extended for an additional 30 days if it is in the best interests of the child and the parents and the public education agency agree in writing to do so (A.A.C. R7-2-401 (E)(4)). Definition of Finding for Monitoring for FFY 2013 During FFY 2013, a finding for Indicator 11 was issued when the line item for the evaluation timeline was found to be noncompliant. The finding was a written notification to the PEA by the State that the line item was noncompliant, and the finding included a description of a Federal or State statute or regulation. The source of information on which to base a finding of noncompliance was an individual student file. Actions required in FFY 2012 response table None Responses to actions required in FFY 2012 response table, not including correction of findings Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified in FFY 2012 Findings of Noncompliance Identified Findings of Noncompliance Verified as Corrected Within One Year Findings of Noncompliance Subsequently Corrected Findings Not Yet Verified as Corrected 25 25 0 0 FFY 2012 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as Corrected Describe how the State verified that each LEA with noncompliance is correctly implementing the regulatory requirements The ADE/ESS specialists reviewed the child specific files from the monitorings to determine that the PEAs completed the evaluation for any child whose initial evaluation was not timely, unless the child was no longer within the PEA. The ESS specialists reviewed updated data from subsequent files during follow-up visits to determine that the PEAs were correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirements (i.e., achieved 100% compliance) related to the evaluation process in conformity with 34 CFR § 300.301 (c) (1). Describe how the State verified that each LEA corrected each individual case of noncompliance The specific methods Arizona used to verify that PEAs corrected all instances of noncompliance, including child specific noncompliance, and were correctly implementing the regulatory requirements, based on subsequent file reviews of updated data: · 4/17/2015 ADE/ESS specialists conducted follow-up on-site visits and/or desk audits after the monitoring to verify correction of all instances of noncompliance, including those that were child specific. The specialists reviewed the child specific files to determine that the evaluation was completed within 60 calendar days from the date of written notification of Page 49 of 68 FFY 2013 Part B State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) noncompliance. · 4/17/2015 ADE/ESS specialists reviewed updated data from subsequent files and/or conducted interviews with the special education administrators during follow-up visits and/or desk audits to determine if all instances of noncompliance, including those that were child specific, were corrected and to ensure ongoing sustainability of the implementation of the regulatory requirements regarding initial evaluations. Page 50 of 68 FFY 2013 Part B State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) Indicator 12: Early Childhood Transition Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B / Effective Transition Compliance indicator: Percent of children referred by Part C prior to age 3, who are found eligible for Part B, and who have an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthdays. (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B)) Historical Data Baseline Data: 2005 FFY 2005 Target Data 63.61% 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 82.40% 98.00% 93.00% 98.00% 99.00% 99.00% 99.00% Key: Gray – Data Prior to Baseline Yellow – Baseline FFY 2013 - FFY 2018 Targets FFY Target 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% FFY 2013 SPP/APR Data a. Number of children who have been served in Part C and referred to Part B for Part B eligibility determination. 2,422 b. Number of those referred determined to be NOT eligible and whose eligibility was determined prior to third birthday. 333 c. Number of those found eligible who have an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthdays. 1,987 d. Number for whom parent refusals to provide consent caused delays in evaluation or initial services or to whom exceptions under 34 CFR §300.301(d) applied. 59 e. Number of children who were referred to Part C less than 90 days before their third birthdays. 26 Percent of children referred by Part C prior to age 3 who are found eligible for Part B, and who have an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthdays. [c/(a-b-d-e)]x100 Numerator (c) Denominator (a-b-d-e) FFY 2012 Data* FFY 2013 Target* FFY 2013 Data 1,987 2,004 99.00% 100% 99.15% Number of children who have been served in Part C and referred to Part B for eligibility determination that are not included in b, c, d, e 17 Account for children included in (a), but not included in b, c, d, or e. Indicate the range of days beyond the third birthday when eligibility was determined and the IEP developed, and the reasons for the delays. Account for Children Included in a, but not in b, c, d, or e — Reasons for Delays Late referrals from Part C 11 Failed hearing or vision screening 2 4/17/2015 Page 51 of 68 FFY 2013 Part B State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) Shortage of personnel 2 Interruption of school schedule 2 Total 17 Each year since FFY 2009, the number of children not transitioned on time due to late referrals from Part C has decreased. Currently, in FFY 2013, 11 children were not transitioned on time due to late referrals from Arizona Early Intervention Program (AzEIP) as compared with 9 in FFY 2012, 12 in FFY 2011, 21 in FFY 2010, and 39 children in FFY 2009. Although there was a slight increase in late referrals from FFY 2012 to FFY 2013, it is still an improvement from previous years. In previous years, school districts were asked to submit an alert to the ADE/ECSE any time they received a late referral from AzEIP that was not in category d (parent refusals to provide consent caused delays in evaluation or initial services) or category e (children who were referred to Part C less than 90 days before their third birthdays). This process is currently being re-evaluated for its effectiveness and efficiency. Additionally, each late referral from AzEIP to a district is reported to the State AzEIP office. The State AzEIP office provides technical assistance and follow-up to the local service-providing agency. Similarly, if a local service-providing agency is reporting difficulty with a school district, the local agency issues an alert to the State AzEIP office. The ADE/ECSE provides technical assistance and follow-up to the school district. The ADE/ECSE and AzEIP are currently working on developing a protocol for quicker notification of any ongoing issues so resolution can be reached more quickly and changes made earlier in the year. Challenges with the completion of hearing and vision screenings and the resulting follow-ups are an inherent part of evaluating young children, which at times causes delays in transition. Arizona has worked diligently to provide resources and facilitate collaborative efforts between Head Start organizations, school districts, and Part C agencies. This has helped Part C service coordinators encourage families to have regular hearing screenings. Range of Days beyond Third Birthday Range of days 1-270 The 270 days beyond the child’s third birthday was due to a late referral from Part C. What is the source of the data provided for this indicator? State monitoring State database that includes data for the entire reporting year Describe the method used to collect these data, and if data are from the State’s monitoring, describe the procedures used to collect these data. Data Source The data for Indicator 12 are reported annually by all public education agencies (PEAs) in Arizona that have children who transition from Part C to Part B. Data are included for the entire reporting year, from July 1, 2013, through June 30, 2014. Data Collection The data are collected through the Annual Special Education Data Collection, an Arizona Department of Education (ADE) Web-based data collection system. Valid and Reliable Data 4/17/2015 Page 52 of 68 FFY 2013 Part B State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) The Arizona Department of Education (ADE)/Early Childhood Special Education (ECSE) unit assures the validity and reliability of the data as it is collected, maintained, and reported through internal edit checks. Training is provided to school personnel by the ESS Data Management Unit regarding the operation of the data system and interpretation of the questions that are components of the measurement. The State requires an assurance from the PEAs through the submission of a signed form attesting to the validity of the data. Random verification checks require that a selected district submit a copy of the front page of the IEP that shows the date of the IEP and the child’s birthday for children that transitioned from early intervention service or a Prior Written Notice (PWN) of children found ineligible by the child’s third birthday. Definition of Finding A finding of noncompliance for Indicator 12 is defined as the number of PEAs with noncompliance. The finding of noncompliance is a written notification to the PEA by the State that the PEA is noncompliant. FFY 2013 Noncompliance # findings of noncompliance # of findings corrected prior to one-year timeline as of 1/15/15 7 7 Arizona made 7 findings of noncompliance in FFY 2013. Although the PEAs have one year to correct the noncompliance, all 7 findings have been corrected as of January 16, 2015. Actions required in FFY 2012 response table None Responses to actions required in FFY 2012 response table, not including correction of findings Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified in FFY 2012 Findings of Noncompliance Identified Findings of Noncompliance Verified as Corrected Within One Year Findings of Noncompliance Subsequently Corrected Findings Not Yet Verified as Corrected 9 9 0 0 FFY 2012 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as Corrected Describe how the State verified that each LEA with noncompliance is correctly implementing the regulatory requirements As specified in OSEP’s June 2014 FFY 2012 SPP/APR Response Table, Arizona verified that each PEA with noncompliance reflected in the data: 1) is correctly implementing 34 CFR § 300.124 (b) (i.e., achieved 100% compliance) based on a review of updated data, such as data subsequently collected through on-site monitoring; and 2) has corrected each individual case of noncompliance, unless the child is no longer within the jurisdiction of the local education agency (LEA), consistent with OSEP Memorandum 09-02, dated October 17, 2008. Describe how the State verified that each LEA corrected each individual case of noncompliance The specific methods Arizona used to verify that PEAs corrected all instances of noncompliance, including child-specific noncompliance, and were correctly implementing the regulatory requirements, based on subsequent file reviews of updated data include the following actions: The ADE/ECSE specialists reviewed the written process and procedures for the PEAs’ early intervention transitions, including those that were collaboratively developed and agreed upon with AzEIP service coordinators. 4/17/2015 Page 53 of 68 FFY 2013 Part B State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) The ADE/ECSE specialists reviewed student data during subsequent visits and/or desk audits of updated data to determine if the PEAs corrected all instances of noncompliance, including child specific instances, and to ensure ongoing sustainability with the implementation of the regulatory requirements. 4/17/2015 Page 54 of 68 FFY 2013 Part B State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) Indicator 13: Secondary Transition Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B / Effective Transition Compliance indicator: Percent of youth with IEPs aged 16 and above with an IEP that includes appropriate measurable postsecondary goals that are annually updated and based upon an age appropriate transition assessment, transition services, including courses of study, that will reasonably enable the student to meet those postsecondary goals, and annual IEP goals related to the student’s transition services needs. There also must be evidence that the student was invited to the IEP Team meeting where transition services are to be discussed and evidence that, if appropriate, a representative of any participating agency was invited to the IEP Team meeting with the prior consent of the parent or student who has reached the age of majority. (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B)) Historical Data Baseline Data: 2009 FFY 2005 Target 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 90.00% 89.20% 78.00% 80.00% Data Key: Gray – Data Prior to Baseline Yellow – Baseline FFY 2013 - FFY 2018 Targets FFY Target 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% FFY 2013 SPP/APR Data Number of youth aged 16 and above with IEPs that contain each of the required components for secondary transition Number of youth with IEPs aged 16 and above FFY 2012 Data* FFY 2013 Target* FFY 2013 Data 401 448 80.00% 100% 89.51% What is the source of the data provided for this indicator? State monitoring State database that includes data for the entire reporting year Describe the method used to collect these data, and if data are from the State’s monitoring, describe the procedures used to collect these data. FFY 2013 Findings of Noncompliance Number of findings by incidence of noncompliance Number of findings by incidence corrected prior to one-year timeline as of 4/9/15 47 47 Arizona made 47 findings of noncompliance in FFY 2013. Although the PEAs have one year to correct the noncompliance, all 47 findings have been corrected as of April 9, 2015. Data Source 4/17/2015 Page 55 of 68 FFY 2013 Part B State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) The data for Indicator 13 are from the Arizona monitoring system. A public education agency (PEA) is selected for monitoring each fiscal year based on the results of a review of the agency’s data, including data from the SPP/APR, dispute resolution results, audit findings, and annual determinations. While Arizona has maintained a six-year monitoring cycle with assigned activities always occurring in Year 4, a PEA’s monitoring schedule can be adjusted and Year 4 monitoring activities can occur when the data reviews indicate systemic issues. The National Secondary Transition Technical Assistance Center (NSTTAC) Indicator 13 Checklist was used as a guide for the eight components that comprise the monitoring line item from which the data are pulled. The eight components are: Measurable post-secondary goals Postsecondary goals updated annually Postsecondary goals based upon age-appropriate transition assessments Transition services Courses of study Annual IEP goals related to transition service needs Student invited to IEP meeting Representative of participating agency invited to IEP meeting with prior consent of parent or student who has reached the age of majority Data Collection Data are collected from the PEAs during one of three types of monitorings: Data Review — PEAs review student files focusing on Indicator 13. The ADE/ESS specialists validate the compliance calls. The student file forms are submitted to ESS for data entry. Self-Assessment — PEAs review student files and collect data for Indicator 13. The PEAs also focus on reviewing files for other identified SPP/APR Indicators on which their agencies have not met the State targets. The ADE/ESS specialists validate the compliance calls. The student file forms are submitted to ESS for data entry. On-Site — PEAs and the ADE/ESS teams review student files, collect data through surveys and interviews, and collect data for Indicator 13. The ADE/ESS staff inputs data. Valid and Reliable Data The ADE/ESS assures the validity and reliability of the data as it is collected, maintained, and reported through the State monitoring system. Training is provided to all ESS program specialists who monitor to ensure interrater reliability for compliance calls according to regulatory requirements. The ADE/ESS staff conducts trainings for PEA staff who will participate in monitorings. The ESS specialists validate and verify the data through on-site visits or desk audits. Definition of Finding for Monitoring for FFY 2013 During FFY 2013, a finding for Indicator 13 was issued when the line item for secondary transition was found to be noncompliant. The finding was a written notification to the PEA by the State that the line item was noncompliant, and the finding included a description of a Federal or State statute or regulation. The source of information on which to base a finding of noncompliance is an individual student file. Actions required in FFY 2012 response table None Responses to actions required in FFY 2012 response table, not including correction of findings Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified in FFY 2012 4/17/2015 Page 56 of 68 FFY 2013 Part B State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) Findings of Noncompliance Identified Findings of Noncompliance Verified as Corrected Within One Year Findings of Noncompliance Subsequently Corrected Findings Not Yet Verified as Corrected 100 100 0 0 FFY 2012 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as Corrected Describe how the State verified that each LEA with noncompliance is correctly implementing the regulatory requirements The ADE/ESS specialists reviewed the child specific files from the monitoring to determine that the PEA implemented the eight components of the secondary transition requirements for the children, unless they were no longer within the jurisdiction of the PEA. The ESS specialists reviewed updated data from subsequent files during follow-up visits to determine that the PEAs were correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirements (i.e., achieved 100% compliance) related to secondary transition in conformity with 34 CFR §§ 300.320 (b) and 300.321 (b). Describe how the State verified that each LEA corrected each individual case of noncompliance The specific methods Arizona used to verify that PEAs corrected all instances of noncompliance, including child specific noncompliance, and were correctly implementing the regulatory requirements, based on subsequent file reviews of updated data: ADE/ESS specialists conducted follow-up on-site visits and/or desk audits after the monitoring to verify correction of all instances of noncompliance, including those that were child specific. The specialists reviewed the child specific files to determine that the PEA implemented the eight components of the secondary transition requirements for the children, unless they were no longer within the jurisdiction of the PEA. ADE/ESS specialists reviewed updated data from subsequent files during follow-up visits to determine that the PEAs were correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirements (i.e., achieved 100% compliance) related to secondary transition in conformity with 34 CFR §§ 300.320 (b) and 300.321 (b). 4/17/2015 Page 57 of 68 FFY 2013 Part B State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) Indicator 14: Post-School Outcomes Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B / Effective Transition Results indicator: Percent of youth who are no longer in secondary school, had IEPs in effect at the time they left school, and were: A. Enrolled in higher education within one year of leaving high school. B. Enrolled in higher education or competitively employed within one year of leaving high school. C. Enrolled in higher education or in some other postsecondary education or training program; or competitively employed or in some other employment within one year of leaving high school. (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B)) Historical Data Baseline Year FFY 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Target ≥ A 2010 2011 14.05% 2012 26.60% 2011 Data 13.80% Target ≥ B 13.60% 26.10% 48.65% 19.60% 60.20% 2011 Data 48.40% Target ≥ C 46.50% 59.70% 71.10% 49.80% 74.10% 2011 Data 70.60% Key: Gray – Data Prior to Baseline 68.50% 73.60% 66.90% Yellow – Baseline FFY 2013 - FFY 2018 Targets FFY 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Target A ≥ 26.60% 28.10% 29.60% 31.10% 32.60% 34.10% Target B ≥ 60.20% 62.20% 64.20% 66.20% 68.20% 70.20% Target C ≥ 74.10% 75.40% 76.70% 78.00% 79.30% 80.60% Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input As data and other information became available after the close of the 2013–2014 school year, individuals from the ADE/ESS staff reported on student progress to the Special Education Advisory Panel (SEAP). The SEAP members represent a broad range of stakeholders throughout Arizona. Groups represented on the panel include parents of children with disabilities, individuals with disabilities, teachers, early childhood educators, charter schools, school districts, institutions of higher education that prepare special education and related services personnel, secure care facilities, and public agencies. During the SEAP meeting, the ADE/ESS representatives responded to questions and comments from the SEAP members and considered the panel’s advice in determining targets for the future. The specific tasks requested of the SEAP by the ADE/ESS were: To consider baseline and trend data for each indicator; To assist in determining appropriate targets for each indicator in which a target was required for the SPP. In addition to the SEAP’s suggestions, ESS requested input from special education administrators through meetings of the regional organizations, small workshops, and large conferences. Finally, ESS created an SPP/APR target workgroup. which was open to all ESS staff members. The ADE/ESS data management coordinator trained data managers and administrators on the data requirements and also requested input for improving the State’s data collection and reporting process. FFY 2013 SPP/APR Data 4/17/2015 Page 58 of 68 FFY 2013 Part B State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) Number of respondent youth who are no longer in secondary school and had IEPs in effect at the time they left school 1,088 1. Number of respondent youth who enrolled in higher education within one year of leaving high school 244 2. Number of respondent youth who competitively employed within one year of leaving high school 377 3. Number of respondent youth enrolled in some other postsecondary education or training program within one year of leaving high school (but not enrolled in higher education or competitively employed) 100 4. Number of respondent youth who are in some other employment within one year of leaving high school (but not enrolled in higher education, some other postsecondary education or training program, or competitively employed). 68 Number of respondent youth Number of respondent youth who are no longer in secondary school and had IEPs in effect at the time they left school FFY 2012 Data* FFY 2013 Target* FFY 2013 Data A. Enrolled in higher education (1) 244 1,088 19.60% 26.60% 22.43% B. Enrolled in higher education or competitively employed within one year of leaving high school (1 +2) 621 1,088 49.80% 60.20% 57.08% C. Enrolled in higher education, or in some other postsecondary education or training program; or competitively employed or in some other employment (1+2+3+4) 789 1,088 66.90% 74.10% 72.52% Was sampling used? Yes Has your previously-approved sampling plan changed? No Describe the sampling methodology outlining how the design will yield valid and reliable estimates. Data Source and Collection Methods The ADE/ESS used a sampling procedure to collect post-school outcome (PSO) data. Over the course of the State Performance Plan (SPP), each PEA serving students 16 years old and older is asked to collect and report post-school outcome data during the second year of the six-year monitoring cycle. The monitoring cycle is a representative sample of Arizona’s districts and charter schools and the representative sample is based on the categories of disability, race, and gender. The two Arizona districts with a total population of more than 50,000 students participate in the collection of data every year. The ADE/ESS sampling plan was approved by OSEP. Federal fiscal year (FFY) 2013 marked the third year of cycle two of Arizona’s PSO data collection requirement, in which all eligible PEAs are assigned to a collection year for inclusion in the SPP. Of Arizona’s eligible PEAs, 59 were identified for participation in the PSO Survey for FFY 2013. Of this number, six PEAs did not have any leavers who met the criteria (youth with a current IEP who aged out, graduated, or dropped out) for participation in the PSO Survey during the 2012–2013 school year. This resulted in 53 PEAs that had eligible leavers, and these PEAs were required to conduct the PSO Survey during FFY 2013. It should be noted that of these 53 PEAs, all PEAs met the requirement to participate in the FFY 2013 PSO data collection. In order for PEAs to contact students for the PSO Survey, PEAs gather contact information on student leavers so they can contact these leavers the next year. Schools either input the data into the online PSO data collection system or maintain student contact information locally for use the next year. The PSO data collection system uses a secure application as part of the ADE Common Logon. The application includes an auto-population of student demographic information and exit reason imported directly from the Student Accountability Information System (SAIS), a Web-based system for reporting all student-level details to the ADE. PEAs designate district or charter school personnel to contact student leavers or designated family members (i.e., parent, grandparent, or guardian), conduct phone interviews, and input survey data into the online PSO data collection system. Youth or family members were contacted between July 1 and September 30, 2014, after they were out of school for at least one year. Arizona’s two PEAs with an average daily membership exceeding 50,000 are included in the data collection each year. 4/17/2015 Page 59 of 68 FFY 2013 Part B State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) Missing Data Arizona’s PSO response rate for FFY 2013 was 67% (1,629 youth eligible for contact and 1,088 respondents). The FFY 2013 PSO Survey is missing data on 541 former students or 33% of the leavers. An analysis of missing data indicated that the largest segments of missing data were the result of two factors: either schools were not able to contact leavers after three attempts (328 former students or 62% of the missing data) or schools did not have correct contact information for them (172 former students or 32% of the missing data). Selection Bias Respondents to the survey were under-representative of the population of dropouts. The State will continue to work with PEAs to identify strategies to encourage survey responses from youth in the dropout category. Response Rate The FFY 2013 survey response rate was 66.8%. Arizona’s FFY 2013 sample included 1,629 youth who were eligible to take the survey. (The total was adjusted for those who had returned to school or were deceased, or whose data were uploaded by the PEA to the SAIS system in error.) Interviews were conducted with 1,088 youth, young adults, or their family members or 66.8% of the leavers. Representativeness The ADE/ESS used the NPSO Response Calculator to calculate the representativeness of the respondent group on the characteristics of (a) disability type, (b) ethnicity, (c) gender, and (d) exit status (e.g., dropout). This calculation determined whether the youth who responded to the interviews were similar to or different from the total population of youth with an IEP exiting school during school year 2012–2013. According to the NPSO Response Calculator, differences between the respondent group and the target leaver group of +/− 3% are important. Negative differences indicate an underrepresentativeness of the group, and positive differences indicate over-representativeness. Respondents were representative of all 2012–2013 target leavers based on gender, ethnicity, graduation status, and category of disability. As in previous years, dropouts were underrepresented compared to the target leaver group. In FFY 2013, a – 6.7% difference between respondents and target leavers group existed. ADE/ESS will continue its efforts to increase response rates, especially among youth who drop out. Technical assistance and information highlighting tips provided in the NPSO guidance document for contacting hard-to-reach youth will be provided to PEAs. Actions required in FFY 2012 response table None Responses to actions required in FFY 2012 response table 4/17/2015 Page 60 of 68 FFY 2013 Part B State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) Indicator 15: Resolution Sessions Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B / General Supervision Results indicator: Percent of hearing requests that went to resolution sessions that were resolved through resolution session settlement agreements. (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3(B)) Historical Data Baseline Data: 2005 FFY 2005 Target ≥ Data 57.90% 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 60.00% 63.00% 68.00% 70.00% 75.00% 75.50% 76.00% 72.70% 68.20% 83.90% 44.70% 55.88% 44.83% 48.39% Key: Gray – Data Prior to Baseline Yellow – Baseline FFY 2013 - FFY 2018 Targets FFY 2013 Target 65.00% - 2014 75.00% 65.00% - 2015 75.00% 65.00% - 2016 75.00% 65.00% - 2017 75.00% 68.00% - 2018 78.00% 68.00% - 78.00% Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input As data and other information became available after the close of the 2013–2014 school year, individuals from the ADE/ESS staff reported on student progress to the Special Education Advisory Panel (SEAP). The SEAP members represent a broad range of stakeholders throughout Arizona. Groups represented on the panel include parents of children with disabilities, individuals with disabilities, teachers, early childhood educators, charter schools, school districts, institutions of higher education that prepare special education and related services personnel, secure care facilities, and public agencies. During the SEAP meeting, the ADE/ESS representatives responded to questions and comments from the SEAP members and considered the panel’s advice in determining targets for the future. The specific tasks requested of the SEAP by the ADE/ESS were: To consider baseline and trend data for each indicator; To assist in determining appropriate targets for each indicator in which a target was required for the SPP. In addition to the SEAP’s suggestions, ESS requested input from special education administrators through meetings of the regional organizations, small workshops, and large conferences. Finally, ESS created an SPP/APR target workgroup. which was open to all ESS staff members. The ADE/ESS data management coordinator trained data managers and administrators on the data requirements and also requested input for improving the State’s data collection and reporting process. Prepopulated Data Source Date Description Data EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section C: Due Process Complaints 11/5/2014 3.1(a) Number resolution sessions resolved through settlement agreements 15 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section C: Due Process Complaints 11/5/2014 3.1 Number of resolution sessions 23 Overwrite Data FFY 2013 SPP/APR Data 4/17/2015 Page 61 of 68 FFY 2013 Part B State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) 3.1(a) Number resolution sessions resolved through settlement agreements 3.1 Number of resolution sessions FFY 2012 Data* FFY 2013 Target* FFY 2013 Data 15 23 48.39% 65.00% - 75.00% 65.22% Actions required in FFY 2012 response table None Responses to actions required in FFY 2012 response table 4/17/2015 Page 62 of 68 FFY 2013 Part B State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) Indicator 16: Mediation Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B / General Supervision Results indicator: Percent of mediations held that resulted in mediation agreements. (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3(B)) Historical Data Baseline Data: 2005 FFY 2005 Target ≥ Data 82.00% 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 82.50% 83.00% 83.50% 84.00% 84.50% 85.00% 85.50% 73.90% 70.80% 70.30% 85.71% 69.00% 82.86% 86.49% Key: Gray – Data Prior to Baseline Yellow – Baseline FFY 2013 - FFY 2018 Targets FFY 2013 Target 72.00% - 2014 82.00% 72.00% - 2015 82.00% 72.00% - 2016 82.00% 72.00% - 2017 82.00% 74.00% - 2018 84.00% 74.00% - 84.00% Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input As data and other information became available after the close of the 2013–2014 school year, individuals from the ADE/ESS staff reported on student progress to the Special Education Advisory Panel (SEAP). The SEAP members represent a broad range of stakeholders throughout Arizona. Groups represented on the panel include parents of children with disabilities, individuals with disabilities, teachers, early childhood educators, charter schools, school districts, institutions of higher education that prepare special education and related services personnel, secure care facilities, and public agencies. During the SEAP meeting, the ADE/ESS representatives responded to questions and comments from the SEAP members and considered the panel’s advice in determining targets for the future. The specific tasks requested of the SEAP by the ADE/ESS were: To consider baseline and trend data for each indicator; To assist in determining appropriate targets for each indicator in which a target was required for the SPP. In addition to the SEAP’s suggestions, ESS requested input from special education administrators through meetings of the regional organizations, small workshops, and large conferences. Finally, ESS created an SPP/APR target workgroup. which was open to all ESS staff members. The ADE/ESS data management coordinator trained data managers and administrators on the data requirements and also requested input for improving the State’s data collection and reporting process. Prepopulated Data Source Date EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section B: Mediation Requests 11/5/2014 2.1.a.i Mediations agreements related to due process complaints 9 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section B: Mediation Requests 11/5/2014 2.1.b.i Mediations agreements not related to due process complaints 17 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section B: Mediation Requests 11/5/2014 2.1 Mediations held 36 4/17/2015 Description Data Overwrite Data Page 63 of 68 FFY 2013 Part B State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) FFY 2013 SPP/APR Data 2.1.a.i Mediations agreements related to due process complaints 2.1.b.i Mediations agreements not related to due process complaints 2.1 Mediations held FFY 2012 Data* FFY 2013 Target* FFY 2013 Data 9 17 36 86.49% 72.00% - 82.00% 72.22% Actions required in FFY 2012 response table None Responses to actions required in FFY 2012 response table 4/17/2015 Page 64 of 68 FFY 2013 Part B State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) Indicator 17: State Systemic Improvement Plan Monitoring Priority: General Supervision Results indicator: The State’s SPP/APR includes a State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) that meets the requirements set forth for this indicator. Baseline Data FFY 2013 Data 14.20% FFY 2014 - FFY 2018 Targets FFY Target 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 14.60% 14.80% 15.80% 19.80% 25.00% Description of Measure Arizona's State Identified Measurable Result: To increase the percentage passing on the State reading assessment for students with specific learning disabilities in grades 3–8 in the FFY 2014 cohort of Focus and Pre-intervention schools. To obtain the baseline, the number of students with specific learning disabilities in grades 3-8 in the Focus and Pre-intervention schools that passed the State reading assessment is divided by the number of students with specific learning disabilities in grades 3-8 in the Focus and Pre-intervention schools that took the State reading assessment. Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input As data and other information became available, individuals from the ADE/ESS staff reported on student progress to the Special Education Advisory Panel (SEAP). The SEAP members represent a broad range of stakeholders throughout Arizona. Groups represented on the panel include parents of children with disabilities, individuals with disabilities, teachers, early childhood educators, charter schools, school districts, institutions of higher education that prepare special education and related services personnel, secure care facilities, and public agencies. During the SEAP meeting, the ADE/ESS representatives responded to questions and comments from the SEAP members and considered the panel’s advice in determining targets for the future. The specific tasks requested of the SEAP by the ADE/ESS were: To consider baseline and trend data for each indicator; To assist in determining appropriate targets for each indicator in which a target was required for the SPP. In addition to the SEAP’s suggestions, ESS requested input from special education administrators through meetings of the regional organizations, small workshops, and large conferences. Finally, ESS created an SPP/APR target workgroup, which was open to all ESS staff members. Input from all stakeholder groups was considered in the selection of all targets. The baseline and trend data for this indicator are based on the previous State assessment, Arizona’s Instrument to Measure Standards (AIMS). In FFY 2014, Arizona is administering a new State assessment Arizona’s Measurement of Educational Readiness to Inform Teaching (AzMERIT). Stakeholders are aware that new baseline and targets will be set for this indicator as new trend data become available. Data Analysis A description of how the State identified and analyzed key data, including data from SPP/APR indicators, 618 data collections, and other available data as applicable, to: (1) select the State-identified Measurable Result(s) for Children with Disabilities, and (2) identify root causes contributing to low performance. The description must include information about how 4/17/2015 Page 65 of 68 FFY 2013 Part B State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) the data were disaggregated by multiple variables (e.g., LEA, region, race/ethnicity, gender, disability category, placement, etc.). As part of its data analysis, the State should also consider compliance data and whether those data present potential barriers to improvement. In addition, if the State identifies any concerns about the quality of the data, the description must include how the State will address these concerns. Finally, if additional data are needed, the description should include the methods and timelines to collect and analyze the additional data. Analysis of State Infrastructure to Support Improvement and Build Capacity A description of how the State analyzed the capacity of its current infrastructure to support improvement and build capacity in LEAs to implement, scale up, and sustain the use of evidence-based practices to improve results for children with disabilities. State systems that make up its infrastructure include, at a minimum: governance, fiscal, quality standards, professional development, data, technical assistance, and accountability/monitoring. The description must include current strengths of the systems, the extent the systems are coordinated, and areas for improvement of functioning within and across the systems. The State must also identify current State-level improvement plans and initiatives, including special and general education improvement plans and initiatives, and describe the extent that these initiatives are aligned, and how they are, or could be, integrated with, the SSIP. Finally, the State should identify representatives (e.g., offices, agencies, positions, individuals, and other stakeholders) that were involved in developing Phase I of the SSIP and that will be involved in developing and implementing Phase II of the SSIP. State-identified Measurable Result(s) for Children with Disabilities A statement of the result(s) the State intends to achieve through the implementation of the SSIP. The State-identified result(s) must be aligned to an SPP/APR indicator or a component of an SPP/APR indicator. The State-identified result(s) must be clearly based on the Data and State Infrastructure Analyses and must be a child-level outcome in contrast to a process outcome. The State may select a single result (e.g., increasing the graduation rate for children with disabilities) or a cluster of related results (e.g., increasing the graduation rate and decreasing the dropout rate for children with disabilities). Statement Description Selection of Coherent Improvement Strategies An explanation of how the improvement strategies were selected, and why they are sound, logical and aligned, and will lead to a measurable improvement in the State-identified result(s). The improvement strategies should include the strategies, identified through the Data and State Infrastructure Analyses, that are needed to improve the State infrastructure and to support LEA implementation of evidence-based practices to improve the State-identified Measurable Result(s) for Children with Disabilities. The State must describe how implementation of the improvement strategies will address identified root causes for low performance and ultimately build LEA capacity to achieve the State-identified Measurable Result(s) for Children with Disabilities. Theory of Action A graphic illustration that shows the rationale of how implementing the coherent set of improvement strategies selected will increase the State’s capacity to lead meaningful change in LEAs, and achieve improvement in the State-identified Measurable Result(s) for Children with Disabilities. Submitted Theory of Action: Arizona Part B Theory of Action Illustration 4/17/2015 Page 66 of 68 FFY 2013 Part B State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) Provide a description of the provided graphic illustration (optional) 4/17/2015 Page 67 of 68 FFY 2013 Part B State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) Certify and Submit your SPP/APR This indicator is not applicable. 4/17/2015 Page 68 of 68 Arizona Arizona’s State Systemic Improvement Plan Arizona’s Counties Arizona Characteristics Arizona is the sixth largest state in size with an area of approximately 114,000 square miles. It’s also the fifteenth most populous state, containing two major metropolitan cities, Phoenix and Tucson. The metropolitan Phoenix area is home to 4.3 million people (the nation’s sixth most populous city), and the rapidly growing population of Tucson is more than 600,000. This border state also has 250 small towns with less than 30,000 people. Arizona has 15 counties, 15 education service agencies, and 5 regional centers. Arizona is considered a local control state with an emphasis placed on school choice for families. There are numerous school options for students in Arizona with 237 school districts, 526 charter schools, 54 online schools, 53 Bureau of Indian Education schools, 13 joint technical education districts, 48 secure care schools, 35 private special day schools, and two state institutions. Arizona is a vast state and much of it includes rural and isolated rural areas. While Coconino County is the largest county in the state in area, it has a small population—seven people per square mile. Rural students are often bused to school and that travel may require more than an hour spent each way; in addition, many of the dirt roads become impassible during the winter season. Arizona has 22 sovereign Native American tribes, one of the highest populations of Native Americans in the United States. In contrast to the isolated rural local education agencies (LEAs), Arizona also has large urban and suburban LEAs. Mesa Public Schools and Phoenix Union High School District in Maricopa County have 64,000 and 27,000 students, respectively. Tucson Unified School District in Pima County has 48,975 students. Arizona serves 1,232,246 students with 11.8% of these identified as students with disabilities. Students who are English language learners compose 6.5%, 5% are Native American, and 50.4% are students of low socioeconomic status. 1 Arizona Part B State Systemic Improvement Plan FFY 2013 Arizona It should be noted that the Arizona Department of Education (ADE) is the direct service support for LEAs. Although Arizona has 15 education service agencies and 5 regional centers, ADE provides the comprehensive support system that includes general supervision, monitoring, professional development, and technical assistance for all public programs in the State. Component #1: Data Analysis Elements: 1 (a) A description of how the State identified and analyzed key data, including data from SPP/APR indicators, 618 data collections, and other data as applicable to determine the SIMR and the root causes contributing to low performance. Arizona began its data analysis process in April of 2013. The first step in Arizona’s data analysis was to ask questions.    What data do we have and use in our current work? What data are used by other divisions in the Arizona Department of Education? What data are most illustrative of student outcomes in Arizona? The table below illustrates the data gathered for the initial broad data review. Data Type Description Compliance data Public education agency (PEA) compliance monitoring, APR compliance indicators, Dispute Resolution findings Fiscal PEA risk analysis, grants completion, audit findings, maintenance of effort SPP/APR Indicator data 618 data Teacher attrition, student attendance, discipline information, ELL status, low income status, census information, race/ethnicity Data from other divisions A–F letter grade accountability for districts and charters, student growth percentiles ESS study of high-performing LEAs Qualitative data gathered from on-site visits with PEAs identified as having higher assessment scores for students with disabilities than the state average for students with disabilities Data Accountability Reading Team (DART) / Teams Intervening Early to Reach All Students (TIERS) initiatives Review of the initial and final data summaries problem statement, and action plan from the Data Accountability Center pilot; trend data from LEAs that participated in the pilot reading project 2 Arizona Part B State Systemic Improvement Plan FFY 2013 Arizona Student achievement on standards Arizona’s Instrument to Measure Standards (AIMS), Arizona’s Instrument to Measure Standards Alternate (AIMS A), National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Once the multiple sources of data were gathered, the Exceptional Student Services (ESS) leadership team examined the data to determine what data to use, how the information would be used, and which data would be disaggregated for further analysis to develop a plan of action, which would involve stakeholders in the analysis. 1(b) A description of how the data were disaggregated by multiple variables such as LEA, region, race/ethnicity, disability category, and placement, etc. Numerous state-level variables were selected for disaggregation. Proficiency data were disaggregated by grade level, disability category, race/ethnicity, placement action, subject area, English language learner status, socioeconomic level, and county. Graduation and dropout data were disaggregated by disability category, race/ethnicity, and gender. The broad data analysis showed that the outcomes for students with disabilities in Arizona were poor. Regardless of the outcome involved, students with disabilities were not performing near the level of their nondisabled peers. Compliance data, collected from monitoring and dispute resolution activities and APR indicators, however, was an area of strength. During the broad data analysis, many ideas were considered as the area of focus for deeper analysis. In meetings with stakeholders, the question of current state priorities and initiatives was considered, as well as the need to focus on an area that would be overarching (affecting children from birth through age 22). Move On When Reading was the state initiative mentioned the most often by stakeholders. All stakeholder groups were in agreement that reading performance was the most pressing issue and had the most impact on the outcomes of all students in Arizona, including those with disabilities. Consequently, reading performance overall was selected as the area for a deeper root cause analysis; the reading performance of students with specific learning disabilities was targeted because this is the disability category with the highest percentage in the special education population (41%) with the lowest performance in reading. The next step in the analysis was to look at reading performance on the general state assessment, Arizona’s Instrument to Measure Standards (AIMS). AIMS reading proficiency was examined by gender, race/ethnicity, English language learner status, disability category, low socioeconomic status, educational placement action, school type (district or charter), and county. In collaboration with the School Improvement and Intervention staff, Exceptional Student Services (ESS) reviewed the data of the schools selected for school improvement. Three levels of support were delineated by Arizona in its Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) waiver—Reward (schools with high academic progress), Focus (schools contributing to academic gaps), and Priority (lowest performing schools). A fourth level—Pre-Intervention—was added in 2014–2015. Pre-Intervention schools are those with any single subgroup missing annual measurable objectives (AMOs) for two or more consecutive years or negative growth in the percent of students passing AIMS. Using the system of 3 Arizona Part B State Systemic Improvement Plan FFY 2013 Arizona differentiated recognition and accountability as outlined in the ESEA waiver, School Improvement and Intervention and ESS specifically examined the Focus and Pre-Intervention schools. As noted in the ESEA waiver, more than two-thirds of students in the bottom quartile are students with disabilities. Arizona’s data analysis led to these key findings:      66% of students with a disability do not meet the Arizona state standards as demonstrated on the AIMS as compared to 25% of students without disabilities who do not meet the standards. Students with disabilities are not performing well on the State assessment. The gap between groups is 41%. 41% of students with a disability in Arizona are identified as students with specific learning disabilities, and 67% of those are educated in the general education classroom 80% or more of the day. The low performance of students with specific learning disabilities is not solely a special education issue. Of the disability categories that do not involve an intellectual impairment, students identified with specific learning disabilities performed the lowest on the State assessment in reading. According to ESEA’s evaluation parameters, there is a higher than average special education population in the Priority, Focus, and Pre-Intervention schools than in the reward schools. (Overall in Arizona, the special education population is 11.8%; in Priority, Focus, and PreIntervention schools, the population is 12.64 %.) The number of students in the “falls far below” category has decreased each year, and the number of students in “approaches the standards” and “meets the standards” has increased. The rate of increase in “approaches” is larger than the rate in “meets” for students with disabilities. Progression of Data That Leads to the SIMR State assessment data shows a gap in performance between special education students and general education students in reading and math combined for all grades. State reading assessment data indicates a gap in performance between students with disabilities and those without disabilities. Reading performance is the dominant issue for all students. The gap is beginning to close because of a decrease in the performance of general education students. 4 Arizona Part B State Systemic Improvement Plan FFY 2013 Arizona General education has decreased the percentage in the “falls far below” category, while increasing the percentage in “meets.” Special education has decreased the percentage in “falls far below” and increased the percentage in “approaches,” while the percentage in “meets” remains relatively stagnant since 2011. 41% of students with disabilities in Arizona have specific learning disabilities, the largest category of disability. 67% of students with specific learning disabilities receive instruction in the general education classroom 80% or more of the day. 5 Arizona Part B State Systemic Improvement Plan FFY 2013 Arizona Students with specific learning disabilites have the lowest performance of any special education group on the State reading assessment. Performance of students with specific learning disabilities in grades 3–8 who were educated 80% or more of the day in general education shows a decrease in the percentage in the “falls far below” category and an increase in proficiency in the “approaches” and “meets” categories 6 Arizona Part B State Systemic Improvement Plan FFY 2013 Arizona Although the percentage of students with specific learning disabilities meeting the reading standards is improving overall in Arizona, the percentage of students with specific learning disabilities in “meets” is declining in the Focus and Pre-Intervention schools. Root Causes for Poor Performance Each stakeholder meeting group and focus group developed a list of possible root causes for poor performance in reading for students with disabilities. The lists were compared and analyzed to produce the following consolidated list of possible root causes:           Separate systems for general education and special education (teachers are not trained together as educators in pre-service or after employment) Lack of leadership support to create: o a culture of inclusion of all students o high expectations for all students o collaboration between general educators and special educators, especially in the use of data to make instructional decisions, multi-tiered system of supports o instructional coaching for educators Lack of knowledge of data and use of data for instructional decisions Lack of literacy training for all teachers, especially special education teachers Lack of knowledge by teachers of evidence-based reading practices Lack of understanding of the progression of skills necessary for reading, understanding of quality small group instruction, use of assessments and data analysis to drive instruction Poor core instruction; poor specially designed instruction Fragmented instruction for students in special education (students are pulled out to learn a discrete skill and once they return to the general education environment, are not generalizing the skills taught in isolation) ADE’s compliance-focused system of supports to LEAs (reduces the amount of resources available for results) Compliance-dominant monitoring system (results were not a focus) 7 Arizona Part B State Systemic Improvement Plan FFY 2013 Arizona 1(c) A description of any concerns about the quality of the data and if so, how the State will address these concerns. Arizona has no concerns about the quality of the data and is confident that the data collected and used are valid, reliable, and timely. Arizona has in place multiple validity and reliability checks to use when school data is processed. For all data submissions by LEAs, there are business rules and edit checks that are applied to the data being processed. Queries are run and analysis is done to search for anomalies in data reporting that would not otherwise be handled through the established edit checks. If anomalies are found, they are addressed by working with the LEAs to correct their data submissions. Arizona has strong knowledge of the data and its capacity and can recognize anomalies immediately. 1(d) A description of how the State considered compliance data and whether those data present potential barriers to improvement. Arizona reviewed State- and LEA-level SPP/APR compliance indicator data. In addition to the SPP/APR indicators, ADE also reviewed individual LEA compliance monitoring data. The review of this data showed that Arizona is very strong in the area of compliance. LEAs in Arizona are consistently meeting the regulatory requirements, adhering to timelines, and addressing all other procedural compliance conditions. A review of the trend data of compliance indicators showed that Arizona continues to meet or come very close to meeting the targets. Arizona has identified that the compliance-heavy system is a possible root cause of poor student performance. A significant amount of time and resources have been allocated to address procedural compliance, which may have taken the place of other supports that could have been provided for improving student outcomes. 1(e) If additional data are needed, a description of the methods and timelines to collect and analyze the additional data. It may be necessary to collect additional data from the schools designated as Focus and PreIntervention. Qualitative data may be collected that relates to the trends discovered from the HighPerforming Project described below. The method of collection will be a readiness self-assessment or an on-site interview, which will take place during the 2015–2016 school year. Data may also be collected on teachers’ knowledge and self-reported use of evidence-based reading practices in the Focus and PreIntervention schools. This data will be collected by survey during the 2015–2016 school year. High-Performing Project During the ESS analysis and presentation to stakeholders, a question was raised by multiple stakeholders, “Are any schools in Arizona having significant improvements in outcomes for students with disabilities?” That question led to a deeper analysis of student proficiency on the state assessment. As a result of this deeper analysis, Arizona identified 31 LEAs that had students with disabilities demonstrating high performance. On an average, these sites had 30% higher proficiency rates for students with disabilities than the state proficiency rate for students with disabilities. A root cause for this success was not evident in the numerical data. No common thread was found in the numbers alone. As such, it was determined that additional information was needed from the individual sites. 8 Arizona Part B State Systemic Improvement Plan FFY 2013 Arizona To help with gathering this additional information, a set of seven questions was developed as a starting point for conversations with the leaders at these LEAs. Of the 31 LEAs identified as having high performance for students with disabilities, 29 LEAs were interviewed by ADE/ESS leaders between April and May of 2014 in site visits throughout Arizona. ESS directors conducted in-person interviews with each LEA leadership team to determine which systems the LEA had in place that they felt contributed to their success. The qualitative data collected at these site visits were compiled and analyzed, which resulted in identifying the following six trends within these schools: 1. School culture is one of high expectations for ALL students—student-first mentality. 2. Highly effective teaching strategies are utilized in the general education classroom. 3. Data is collected often and drives decision making. 4. Students are provided with intervention and enrichment activities based upon analysis of data. 5. Students with disabilities receive core instruction in the general education classroom. 6. Effective leadership. The results of the High-Performing Project provided additional information to consider as the ADE/ESS team narrowed down the SIMR possibilities. The six trends listed above are systems that, when they are implemented with fidelity, can lead to improved outcomes for all students. These results led the group to discuss “what if”: what if all of the LEAs were implementing these systems with high quality and fidelity—Arizona could have statewide results similar to the 29 LEAs in the High-Performing Project. This would mean that instead of only 30% of Arizona students with disabilities proficient on the state standards, there could be close to 60%, in fact doubling the current percentage of students proficient. In numbers, it means that about 39,000 more students would be well prepared for the next step for a total of 77,880 students proficient on state standards. This realization became the moral imperative that guided the analysis toward the SIMR. 9 Arizona Part B State Systemic Improvement Plan FFY 2013 Arizona ADE/ESS investigated several research projects in the area of school reform/improvement to strengthen the evidence base of the High-Performing Project. We found that the results from our project aligned well with the latest research from the RTI Action Network National Center for Learning Disabilities (NCLD) school transformation initiative, the work of Doug Reeves, Michael Fullan, and Larry Lezotte. In addition, the results mirror Arizona’s standards for school and LEA improvement for the systems that must be functioning in order for student achievement to improve. The NCLD school transformation initiative includes the six systems identified in our project, in addition to the use of a scientifically based curriculum. This project was central to our discussion as we narrowed down our focus on students with learning disabilities. In order to improve reading for students with specific learning disabilities in grades 3–8, all six of the above systems will need to be in place. 1(f) A description of stakeholder involvement in the data analysis. Initial broad data and the further analysis data were presented and analyzed by many stakeholder groups. Stakeholders involved in this process include: the Special Education Advisory Panel (SEAP), local education agency (LEA) administrators, Directors Institute attendees, secondary transition groups, early childhood groups, Arizona’s Parent Training and Information Center—Raising Special Kids, county directors’ meetings, Exceptional Student Services and ADE leaders, and Arizona’s institutes of higher education (IHEs). ESS engaged with stakeholder groups to conduct data analyses and gather ideas on the selection of additional data to be used and the goal for the State Identified Measurable Result (SIMR). ESS sought the input of educators, parents, and community members using an in-person focus group model. Meetings were held in Flagstaff, Phoenix, and Tucson. Each region held meetings resulting in a total of 17 focus group meetings. Stakeholders present at these meetings comprised various roles: persons with disabilities, parents of students with disabilities, general education administrators, general education teachers, special education administrators, special education teachers, outside agency providers, and representatives from institutes of higher education. In addition to the regional community focus groups, ESS also gathered input from the Special Education Advisory Panel, local county special education directors, the ESS internal SSIP workgroup, stakeholder groups in partnership with Arizona’s PTI— Raising Special Kids, and preschool stakeholder groups led by the ADE Early Childhood unit. Stakeholder Group Date(s) ADE/ESS Unit Director Meetings 4/18/13, 5/1/13, 6/5/13, 7/3/13, 8/7/13, 9/4/13, 10/2/13, 11/6/13, 12/4/13, 2/5/14, 5/14/14, 6/5/14, 7/17/14, 8/5/14, 9/4/14, 10/16/14, 11/13/14, 12/4/14 ADE Highly Effective Schools Deputy Associate Superintendent Meetings (ESS; Title 1; School Improvement and Intervention; Office of English Language Acquisition Services; Career and Technical Education; Homeless, Refugee, and Special African-American Outreach; Migrant and Special Latino Outreach; and Native American and Indian Education Outreach) 4/23/13, 5/28/13, 6/17/13, 4/23/13, 8/29/13, 9/23/13, 10/10/13, 11/26/13, 12/17/13, 1/30/14, 4/24/14, 8/1/14, 9/2/14, 10/22/14, 12/1/14 10 Arizona Part B State Systemic Improvement Plan FFY 2013 Arizona Special Education Advisory Panel (SEAP) 11/19/13, 6/17/14, 9/16/14, 11/18/14 ESS Internal SSIP workgroup 5/27/14, 6/13/14, 7/8/14,7/28/14, 11/12/14, 12/3/14 Pima County Special Education Director Meeting 8/22/14 Cochise County Special Education Director Meeting 8/21/14 Graham/Greenlee County Special Education Director Meeting 10/1/14 Santa Cruz County Special Education Director Meeting 10/21/14 Pinal County Special Education Director Meeting 10/23/14 Directors Institute 8/27/13, 9/24/14 Tucson Regional Community Focus Groups 9/11/14, 10/24/14, 11/6/14 Flagstaff Regional Community Focus Groups 9/25/14, 11/3/14 Phoenix Regional Community Focus Groups 9/19/14, 10/20/14, 11/21/14 Early Childhood Focus Groups 10/20/14, 11/4/14, 11/17/14, 12/1/14, 12/17/14 Explain how your agency has established clear expectations for effective data use across SEA offices and departments. Describe the processes the SEA uses to support LEAs in effective data use. It is the expectation of the agency that data will be shared and used across SEA offices. The agency has been divided into divisions: ESS is in the Highly Effective Schools division. The division is responsible for outcomes for all students. As such, data is shared and used to make decisions across units on a regular basis. The deputy associate superintendents meet monthly to discuss data, and there is cross-agency collaboration based on use of data for decision making. Examining Data to Improve Student Achievement (EDISA) is a process that is used to support LEAs in effective data use. EDISA is a collaborative partnership between local education agencies and the state agency in a team-training program designed to close achievement gaps between students with special needs and their nondisabled peers. EDISA facilitators and ESS coaches guide LEA teams through the data-use framework that supports continuous improvement by discovering gaps and developing action plans to improve outcomes. Program specialists from ESS Program Support and Monitoring, School Improvement and Intervention, and Early Childhood collaborate and coach LEA teams through the process. Each LEA team develops an action plan that is monitored by ADE specialists a minimum of four times during the implementation of the plan. The action plan developed in EDISA becomes part of the Continuous Improvement Plan that is required of all LEAs receiving Title I funds. Specific units work together and share data to use in decision making. ESS’s Recruitment and Retention unit shares the special education attrition data with the Highly Effective Teachers and Leaders unit in 11 Arizona Part B State Systemic Improvement Plan FFY 2013 Arizona order to pinpoint strategies to recruit and retain both general and special education teachers. State assessment data is used by Research and Evaluation and the Office of Accountability to determine the letter grade for each LEA and school in Arizona’s A–F accountability system. These data are used to identify schools in the Reward, Priority, Focus, and Pre-Intervention categories, which are established in Arizona’s ESEA waiver. Department leaders utilize and analyze data to determine the risk level of LEAs and their schools based on programmatic criteria. While Information Technology (IT) offers trainings and webinars on general ADE data submission, quality, and use, the ADE/ESS Data Management unit also offers trainings and webinars throughout the school year to the LEAs. Other ADE/ESS units also offer trainings and webinars throughout the school year on data use specific to respective content areas, which include secondary transition, secure care, assistive technology, professional learning and support, and program support and monitoring. In addition, the ESS Data Management director and her staff serve as key members of agency-wide committees that develop and implement data governance policies, procedures, and practices for ADE. These committees (including the Data Stewards, Data Analysis, and EdOrg Work Groups) are charged with improving data quality and reducing data redundancy, protecting sensitive data, ensuring data and IT compliance with federal and state regulations, encouraging the correct use of data, and facilitating a platform for robust data analytics. Critical products of ADE data governance workgroups that relate specifically to special education data include the management of ADE data collections, the publication of a master data collections calendar, and the development of data management policies that are consistent agency-wide. What formal mechanisms require LEAs and individual schools to engage in continuous improvement using data-based decision making? Describe how LEAs and individual schools are supported in their efforts. All LEAs in Arizona receiving Title I funds are required to submit an annual LEA and School Continuous Improvement Plan. The Title I unit uses a six-year monitoring cycle with on-site monitoring activities occurring during year four. ADE provides technical assistance and collaborates with LEAs in any and all aspects of the school improvement planning process for schools that are designated as Focus schools. LEAs with Focus schools must assure that the continuous improvement plan is fully aligned to the needs of the school, addresses the root causes for not making progress, addresses the reason for identification, and addresses the selected interventions aligned to the turnaround principles. The plan must be appropriate for the different levels of schools (elementary, middle, and high) as well as different types of student needs. Designated Focus schools received on-site visits from school improvement and intervention specialists for technical assistance, as well as progress and compliance monitoring. The number of visits is differentiated based on need. All LEAs receiving IDEA-Preschool funds are required to submit an annual Quality Enhancement Plan based on completion of the Early Childhood Quality Improvement Practices (ECQUIP) rubric. LEAs are required to form ECQUIP teams that include district and community representatives and to meet multiple times a year to assess the quality of their early learning environments. ADE’s Early Childhood unit monitors for this compliance through the IDEA-Preschool grant application process and on-site visits. The Early Childhood unit uses a six year monitoring cycle with on-site monitoring activities in year six. Early Childhood program specialists provide support to every LEA in the state, conducting technical 12 Arizona Part B State Systemic Improvement Plan FFY 2013 Arizona assistance visits as well as providing professional development to support continuous improvement in areas identified by the LEAs during self-assessment or by program specialists during on-site visits. One area targeted during an LEA’s Early Childhood monitoring year is a review of preschool data submitted to the Early Childhood unit through the state board-approved tool for data collection in preschool, Teaching Strategies GOLD. The LEA’s data collection process is reviewed for its integrity, the data captured is reviewed for quality based on a data collection rubric, and the LEA’s use of data to inform instructional and programmatic decisions is also reviewed. The Early Childhood unit has a program specialist who provides data-targeted support to LEAs through technical assistance and regular professional development sessions offered for teachers and program administrators. ESS Program Support and Monitoring unit provides support to every LEA in the state. Program specialists have area caseloads and become the point of contact for special education directors in each LEA. All LEAs receive an annual site visit during which special education data is analyzed, along with guiding questions asked about the LEA’s internal system of supervision and its system for data-based decision making. To accomplish this, Program Support and Monitoring uses a data analysis sheet in which specialists compile data related to indicators, public education agency (PEA) determinations, and fiscal information and present it to each LEA yearly. The program specialists meet with each PEA to discuss the data with each school and work with the staff to begin analyzing the data for improvement. Specific LEAs are identified to participate in Examining Data to Improve Student Achievement (EDISA) monitoring based on the risk level. LEA teams of general and special educators are led through a continuous improvement data-use framework to analyze data and identify a root cause for the reading gap between students with disabilities and their typical peers. EDISA is a collaborative partnership between local education agencies and the state agency in a team-training program designed to close achievement gaps between students with special needs and their nondisabled peers. EDISA facilitators and ESS coaches guide LEA teams through the data-use framework that supports continuous improvement by identifying gaps and developing action plans to improve outcomes. Program specialists from ESS Program Support and Monitoring, School Improvement and Intervention, and Early Childhood collaborate and coach LEA teams through the process. Each LEA team develops an action plan that is monitored by ADE specialists a minimum of four times during the implementation of the plan. The action plan developed in EDISA becomes part of the continuous improvement plan that is required of all LEAs receiving Title I funds. The Secondary Transition Mentoring Project / College and Career Readiness Team Training (STMP/CCRTT) capacity building series supports LEAs in engaging in continuous improvement using databased decision making through the College and Career Readiness School Wide Framework professional development model (http://www.researchcollaboration.org/page/college-and-career-readinessframework). The College and Career Readiness School Wide Framework supports interdisciplinary LEA teams as they discuss common (and uncommon) data sources and multi-tiered instruction and interventions regarding CCR competencies that support student skills associated with transition planning, but also including those skills that all students need to be college and career ready. These skills are known as the College and Career Readiness student competencies. STMP/CCRT teams then develop, implement, review, and revise action plans to develop CCR competencies at the school level with supplemental and individualized interventions provided when data deems this necessary. Simply put, STMP/CCRTT develops the skills of interdisciplinary teams (not 13 Arizona Part B State Systemic Improvement Plan FFY 2013 Arizona just special education staff) and focuses on the systematic implementation of the CCR instruction and experiences across the whole school environment. In the STMP/CCRTT, ESS and coaches from the University of Kansas bring together multidisciplinary LEA teams for six two-day trainings over two years. Experts in education and transition, as well as representatives from agencies throughout Arizona, deliver transition-related content to teams. LEA teams are provided with reports on a variety of data (e.g., graduation, dropout, academic achievement, post-school outcomes), and coaches facilitate analysis to identify areas of need. Both content and data analysis ground the team-building and planning activities in which teams engage during their participation in the trainings. Over their two years of trainings, teams reflect on and evaluate their efforts to support college and career readiness, and coaches support them as they develop the necessary structures and processes to sustain their improvements. To support schoolwide implementation, the Indicators of College and Career Readiness: School Scale is used. Additional information about the STMP/CCRTT capacity building training series can be found on the project Web site (https://sites.google.com/site/azccr1214). Describe how the SEA provides targeted or differentiated tools/products/services that facilitate the effective use of data to improve instructional practice and student learning. Each ADE/ESS program area has differentiated supports for LEAs. Program Support and Monitoring’s Examining Practices system reviews LEA data and based on risk factors (C or below letter grade, low reading proficiency for students with disabilities, graduation rate, dropout rate) identified in the Risk Analysis Sheet, places LEAs into a tier of support. Tier 1 is analysis by self, Tier 2 is analysis with guidance, Tier 3 is analysis with support, and Tier 4 is analysis in special circumstances. Private day schools analyze their data in relationship to student achievement, including self-examination of systems. The guiding questions the ESS program specialists use during the annual site visits with LEAs lead the specialists into determining the type of technical assistance they can provide to LEAs. Technical assistance can be in the form of helping an LEA to develop its own system of internal supervision, providing professional development on the evaluation/IEP process, or teaching the staff data analysis techniques for decision making. The type of technical assistance provided depends upon the coaching conversation the specialist has with an LEA. School Improvement and Intervention also uses a multi-tiered system of supports. Using the A–F Letter Grade system as the foundation, Arizona is working toward an accountability system that will determine the differentiated performance ratings for schools and LEAs. The State can provide intensive supports when performance and growth are not at acceptable levels and recognize and incentivize growth to excellence for students and schools. Title I LEAs that are not identified as Priority or Focus schools, but have a downward trend in student academic achievement data are eligible for directed but less intensive supports. Part of the support is in developing and evaluating the annual LEA and School Continuous Improvement Plan, which includes sections on data, assessment, and evaluation; it is a cohesive, comprehensive system for assessing, analyzing, and monitoring student performance and the multiple factors that influence student achievement. Describe how the SEA analyzes data related to student outcomes and /or root causes (e.g., SPP/APR indicators, 618 data, Consolidated State Performance Report (CSPR) data, and other EDFACTS data). 14 Arizona Part B State Systemic Improvement Plan FFY 2013 Arizona Each year the ADE/ESS along with other stakeholders, reviews student outcome and compliance data. Data are presented to Special Education Advisory Panel (SEAP), special education and general education administrators, and other members of the community through in-person presentations, as well as through data representations on the Web site. Input is sought each year from stakeholders on the data and the possible root causes for poor student outcomes. The most recent stakeholder focus groups described above reviewed the most recent data and informed the State on areas for further analysis, as well as possible root causes for poor performance. Beginning in the spring of 2015 and annually thereafter, the Risk Analysis Sheet will be used to analyze LEA data and decide on the tier of support for the Examining Practices monitoring system. The data is analyzed by the state and the LEA to open dialogue for increasing positive student outcomes. How does the SEA use data to determine which LEAs are achieving improved results for students with disabilities? In addition to the analysis that led to the High-Performing Project, Arizona also uses the A–F Letter Grade system to identify the highest performing and high progress schools as reward schools. Schools that exhibit both high current standing and high progress are recognized for their exemplary work. Highperforming reward schools are those that have a letter grade of “A,” as well as have above average achievement and growth among the students whose achievement falls in the bottom quartile. Highprogress Reward schools have a letter grade of “A” or “B,” with above average growth for all students and above average achievement and growth among the students whose achievement falls in the bottom quartile. Students in the bottom quartile are predominantly English language learners and students with disabilities. The Risk Analysis Sheet will be used to determine which LEAs have improved results for students with disabilities. The data gathered for the analysis includes student performance data, as well as other results indicators, such as graduation and dropout rate. LEAs that have high results fall into a low-risk category. Data Analysis Summary (Connecting the Dots to the SIMR) ADE and all stakeholders analyzed State- and LEA-level data. The data show that students with specific learning disabilities are the largest population of special education students in Arizona, and these students are educated most of the day in the general education setting. Students with specific learning disabilities are the lowest performers in reading on the State assessment. LEAs identified as Focus and Pre-Intervention have a higher population of students with disabilities and lower performance for these students. A study of LEAs that have the highest performance for students with disabilities in the State revealed six systems that are necessary for high performance. The root causes for poor performance are lack of effective leaders, lack of the use of data to drive instruction, lack of effective instruction, lack of ongoing support to ensure fidelity of implementation, and the State’s compliance-focused system. Based on the review of all relevant data, Arizona has selected a SIMR that will focus on increasing the percentage of students passing the State reading assessment in grades 3–8 with specific learning disabilities in the FFY 2014 cohort of Focus and Pre-Intervention schools. 15 Arizona Part B State Systemic Improvement Plan FFY 2013 Arizona Component #2: Analysis of State Infrastructure to Support Improvement and Build Capacity Elements: 2(a) A description of how the State analyzed the capacity of its current infrastructure to support improvement and build capacity in LEAs to implement, scale up, and sustain the use of evidence-based practices to improve results for children with disabilities.  The State engaged in a systematic process to analyze the capacity of the State infrastructure to support improvement and build capacity at the local level in relation to the SIMR. When the former state leader of public instruction, Superintendent John Huppenthal, took office in January 2010, he and his staff began changing ADE from an agency with a singular focus on either compliance or technical assistance, depending on the program, to one with a focus as a service organization. The department was reorganized on a functional basis to help reduce duplication and overlap in the performance of functions and to help identify opportunities for further collaboration and streamlining. Programs that serve students were put into the same division under one leader, with the expectation that all programs in the division would work together to support districts and schools in serving children. This division, the Highly Effective Schools division, includes Exceptional Students Services, Title I, Career and Technical Education (CTE), and School Improvement and Intervention (SII). With the reorganization of ADE and the announcement of OSEP’s shift to Results Driven Accountability, ESS began examining the infrastructure of the unit. A new mission and vision was created to be in alignment with the new mission and vision of ADE. The ESS mission is to provide high quality service that builds capacity to improve outcomes for all students. The vision of ESS is that all students, including students with a disability, are well prepared for the next step, whether that is college, technical/trade school, career, job, or other means of engagement. To achieve this vision, ESS is establishing a system of supports that wrap around educators to improve student outcomes—academically, behaviorally, and functionally. The development of a new mission and vision led to further analysis of the infrastructure. Each unit within ESS was asked to examine how the work of their unit aligns with the mission and vision—what work supports the mission and vision and what work can be modified or let go if it no longer serves to build the capacity of LEAs. Along with aligning the work of the unit to the new mission and vision, the Comprehensive System of Professional Development unit within ESS was renamed the Professional Learning and Sustainability (PLS) unit to ensure that professional development was more than isolated events; it was organized so that learning would be sustained when the training events or grants ended. The PLS unit works closely with Program Support and Monitoring (PSM) to ensure that ESS is offering professional development and technical assistance that aligns with the new data-driven monitoring system. There is an increased emphasis on implementation science and systems analysis in all work with LEAs. The process of the in-depth infrastructure analysis started with the identification of the current support, services, and assistance that ADE/ESS provides to LEAs. Each ESS director engaged in a brainstorming process to determine the specific support/services that ESS provided and charted the results. Similar 16 Arizona Part B State Systemic Improvement Plan FFY 2013 Arizona services or supports were merged into one category. Each topic was individually examined for overlap, strengths, weaknesses, and gaps. During the second phase, the ESS leadership team divided this information into topics (governance, fiscal, professional development, technical assistance, quality standards, data, and accountability/monitoring). A strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) analysis was conducted on each of these topics. The information from the SWOT analysis and the High-Performing Project was compared using a crosswalk analysis to determine if gaps existed. The leadership team categorized the SWOT information and the list of current supports or services onto the six trends identified in the High-Performing Project—culture, effective core instruction, leadership, use of data, inclusive practices, and interventions/enrichment. After the data and information were mapped, leaders identified redundancies, weaknesses, and gaps in support and services. The infrastructure analysis and restructuring of ESS is not complete and will be ongoing as ESS explores improvement strategies. Changes to ESS Based on Infrastructure Analysis       A lack of leadership training offerings for LEAs was noted in the analysis of the SEA capacity. There was also a lack of focus, specifically on the needs of students with special needs as they related to curriculum, assessments, instruction, and school culture among the LEAs. ESS is currently creating professional development activities and applying for the State Personnel Development Grant (SPDG) to scale up its supports in these areas for all personnel who impact students with disabilities. Program Support and Monitoring is in the process of completely overhauling the monitoring system. The infrastructure analysis showed that the compliance-heavy focus left little resources for support on improving student outcomes. The new Examining Practices monitoring system is a more balanced approach that embraces the principles and vision of Results Driven Accountability. A new Results Driven Accountability (RDA) implementation grant was announced in October 2014 to assist LEAs in changing their practices to include academic results, as well as compliance. School Improvement and Intervention (SII) is partnering with PLS when an applicant is currently in school improvement. PLS and PSM are ensuring applicants that are also going through the new monitoring system, Examining Data to Improve Student Achievement (EDISA), are braiding their resources to ameliorate the root cause that was determined during the data analysis. PLS is also working with School Improvement and Intervention to create an online course for principals with the goal of increasing leadership skills to foster culture that is inclusive of all children. The Autism Spectrum Disorder Project is now partnering with Early Childhood Education to bring the Strategies for Teaching Based on Autism Research (STAR) program to LEAs. This partnership ensures that there is a clear method of professional development that is consistent pre-K–12. In 2012, attrition data indicated that on average, a special education director in Arizona stayed in the position for less than three years. Considering that the impact of good leadership is the most important variable when predicting whether special education teachers remain in their profession, ESS initiated a mentoring program to recruit and retain special education directors. 17 Arizona Part B State Systemic Improvement Plan FFY 2013 Arizona After two years of the initiation of this mentoring program, the attrition of special educators significantly decreased. 2(b) A description of the State’s systems infrastructure (at a minimum the governance, fiscal, quality standards, professional development, data, technical assistance, and accountability/monitoring).  The State analyzed all systems within its infrastructure related to the SIMR. Governance The governance infrastructure begins with the superintendent of public instruction, Diane Douglas. The superintendent, in conjunction with the State Board of Education, leads the State in developing and implementing educational guidelines and standards. Through various programs within the department, the superintendent oversees direct services to 231 locally governed school districts, including 13 vocational districts and 9 accommodation districts. The superintendent, in conjunction with the State Board for Charter Schools, oversees 418 charters. ADE executes the educational guidelines through evaluation, training, school improvement assistance, dissemination of information, and administration and allocation of funds. The department also serves as the primary source for information on the status and needs of the public school system. 18 Arizona Part B State Systemic Improvement Plan FFY 2013 Arizona The work of the ADE/ESS is guided by the leadership of the deputy associate superintendent (DAS). The DAS has a leadership team of directors for each unit within ESS that guides the work of the program specialists and other support staff. While each unit within ESS has specific tasks and responsibilities, it is the expectation that the units work collaboratively to support LEAs. Governance Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) Analysis Strengths                    State Strategic Plan for improved student achievement and opportunities for success post-graduation ESEA Waiver A–F letter grade accountability system Arizona Measurement of Educational Readiness to Inform Teaching (AzMERIT) (new state assessment aligned to college and career ready standards) Arizona’s College and Career Ready Standards Arizona Education Learning Accountability System (AELAS) (Arizona’s comprehensive technology initiative) AZDash information system consolidates student performance data Education and Career Action Plans (ECAPs) AZLEADS school administration support and training Move On When Reading (MOWR) initiative Dispute Resolution—early resolution and facilitated IEPs Family engagement initiative AZ FIND intergovernmental agreements with Department of Economic Security and Arizona Early Intervention Program Interagency service agreement with Division of Behavioral Health Services (Department of Health Services) Special Education Advisory Panel State Board rules committee Partnership with Raising Special Kids Community of Practice Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports of Arizona (PBISAz) Results Driven Accountability buy-in from key political figures Weaknesses     Multiple site visits and reporting forms for various ADE units and schools ADE staff turnover Constituent turnover 200+ districts, 400+ charters across 114,000 miles 19 Arizona Part B State Systemic Improvement Plan FFY 2013 Arizona Opportunities     Muti-Tiered System of Supports initiative Collaboration with School Improvement and Intervention Collaboration with Title I Collaboration with K–12 standards Threats   Unknown timeline for IDEA reauthorization Unknown timeline for ESEA reauthorization and waiver renewal application The largest strength of the governance system that supports the SIMR is the organizational structure of the ADE. ESS is part of the Highly Effective Schools division and is an equal participant in decisions that concern education of students. Additional strengths of the system are the ESEA Waiver A–F Letter Grade accountability system, the Move On When Reading initiative, and the Results Driven Accountability buy-in. ESS has opportunities in the governance system to collaborate with the other divisions at ADE to establish a complete system of supports that will build the capacity of LEAs to improve outcomes for ALL students. Fiscal The Grants Management division is a collaborative processing unit for all state and federally funded programs that are administered by the Arizona Department of Education. There are four fiscal monitoring units within the Grants Management division: Arizona Charter Schools Program, Exceptional Student Services, National School Lunch Program, and Single Point of Contact. The Single Point of Contact is a pilot project intended to address the needs of the smallest LEAs in Arizona. The purpose of the project is to allow these districts and charter schools to contact only one individual in order to receive assistance and guidance on any questions regarding state or federal grant funding. ADE is also making an effort to streamline the monitoring processes across multiple grant programs; ADE is testing a single monitoring process for all federal and state funds. The monitoring process includes an initial desk-based risk assessment, along with a review of transaction information across multiple grants. The ESS Funding unit distributes IDEA formula–driven, noncompetitive, and discretionary competitive grants to eligible schools throughout Arizona. The grant process is fully automated through the ADE Grants Management Enterprise system. Grants are approved, amended, and financially monitored through the automated system. There are approximately 20 grant categories, and the unit processes approximately 1,000 applications per year. In addition to grants, the ESS Funding unit manages all contracts, procurement, data collection, and budgeting for Exceptional Student Services. Fiscal SWOT Analysis 20 Arizona Part B State Systemic Improvement Plan FFY 2013 Arizona Strengths           Funding director with experience and strong knowledge base of fiscal compliance and grants management Web-based grants management system Ongoing open and thorough communication with LEAs Funding director membership with AASBO (Arizona Association of School Business Officials) for ongoing training and networking LEAs have fiscal accountability through single audit, fiscal monitoring, and year-end financial completion reports Annual new charter training pertaining to funding opportunities prior to enrolling students with disabilities Funding director attendance at national fiscal compliance conferences Directors of ESS Finance and Operations membership in ADE Federal Fiscal Grants Management task force and ADE Grants Management task force Development of new interactive LEA maintenance of effort (MOE) testing and compliance database Good relationship and communication with the Arizona State Board of Charter Schools staff Weaknesses     Opportunities    Capacity building (professional development) grants for LEAs Targeted grants for LEAs with low achievement scores for students with disabilities Work with other ADE divisions to develop team approaches to fiscal monitoring and LEA technical assistance Lack of consistent communication with School Finance in order to identify resources available through their data collection mechanisms within budgets and annual financial reports submitted by LEAs Lack of discussion with LEAs pertaining to the allocation of resources equitably to ensure that all students have equal access to educational resources (refer to 12/10/14 Dear Colleague Letter) Lack of time and resources to train LEAs pertaining to appropriate allocation of IDEA funds to serve students with disabilities, such as paraprofessionals and supplemental curriculum Lack of interaction/discussion with LEAs to discover their needs and their strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) Threats  Timely updating of ADE/ESS policies and procedures related to new Uniform Grant Guidance and changes to the Federal Register issued by the Office of Management and Budget The strengths of the fiscal system that support the SIMR are the ongoing open and thorough communication with LEAs, the ESS funding director who has experience and strong knowledge of fiscal compliance and grants management, and the web-based grants management system. These strengths will allow LEAs to quickly access the resources needed for implementation of leadership and literacy practices as they relate to the SIMR. ESS has opportunities to provide targeted grants to LEAs with low achievement in reading and to develop team approaches to fiscal monitoring and LEA technical assistance. 21 Arizona Part B State Systemic Improvement Plan FFY 2013 Arizona Quality Standards Arizona’s College and Career Ready Standards give Arizona students the skills they need to be successful in life. The standards are a set of expectations placed on students to ensure that when they leave the classroom they are prepared to become informed, productive members of their communities. Arizona’s College and Career Ready Standards were adopted in 2010 after extensive public comment and public meetings by the Arizona State Board of Education. Schools began implementing the standards during the 2012–2013 school year. The Program Guidelines for High Quality Early Education: Birth Through Kindergarten was developed in partnership with the ADE Early Childhood Education division and First Things First and included extensive stakeholder involvement. This recommended set of practices provides guidance by delineating what constitutes quality practices and providing a set of indicators that concretely describe high quality early care and educational programming for children birth through age six. The Arizona Early Learning Standards (AZELS) have been developed to provide a framework for the planning of quality learning experiences for all children three to five years of age. The standards cover a broad range of skill development and provide a useful instructional foundation for children from diverse backgrounds and with diverse abilities. They assist all early education professionals in setting high expectations for children rather than lowering expectations for children with disabilities or other challenges. Therefore, the AZELS should be used for students with disabilities as well as with typically developing children. Because these standards establish the content for learning, the focus for classrooms no longer needs to be on an age, grade, or specific functional level but on actual performance on or toward a standard. Like any quality standard, the AZELS are designed to be used to plan creative experiences that support children in reaching their highest potential, capture their interest in learning, and build on what they already know. The standards are intended for use by all those who work with young children in any early care and education setting in urban, rural and tribal communities. They were developed with extensive stakeholder involvement, including parents, families, teachers, administrators of public and private early learning centers, and representatives of institutes of higher education. Standards for Effective LEAs were developed by a team of ADE staff from Title I, Title II, and School Improvement and Intervention units. After an extensive review of the research, the team synthesized the most common descriptors of significant practices and developed the Standards for Effective LEAs. Standard 1 – Continuous Improvement Standard 2 – LEA Leadership Standard 3 – Curriculum and Instructional Systems Standard 4 – Supplemental Supports and Intervention Services Standard 5 – Data, Assessment, and Evaluation Standard 6 – Stakeholder Relations When this analysis was done, it was noted that ESS does not have standards per se. The results of the High-Performing Project very closely reflect the Standards for Effective LEAs. ESS will be working with School Improvement and Intervention, Title I, and Title II to strengthen and combine the work so that there is a common language of effective systems for LEAs. 22 Arizona Part B State Systemic Improvement Plan FFY 2013 Arizona Quality Standards SWOT Analysis Strengths    Quality standards for LEA and school systems established and implemented through Title I, Title II, and SII—based on the seven turnaround principles Early Childhood—Preschool quality standards (ECQUIP) General supervision expectations based on activities for compliance Weaknesses   Opportunities    Integrate high quality effective practices for students with disabilities into existing quality standards used in Title I, Title II, and School Improvement and Intervention Collaborate with Title I, SII, and TII to establish new system for continuous improvement planning Include LEA/school goals, strategies, and actions steps for students with disabilities into existing plans based on quality standards—one plan Up to this point, ESS has not used the LEA and school system standards We do not have quality standards for effective practices Threats     Changes in leadership Focus on too many initiatives without connecting to an overarching goal LEA capacity SEA capacity The strengths of the quality standards system are the standards established by Title I, Title II, and School Improvement that are based on the seven turnaround principles. The early childhood unit also has preschool quality standards. Both of these sets of standards can be the building blocks for the work of developing quality standards as they relate to improving reading. This analysis created the opportunity for ADE leadership to collaborate and integrate high-quality effective practices for students with disabilities into existing quality standards and to establish a new system for continuous improvement planning especially in the area of literacy. Professional Development Each division of the ADE has its own system of professional development. The agency also provides professional development opportunities to all staff to increase their capacity to serve the education community. All ADE/ESS–provided professional development over the last two years has been increasingly emphasizing Dean Fixsen’s work with implementation science. Accordingly, all professional development provides clear learning goals to the participating teams. All professional development also 23 Arizona Part B State Systemic Improvement Plan FFY 2013 Arizona incorporates the tenets of adult learning theory that, according to Carol Trivette’s work, show the highest gains in adult learning. ESS staff consists of individuals who are currently involved in Learning Forward initiatives and trainings. Data is collected often to ensure implementation is occurring. Surveys are also provided to ensure we are meeting constituent needs. The ESS PLS unit also researches and maintains the Promising Practices Web site. This online guide provides easy access to over 1,400 excellent resources for parents and professionals serving students with disabilities in Arizona. The Web site provides research-to-practice guidelines, strategies, and resources to support professionals and parents in improving results for students with disabilities: http://www.azpromisingpractices.com/. Professional Development SWOT Analysis Strengths Weaknesses Recruitment and retention:  Job fairs  Recruitment at local and national conferences  Relationships with higher education agencies  Mentor program for new special education directors Recruitment and retention:  Limited competitive salary and incentives  High turnover  Geographic challenges to participate in trainings—burdensome travel  Technology challenges Coordinated system of professional development:  There is a professional development system within the different units in ADE  There is a comprehensive PD program for evidence-based reading instruction Coordinated system of professional development:  Lack of collaboration between division and units  Limited overall structure  Lack of common language  Extensive use of acronyms  Limited information that is translated into other languages  Lack of leadership training opportunities Personnel standards and competencies:  MAP system is not user friendly Personnel standards and competencies:  Comprehensive handbook of policies and procedures that is provided to all personnel in ADE  Employees are required to review competencies on a scheduled basis and demonstrate proficiency based on specific areas  Ongoing surveys to evaluate job satisfaction  Employee evaluation system on individual work performance—MAP (Managing Accountability 24 Arizona Part B State Systemic Improvement Plan FFY 2013 Arizona and Performance) Ongoing systematic professional development (PD) strategies:  Implementation grants are based on Fixsen’s Implementation Science Framework  Trainers incorporate adult learning styles and active learning in PD events  Capacity coaches are provided to grantees at many events Incorporating stakeholder and staff input and data to inform the professional development system:  Survey provided to collect evaluation of training  Implementation survey—three- month followup after initial training  Based on SPP/APR data, grants are created to meet LEA needs Ongoing, systemic, and effective professional/workforce development:  Workgroups within ESS  Scheduled staff meetings  Mandatory 30 hours of professional development annually for all staff Ongoing systematic professional development (PD) strategies:  Clarity of structure of system for PD is lacking Incorporating stakeholder and staff input and data to inform the professional development system:  Ongoing, systemic, and effective professional/workforce development:  Lack of structure to make decisions  Lack of opportunities to have other units participate  Lack of operational protocols (e.g., workgroups, unit meetings, overall small or large group organizational meetings)  Lack of effective use of time Opportunities     Coordinated system of professional development Strengthening our relationships with regional centers and other divisions within ADE Opportunity to develop a catalog of professional development training Increase employee training for use of technology for delivering professional development to LEAs Regional Inconsistencies for opportunities for stakeholder input Threats    Overburdening LEAs with duplication of requirements Lack of information delivered to LEAs LEAs limited access to information The professional development system strength that supports the SIMR is the coordinated system of professional development in each unit. This strength also creates an opportunity to combine the separate systems into one that will support all LEAs as they work to improve reading outcomes for students. The new professional development system will need to focus on the support for LEAs in the implementation of evidence-based reading practices and creating effective leaders. 25 Arizona Part B State Systemic Improvement Plan FFY 2013 Arizona Data The ADE Data Governance Program is charged with the responsibility of developing and enforcing policies concerning the collection, management, and use of data within the Arizona Department of Education (ADE). The mission of Data Governance is to improve the quality of data while reducing the administrative burdens of data collection and processing. Data Governance has the authority to set data management–related policy and standards for use within the ADE. The ADE Data Governance Program works with the Arizona Data Governance Commission to establish data management–related policies and standards that impact schools pre-K through postsecondary. Key responsibilities of Data Governance include: Management of ADE data collections and publication of the Master Data Collections Calendar Development of Data Management Policies Provision of Public Data Sets and servicing of Data Requests Development, communication, and enforcement of privacy policies and practices Provision of information and training for the Data Pre-Conference at the Leading Change Conference The ESS Data Management team is responsible for the collection, review, validation, verification, and analysis of special education data in Arizona, as required under Section 618 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Data SWOT Analysis Strengths  Three Data Management FTE positions within the ADE special education section (ESS) dedicated solely to training, technical assistance, analysis, communication, and collaboration with PEAs and internal ADE areas, including the ADE information technology (IT) section  Six Information Technology FTE positions within the ADE IT section dedicated solely to ADE special education data technology systems development, production support, quality assurance, business analysis, and project management  Effective and ongoing collaboration with the ADE IT special education team and other IT staff who coordinate systems that collect or submit special education data (i.e., SAIS, AzSAFE, EdFacts)  Fully developed statewide student information system for PEA data submission (Student Accountability Information System or SAIS) Weaknesses  ADE IT infrastructures are being revised at such a rapid rate that ESS Data Management staff time and resources are frequently constrained  ADE does not have data-sharing systems in place to easily share data between Part B and Part C  ADE internal consistency is still being developed between areas that work with data, which means that inconsistent messages can be sent to PEAs  The ADE/ESS Data Management Web site does not display effective, organized visual data displays for 618 data aside from special education census information 26 Arizona Part B State Systemic Improvement Plan FFY 2013 Arizona  Locally developed web-based data submission, reporting, and analysis software systems to collect special education census and annual data collection PEA data  Built-in edit checks to ensure accurate data submission from PEAs and accurate data submission to OSEP  Ongoing and productive participation of ADE Data Management staff and leadership in a significant ADE IT infrastructure redesign workgroup (i.e., EdOrg)  Active involvement of ADE Data Management staff and leadership in the Data Stewards and Data Accountability workgroups, internal ADE data governance structures that are working to develop agency-wide consistency of roles, responsibilities, decision-making authority, data definitions, and data calendar issues  Data Management PEA focus group convened periodically to provide input, as needed, specific to special education systems; ADE IT staff convene regular PEA focus groups to look at larger data systems that may impact PEA special education data submission  Professional development, resource documents, and technical assistance provided consistently to support special education data collection, submission, analysis, and use; Data Management staff have completed interactive learning and adult engagement training to ensure professional development is effective and engaging for adult learners  A specifically designed ADE/ESS Data Management webpage has been developed to make access to data and technical assistance resources easy to locate and use  A new statewide information system for PEA data submission, the Arizona Education Learning and Accountability System (AELAS), is currently being developed Opportunities Threats 27 Arizona Part B State Systemic Improvement Plan FFY 2013 Arizona  ESS Data management participation in AELAS training will lead to more skilled staff and better PEA professional development and technical assistance  Ongoing opportunities for data-related professional development for ESS Data Management personnel can lead to better PEA professional development and technical assistance  Participation in a national workgroup on improvement of technical assistance to states could assist Arizona and other states in ensuring high quality data systems are maintained and consistent data collection and submission procedures are followed  Participation in the IDEA Data Center could lead to new ideas, best practices, and more support for data-related issues  Differing interpretation of data collection requirements based on different internal ADE data managers  Change in ADE leadership could lead to ADE IT leadership changes, which could impact data systems used for special education data collection and submission The strengths of the data systems that support the SIMR are the data management staff that provide training and technical assistance to LEAs and the ongoing collaboration with ADE IT to ensure that all data systems are coordinated and accurate. This leads to the opportunity to use the new Arizona Education Learning and Accountability System (AELAS), which includes AZDash, an interactive dashboard that can display longitudinal achievement data at the district, school, or student level. Arizona educators will have better access to reading achievement data to use to make instructional decisions. Technical Assistance An example of technical assistance that is offered at ADE/ESS is illustrated in how the mentoring program for new special education directors throughout the state is carried out. To make technical assistance possible for these busy directors, ESS offers monthly meetings by using Go-To-Meeting. This method provides technical assistance in areas such as funding reporting requirements, legalities and compliance issues in special education, the special education process, ADE initiatives that support or relate to special education personnel, and recruitment and retention strategies for special education personnel. The Recruitment and Retention unit within ESS, in collaboration with the CEEDAR Center (Collaboration for Effective Educator Development, Accountability and Reform) at the University of Florida, provides technical assistance to institutes of higher education (IHEs) to promote consistency and increase the rigor and relevance of coursework related to data-driven decision making in reading instruction. IHEs continually collaborate to ensure that curriculum related to teacher preparation in reading instruction is consistent in IHEs and that the curricular content reflects current research-based practices. Program specialists in all areas of ADE provide ongoing technical assistance to the LEAs in Arizona. Program Support and Monitoring specialists meet with their assigned LEAs at least once a year for an annual site visit to provide guidance and support and more frequently, depending on the LEAs’ needs. 28 Arizona Part B State Systemic Improvement Plan FFY 2013 Arizona Technical Assistance SWOT Analysis Strengths        Capacity building coaches available to grantee LEAs at the site level when they implement new strategies in their schools Grants available to assist LEAs with various initiatives Education project specialist assigned to each grantee Surveys gather data on implementation of training strategies Different sections and units have an approved list of technical assistance providers Surveys are a tool used to conduct needs’ assessments prior to training sessions Technical assistance documents on special education topics such as evaluation, IEP, and prior written notice are posted on the ESS Web site Weaknesses    Opportunities     Collaboration between various sections and units to develop and implement a framework for monitoring outcomes of grants and initiatives Revise the implementation process to designate steps, checkpoints, and strategies for gaining feedback Develop a peer mentoring program for implementing techniques and initiatives Action research projects with school teams and among peers could be an additional data source Coaches work with LEAs on a specific initiative or grant requirement Sections and units work in isolation and not collaboratively The overall agency lacks a plan to foster and monitor implementation of strategies to improve student outcomes Threats     Changing the current system requires a paradigm shift and a commitment from everyone Potential for progress to become stagnant or to decrease upon implementation Maintaining a closed culture of thinking that includes the same people and the same problem Resistance from those who might not be invested in the change process The strengths of the technical assistance system that supports the SIMR are the capacity building coaches that are available to participants of various grants such at Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling (LETRS), the implementation surveys that gather data on the implementation of training strategies, and the surveys used as needs assessments that are administered to trainees prior to training. There are also opportunities for us to develop a peer mentoring program using the 29 LEAs 29 Arizona Part B State Systemic Improvement Plan FFY 2013 Arizona from the High-Performing Project to mentor others in successful strategies to increase literacy and overall student performance. Accountability/Monitoring The state accountability system in Arizona is predicated on a continuous improvement model, with differentiated state supports and interventions designed to drive student achievement toward the goal of college and career readiness. Through the state’s A–F Letter Grade system, Arizona makes annual accountability determinations for all schools and districts based on student academic status and growth. With Arizona’s state accountability system as the foundation, the state can enhance the identification and recognition system and further differentiate interventions. This will allow ADE to support every school where students are struggling and create a system focused on college and career readiness that supports continuous improvement. The Accountability section aims to measure the growth in the quality of Arizona schools and districts by producing timely and reliable accountability determinations as required by state and federal law. The section works closely with Assessments, the State Board of Education, and Research and Evaluation in order to accurately label schools in a fair and systematic manner. Accountability staff support schools, districts, and other stakeholders in refining the system, as well as in utilizing data in an appropriate and effective manner. The ADE continues to refine its differentiated system of support and accountability based on outcome data and lessons learned. ADE is committed to creating, improving, and sustaining effective systems that will support and hold accountable the state, LEAs, schools, and ultimately all classrooms for being the best so that all Arizona students have the opportunity to reach their full potential. ESS has developed a monitoring system that uses data analysis to understand the root cause as to why students with disabilities are not achieving in reading at the same rate as their nondisabled peers. The system, Examining Practices, differentiates support for LEAs based on a risk analysis, which analyzes their needs. The risk analysis is a tool that includes fiscal information, indicator data, proficiency results, public education agency determinations, and special education director permanency to assess schools’ needs for intervention. This new monitoring model takes a more balanced approach of maintaining procedural compliance, along with improving student outcomes. It is a major shift from the previous compliance-heavy monitoring model. Accountability/Monitoring SWOT Analysis Strengths     Examining Practices model EDISA (Examining Data to Improve Student Achievement) Capacity building grants Completion reports for grants (e.g., LETRS, Autism, PBIS) Weaknesses      Leverage Effective evaluation tools Progress monitoring No qualitative data in monitoring Inconsistency among specialists 30 Arizona Part B State Systemic Improvement Plan FFY 2013 Arizona    PEA Determinations Listserv ALEAT—online system for tracking LEA action plans Action plan development Coaching New Parent Involvement Survey    Opportunities   Development of evaluation tools Development of professional development on data analysis Create implementation specialists to assist LEAs with the implementation of their action plans  Threats     SEA capacity Buy-in from LEAs Monitoring perceived as punitive Inconsistency among specialists Examining Data to Improve Student Achievement (EDISA) is currently used as part of the LEA monitoring system and guides LEAs in using a data-use framework with the focus on increasing reading achievement. The Examining Practices monitoring system is transitioning LEAs from the prior compliance-dominant monitoring system to one that allows LEAs to examine their systems and make changes that improve student outcomes. These strengths support the SIMR by allowing the focus of monitoring to shift to a more balanced approach that will consider results, specifically the improvement of reading achievement. In order to support the work for the SIMR, ESS has the opportunity to modify and strengthen EDISA to include implementation specialists who will assist LEAs in the implementation of their action plans. 2(c) A description of the current strengths, the extent the systems are coordinated, and areas for improvement within and across the systems.  The State identified relevant strengths within and across the systems to address the SIMR. The greatest strength of the ADE systems is the commitment to collaboration between all units and divisions. The data and infrastructure analysis for the SSIP has brought to the surface the need for collaboration between general education and special education in order to improve results for ALL students. The creation of the SSIP has led to a partnership with School Improvement to support the FFY 2014 cohort of Focus and Pre-Intervention LEAs and all other LEAs. ADE has identified the following additional strengths: o o The State currently has an ongoing coordinated system of professional development, which includes state personnel standards and competencies, a new employee evaluation system, implementation grants, the use of an implementation science framework, and the incorporation of adult learning styles and active learning. The state provides technical assistance by developing capacity around effective systems and implementation practices by making capacity building coaches available to assist LEAs. 31 Arizona Part B State Systemic Improvement Plan FFY 2013 Arizona o o o o o o o  Fiscal strengths include a web-based grants management system with open and ongoing communication with LEAs. Fiscal accountability is maintained through single audit, single monitoring, and year-end financial completion reports. A new interactive LEA Maintenance of Effort (MOE) testing and compliance database has been developed. Quality standards for LEAs and school systems have been established and implemented through Title I, Title II, and School Improvement and Intervention based on the seven turnaround principles; early childhood quality standards have been implemented through ECQUIP. Accountability and quality improvement systems use data and a planning process designed to achieve results for children and families. The LETRS (Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling) grant for districts uses a train-the-trainer model and includes a matching implementation grant so districts can use the trainers to train general and special education teachers in the district. The grant covers all personnel who work with students with disabilities. Data systems are dedicated to training, technical assistance, analysis, communication, and collaboration with PEAs and internal ADE areas. There are six Information Technology FTE positions dedicated solely to ADE special education data technology systems development, production support, quality assurance, business analysis, and project management. ESS has effective and ongoing collaboration with the ADE IT and other IT staff who coordinate systems that collect or submit special education data (i.e., SAIS, Az SAFE, EDFacts). Web-based data submission, reporting, and analysis software systems collect special education census and annual data collection PEA data. The State identified relevant areas for improvement within and across the systems in relation to the SIMR. The most relevant area for improvement across the systems is communication and collaboration between the units as systems are improved to support the SIMR. Other areas for improvement as determined by the SWOT and stakeholder infrastructure analysis include the following activities: o o o o o o o o o Provide leadership training for effective leaders to include both special and general education together. Partner with general education sections of ADE to provide comprehensive professional development in the area of evidence-based reading strategies. Continue to improve the communication between all ADE departments. Establish a data-sharing system to share data between Part B and Part C. Increase the ESS staff capacity for supporting LEAs—make the shift from compliance only focus to a more balanced approach. Develop or use the LEA and school system standards. Continue to build partnerships and collaborate with other sections and units in ADE. Increase ESS staff capacity for use of technology in providing professional development. Continue work in restructuring and repurposing ESS staff to support the work of the SIMR. 2(d) The identification of current State-level improvement plans and initiatives, including special and general education improvement plans and initiatives and the extent to which they are aligned, and how they are, or could be, integrated with the SSIP. OSEP will consider the extent to which: 32 Arizona Part B State Systemic Improvement Plan FFY 2013 Arizona  The State identified both special education and general education initiatives that could impact the capacity of local programs and schools to implement strategies that lead to a measurable improvement in the State identified result(s). To reduce the redundancy and the burden on LEAs, a pilot project led by the director of Evaluation and Cross Division Collaboration, is currently in the beginning stages. Seven LEAs were selected to pilot this integrated support model. A cross-divisional data team made up of members of School Improvement, Title I, Title II, ESS, Office of English Language Acquisition Services, Office of Indian Education, K–12 Standards, Early Childhood, Special Populations, and Career and Technical Education will meet to review all relevant data and work with the nine LEAs together to develop one LEA action plan that will meet all the requirements of the respective programs. Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling (LETRS) course content is aligned with Arizona’s College and Career Readiness Standards. LETRS is a course of study that connects research to practice in language arts and provides training for pre-K–5 general education teachers and special education teachers pre-K–12. Move On When Reading (MOWR) is a statutory initiative (Arizona Revised Statutes [A.R.S.] §15-704) that requires LEAs serving students in grades K–3 to provide effective reading instruction and a system to monitor student progress. A.R.S. §15-201 requires LEAs with a K–3 program to submit a plan for reading instruction and intervention for those same grades. State funding is provided to support implementation of the plan. The CEEDAR Center at the University of Florida is a national technical assistance center that works with states, universities, and education agencies. The center is currently supporting Arizona’s IHEs in their efforts to develop more rigorous and relevant courses at the undergraduate and graduate levels to produce teachers and leaders who can successfully prepare students with disabilities to achieve the college and career readiness standards. Arizona has been classified as “in need of targeted technical assistance” and has chosen to concentrate its efforts on reading and data analysis to improve reading instruction for students with disabilities. Ninety percent of colleges and universities who currently have a State Board–approved program in special education are actively participating in this initiative. Both TIERS (Arizona Teams Intervening Early to Reach All Students) and DART (Data Accountability Reading Team) trainings involve processes that teach LEAs to analyze their data to identify the root causes as to why students with disabilities are not achieving in reading at the same rate as their nondisabled peers. General education personnel are involved as one mandatory member of a TIERS or DART team is a general educator. In addition, the ADE School Improvement program specialists and early childhood program specialists are attending meetings and aligning the work of this system with their own initiatives. ADE provides funding to support LEAs in the process and implementation of improvement strategies. The Community of Practice model that ADE is using involves many stakeholder groups that make decisions on improving outcomes for all students. The ADE/ESS in partnership with Research Collaboration at the University of Kansas, Center for Research on Learning, offers funding and training to selected interdisciplinary teams of educators from across Arizona. The Secondary Transition Mentoring Project / College and Career Readiness Team Training (STMP/CCRTT) Project provides systematic professional development that promotes college and career readiness for all students. 33 Arizona Part B State Systemic Improvement Plan FFY 2013 Arizona ADE developed a cross-unit division to create Arizona’s multi-tiered system of supports (MTSS) for schools. The MTSS workgroup consists of members from School Improvement, School Safety, ESS, Assessment, K–12 Standards, Office of English Language Acquisition Services, Early Childhood, Title 1, and CTE. This group is developing a comprehensive system of supports and tools that will assist LEAs in scaling up and creating a multi-tiered system of supports within their LEAs. The development of supports for the MTSS schools is being interwoven with supports from the other units to tie into existing initiatives for increased sustainability.  The State analyzed relevant State-level improvement plans and initiatives in relation to the SIMR and described the extent to which they are aligned, or could be integrated, with the SSIP. The ADE/ESS reviewed the Strategic Plan, ESEA Waiver, Race to the Top, and the Move On When Reading literacy plans during the infrastructure analysis. Improvement Plan or Initiative How is it aligned to the SSIP? Move On When Reading This initiative requires LEAs to provide effective reading instruction, with initial screenings, ongoing diagnostic and classroom-based reading assessments, and a system to monitor student progress. This directly supports the SSIP and the focus area of improving reading proficiency. http://www.azed.gov/mowr/ ADE Strategic Plan Low percentage of Arizona students deemed college and career ready. The goals set for this plan support the SSIP: increase graduation rates, increase percent of students scoring at or above basic in National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in reading and math. http://www.azed.gov/strategic-planning /5-year-plan/ ESEA Waiver The waiver was reviewed extensively throughout the development of the SSIP. The A–F accountability system is incorporated into the Examining Practices Risk Analysis Sheet, and the identified Focus and PreIntervention schools are the cohort for the SIMR. School Improvement and Intervention and ESS have created a partnership to support LEAs in improving student outcomes. http://www.azed.gov/eseawaiver/files/2014/10 /version-7.2-final-approved-copy-10_9_14.pdf Race to the Top The five regional centers that were established by Race to the Top are a resource for professional development for LEAs. The regional centers offer numerous professional development opportunities in 34 Arizona Part B State Systemic Improvement Plan FFY 2013 Arizona reading standards and effective reading strategies. http://www.azed.gov/racetothetop/regionalcenters/ Multi-Tier System of Supports (MTSS) The mission, vision, and beliefs ingrained in the MTSS project support the results of the ESS HighPerforming Project and the SSIP. Effective leadership, data-based decisions, and effective teaching using evidenced-based practices ensure that all students will achieve. http://www.azed.gov/mtss/ Family Engagement The Family Engagement initiative is a cross-division effort to build and strengthen partnerships between families, schools, and communities. Research indicates that families who engage their children in at-home learning activities help students achieve academic expectations, and schools that include families in the decision-making process develop shared goals and actions to improve schools and students’ education. http://www.azed.gov/parents/familyengagement/ Read On Arizona Read On Arizona is a public/private partnership of agencies, philanthropic organizations, and community stakeholders committed to creating an effective continuum of supports to improve language and literacy outcomes for Arizona’s children from birth through age eight. Read On Arizona works to leverage existing resources to maximize impact and develop and strengthen literacy and language acquisition along the continuum. http://readonarizona.org/ 2(e) A list of representatives (e.g. offices, agencies, positions, individuals, and other stakeholders) who were involved in the development of Phase I and will be involved in the development and implementation of Phase II of the SSIP.  The relevant representatives supported the development of Phase I of the SSIP. ADE Superintendent of Public Instruction – John Huppenthal ADE Deputy Superintendent of Programs and Policy – Jennifer Johnson ADE Associate Superintendent of Highly Effective Schools – Robert Gold ADE ESS Deputy Associate Superintendent of Special Education – Angela Denning ADE ESS Director of Federal Initiatives – Lisa Yencarelli ADE ESS Director of State Initiatives – Melissa De Vries ADE ESS Director of Program Support and Monitoring – Maura Mall ADE ESS Director of Operations – Cyndi Bolewski 35 Arizona Part B State Systemic Improvement Plan FFY 2013 Arizona ADE ESS Director of Finance – Connie Hill ADE ESS Director of PLS Recruitment and Retention – Lisa Aaroe ADE ESS Director of Professional Learning and Sustainability – Oran Tkatchov ADE ESS Director of Special Projects – Alissa Trollinger ADE ESS Director of 21st Century Programs – Cindy Trejo ADE School Improvement DAS – Laura Toenjes ADE School Improvement Director of Evaluation and Cross Division Collaboration – Scott Maxwell ADE Early Childhood DAS – Amy Corriveau ADE Director of Early Childhood Special Education – Nicol Russell ADE ESS Director of Alternative Assessments – Audra Ahumada ADE ESS Community of Practice Coordinator – William McQueary Raising Special Kids Director of Family Support and Education – Christopher Tiffany Department of Economic Security/Arizona Early Intervention Program Executive Director – Karie Taylor ADE K–12 Standards ADE Research and Evaluation ESS SSIP Workgroup Special Education Advisory Panel Mountain Plains Regional Resource Center IDEA Data Center National Center for Systemic Improvement (NCSI) – Silvia DeRuvo Technical Assistance for Excellence for Special Education (TAESE) – John Copenhaver  The relevant representatives are committed to support the implementation of Phase II of the SSIP. ADE Superintendent of Public Instruction – Diane Douglas ADE Deputy Superintendent of Programs and Policy – Jennifer Johnson ADE Associate Superintendent of Highly Effective Schools – Robert Gold ADE ESS Deputy Associate Superintendent of Special Education – Angela Denning ADE Highly Effective Schools Deputy Associate Superintendent Leadership (ESS, Title 1, School Improvement and Intervention, Office of English Language Acquisition Services, Career and Technical Education, Homeless, Refugee, and Special African American Outreach, Migrant and Special Latino Outreach, Native American and Indian Education Outreach) ADE ESS Director of Federal Initiatives – Lisa Yencarelli ADE ESS Director of State Initiatives – Melissa De Vries ADE ESS Director of Program Support and Monitoring – Maura Mall ADE ESS Director of Operations – Cyndi Bolewski ADE ESS Director of Finance – Connie Hill ADE ESS Director of PLS Recruitment and Retention – Lisa Aaroe ADE ESS Director of Professional Learning and Sustainability – Oran Tkatchov ADE ESS Director of Special Projects – Alissa Trollinger ADE ESS Director of 21st Century Programs – Cindy Trejo ADE School Improvement DAS – Laura Toenjes ADE School Improvement Director of Evaluation and Cross Division Collaboration – Scott Maxwell ADE Early Childhood DAS – Amy Corriveau 36 Arizona Part B State Systemic Improvement Plan FFY 2013 Arizona ADE Director of Early Childhood Special Education – Nicol Russell ADE ESS Director of Alternative Assessments – Audra Ahumada ADE ESS Community of Practice Coordinator – William McQueary Raising Special Kids Director of Family Support and Education – Christopher Tiffany Department of Economic Security/Arizona Early Intervention Program Executive Director – Karie Taylor ADE School Improvement and Intervention Unit ADE Title I Unit ADE K–12 Standards Unit ADE Research and Evaluation Unit ADE Early Childhood Unit ESS SSIP Workgroup Special Education Advisory Panel IDEA Data Center National Center for Systemic Improvement (NCSI) – Silvia DeRuvo Technical Assistance for Excellence for Special Education (TAESE) – John Copenhaver NAU, Institute of Human Development Arizona Technology Access Project (AzTAP) Rehabilitation Services Administration, Vocational Rehabilitation Division of Developmental Disabilities Louisiana State University (EDISA development) University of Kansas, Center for Learning (STMP/CCRTT development and implementation) 2(f) A description of stakeholder involvement in the analysis of the State’s infrastructure.  Multiple internal and external stakeholders were involved in analyzing the infrastructure. Meaningful stakeholder engagement is a priority for ADE and is a critical element of all ADE initiatives. The infrastructure analysis was conducted in conjunction with the data analysis. Stakeholders involved in this process include: the Special Education Advisory Panel (SEAP), local education agency (LEA) administrators, Directors Institute attendees, secondary transition groups, early childhood groups, Arizona’s Parent Training and Information Center—Raising Special Kids, county director meetings, Exceptional Student Services leaders, and institutes of higher education (IHEs). ESS engaged with stakeholder groups to analyze the current ESS infrastructure and gather input on what supports stakeholders felt would be needed in order to better support LEAs. ESS sought the ideas of educators, parents, and community members using an in-person focus group model. Meetings were held in Flagstaff, Phoenix, and Tucson. Each region held groups resulting in a total of 17 focus group meetings. Stakeholders present at these meetings comprised various roles: persons with disabilities, parents of students with disabilities, general education administrators, general education teachers, special education administrators, special education teachers, outside agency providers, and representatives from institutes of higher education. In addition to the regional community focus groups, ESS also gathered input from the Special Education Advisory Panel, local county special education directors, the ESS internal SSIP workgroup, stakeholder groups in partnership with Arizona’s PTI— Raising Special Kids, and preschool stakeholder groups led by the ADE Early Childhood unit. 37 Arizona Part B State Systemic Improvement Plan FFY 2013 Arizona Stakeholder Group Date(s) ADE ESS Unit Director Meetings 4/18/13, 5/1/13, 6/5/13, 7/3/13, 8/7/13, 9/4/13, 10/2/13, 11/6/13, 12/4/13, 2/5/14, 5/14/14, 6/5/14, 7/17/14, 8/5/14, 9/4/14, 10/16/14, 11/13/14, 12/4/14, 1/6/15 SEAP 11/19/13, 6/17/14, 9/16/14, 11/18/14 ESS internal SSIP workgroup 5/27/14, 6/13/14, 7/8/14,7/28/14, 11/12/14, 12/3/14 Pima County Special Education Director Meeting 8/22/14 Cochise County Special Education Director Meeting 8/21/14 Graham/Greenlee County Special Education Director Meeting 10/1/14 Santa Cruz County Special Education Director Meeting 10/21/14 Pinal County Special Education Director Meeting 10/23/14 Directors Institute 8/27/13, 9/24/14 Tucson Regional Community Focus Groups 9/11/14, 10/24/14, 11/6/14 Flagstaff Regional Community Focus Groups 9/25/14, 11/3/14 Phoenix Regional Community Focus Groups 9/19/14, 10/20/14, 11/21/14 Early Childhood Focus Groups 10/20/14, 11/4/14, 11/17/14, 12/1/14, 12/17/14 Infrastructure Analysis Summary (Connecting the dots to the SIMR) The ESS infrastructure up to this point supported a compliance-dominant system. In order to increase the percentage of students with specific learning disabilities in grades 3-8 passing on the State reading assessment in the Focus and Pre-Intervention schools, ESS will need to significantly restructure and repurpose staff. ESS will also need to partner with School Improvement and Intervention to develop a system to train LEA leaders in effective school systems. The EDISA initiative will need modifications to strengthen the support to LEA teams in the analysis and use of their data to improve reading proficiency. ESS will need to partner with the K–3 Literacy section to scale up Teaching Reading Effectively (TRE) and Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling (LETRS) trainings to ensure that all educators are knowledgeable in the use of evidence-based reading strategies. Finally, ESS will need to support LEAs in creating professional development plans for all teachers that include ongoing support to ensure the implementation of evidence-based reading practices with fidelity. 38 Arizona Part B State Systemic Improvement Plan FFY 2013 Arizona Component #3: SIMR Elements: 3(a) The State has a SIMR and the SIMR is aligned to an SPP/APR indicator or a component of an SPP/APR indicator. Arizona’s SIMR: To increase the percentage passing on the State reading assessment for students with specific learning disabilities in grades 3–8 in the FFY 2014 cohort of Focus and Pre-Intervention schools. This SIMR is aligned with Indicator 3C, reading proficiency. 3(b) The SIMR is clearly based on the data and State infrastructure analyses.  The SIMR is based on the data and infrastructure analyses. Arizona’s SIMR was developed based on the data and infrastructure analysis as described in Components #1 and #2 of this document. This analysis began in 2013 and included compliance and indicator data, fiscal data, assessment data, and data from other divisions within the department. The analysis led to a special study of LEAs that showed high performance for students with disabilities on assessments. It also included a complete assessment of the infrastructure operational in the department so that overlap of functions and the burdens placed on LEAs could be reduced.  The SIMR is aligned with current agency initiatives or priorities. Arizona’s SIMR is aligned with Arizona’s Move On When Reading initiative and applies to issues described in the ESEA waiver—reading progress for students in schools designated as Focus and PreIntervention schools.  The State engaged in a systematic process to select the SIMR. Arizona used a systematic process to select the SIMR. Arizona began the analysis by looking at the State’s performance as a whole and gradually worked through the data and infrastructure analysis to arrive at the SIMR. The process is described in Components #1 and #2. 3(c) The SIMR is a child-level outcome in contrast to a process outcome.  Addressing the SIMR will have an impact on improving results for children with disabilities within the State. Addressing the SIMR will have an impact on improving results for children with disabilities within the state. Increasing reading proficiency can also lead to improved graduation and dropout rates and postsecondary outcomes. Students who are successful stay in school; and graduates have more opportunities for success in life. 39 Arizona Part B State Systemic Improvement Plan FFY 2013 Arizona  If the State selects a SIMR that focuses on improving a result for a subset of districts/programs or populations, then the State provided an explanation of why improving that result for that subset of districts/programs or population would improve that result on a State-wide basis. Arizona selected a SIMR that focuses on a subset of the LEAs and a subset of the special education population based on feedback from stakeholders and input from OSEP during the agency’s visit in November 2014. In addition, analysis of the data demonstrated the necessity to engage general educators in the work of improving the reading achievement of students with disabilities, since this population receives the majority of instruction in the general education setting. ESS partnered with School Improvement to identify the LEAs and schools where leverage could be used to engage all staff, general educators and special educators in improvement. The LEAs have been targeted because of past performance and the need to improve the reading proficiency in that subset of LEAs; the performance of students with specific learning disabilities, who have performed lower than other disability categories in the special education population on reading assessments, has also been targeted. Arizona proposes that this focus will eventually lead to improved reading proficiency for all students statewide. While Arizona has chosen to measure performance for a subset of LEAs and a subset of special education students, the implementation of the improvement strategies will occur statewide. The data in the subset has a higher likelihood of showing increased results before an increase in a statewide measure is demonstrated. 3(d) The State provided a description of stakeholder involvement in the selection of the SIMR.  Multiple internal and external stakeholders were involved in selecting the SIMR. Many of the same stakeholders involved in selecting the SIMR were also involved in the data analysis and infrastructure analysis. ESS considered input from all stakeholders before deciding on the SIMR. Stakeholders involved in this process include: the Special Education Advisory Panel (SEAP), local education agency (LEA) administrators, secondary transition groups, early childhood groups, Arizona’s Parent Training and Information Center—Raising Special Kids, county special education administrators, the ADE School Improvement and Intervention unit, ESS leaders, and ESS SSIP workgroup members. 3(e) The State provided baseline data and targets that are measurable and rigorous (expressed as percentages) for each of the five years from FFY 2014 through FFY 2018, with the FFY 2018 target reflecting measurable improvement over the FFY 2013 baseline data. Baseline Data: 14.2%— percent passing on the state assessment in reading for students with a specific learning disability in grades 3–8 in the FFY 2014 cohort of Focus and Pre-Intervention schools. Targets FFY 2014 14.4 FFY 2015 14.8 FFY 2016 15.8 FFY 2017 19.8 FFY 2018 25.0 The baseline and trend data for this indicator are based on the previous State assessment, Arizona’s Instrument to Measure Standards (AIMS). The targets selected are ambitious yet reasonable based on the available data. In FFY 2014, Arizona is administering a new State assessment Arizona’s Measurement 40 Arizona Part B State Systemic Improvement Plan FFY 2013 Arizona of Educational Readiness to Inform Teaching (AzMERIT). Stakeholders are aware that new baseline and targets will be set for this indicator as new trend data become available. Component #4: Selection of Coherent Improvement Strategies Elements: 4(a) A description that demonstrates how the improvement strategies were selected and will lead to a measurable improvement in the State identified result(s).  The improvement strategies are based on the data and infrastructure analyses. The leadership team from ESS, School Improvement, Title I, and K–3 Literacy met to review data, infrastructure, root causes, and improvement strategy suggestions that were gathered from all the stakeholder groups. There was significant overlap and recurring themes from all groups. The four main themes found in the root cause analysis are (1) effective leaders, (2) data analysis and use for instruction, (3) teacher training in evidence-based reading practices, and (4) ongoing support for implementation. When looking at these four themes, it is evident that the strategies selected must encompass all educators and systems and not focus solely on special education. The four themes align to the results of the High-Performing Project: leadership, data-driven decisions, and effective instruction in core content. Strategies were selected based on the four themes and analyzed and rated using the the State Implementation & Scaling‐up of Evidence‐based Practices (SISEP) Hexagon Tool. The Hexagon tool helps groups systematically evaluate new and existing interventions by evaluating six broad factors: 1. Needs of individuals; how well the program or practice might meet identified needs 2. Fit with current initiatives, priorities, structures and supports and parent/community values 3. Resource availability for training, staffing, technology supports, data systems, and administration 4. Evidence indicating the outcomes that might be expected if the program or practices are implemented well 5. Readiness for replication of the program, including expert assistance available, number of replications accomplished, exemplars available for observation, and how well the program is operationalized 6. Capacity to implement as intended and to sustain and improve implementation over time. All strategies scored high in the area of need and fit, with mid scores for the area of resource availability. The lowest scores were in the areas of evidence and readiness for replication and capacity to implement. It was determined that the selected improvement strategies are appropriate and viable. Theme Leadership Improvement Strategy Develop highly effective leaders by providing a Leadership Development Project Arizona Part B State Systemic Improvement Plan FFY 2013 Data/Infrastructure Basis High-Performing Project data identified effective leadership as one of the trends of successful Hexagon Tool Scores Need—5, Fit —3, Resource Availability— 3, Evidence —2, Readiness for 41 Arizona Data analysis and use (ELEVATE!) in partnership with other ADE divisions (Title I, School Improvement) Data-use framework Examining Data to Improve Student Achievement (EDISA) Building educator effectiveness in the use of evidence-based literacy practices through professional development Professional development for teachers in evidencebased literacy practices using Teaching Reading Effectively (TRE) and Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling (LETRS) Implementation support and assistance Professional development plan for all teachers that includes job-embedded coaching and implementation checks schools. Infrastructure analysis identified a lack of leadership trainings and supports offered by ADE. NAEP scores are stagnant; gap exists between reading scores of students with disabilities and students without disabilities; AIMS reading scores show limited growth. Professional development requests from constituents on data analysis and data use and surveys to administrators and educators identify “Use of Data” as an area of need. Reading scores for students with disabilities are low with the lowest performing students those identified with specific learning disabilities. Focus groups consistently identified lack of training for teachers. Current state reading initiatives (MOWR, Read On AZ) are all supported by current infrastructure. NAEP results, state assessment scores in reading, MOWR needs assessments, and surveys to constituents requesting ongoing PD in reading strategies indicate the need for support. Infrastructure analysis based on implementation science shows strengths in ongoing systematic PD strategies and a weakness in guidance for the Replication—3, Capacity to Implement—2 Need—5, Fit —5, Resource Availability— 4, Evidence —4, Readiness for Replication—2, Capacity to Implement—3 Need—5, Fit —5, Resource Availability— 3, Evidence —1, Readiness for Replication—3, Capacity to Implement—3 Need—5, Fit —4, Resource Availability— 3, Evidence —4, Readiness for Replication—2, Capacity to Implement—3 42 Arizona Part B State Systemic Improvement Plan FFY 2013 Arizona structure of a system for PD. 4 (b) A description that demonstrates how the improvement strategies are sound, logical, and aligned.  The strategies are sound, logical and aligned with the SIMR and lead to a measurable improvement in the State identified result(s).  Current State initiatives were considered in developing the improvement strategies The selected improvement strategies are all proven methods to improve student outcomes and are all linked to current initiatives and activities. The leadership strategies come directly from the current work in School Improvement and Intervention through the implementation of Arizona’s School Improvement Grant (SIG). This work aligns to the results found in the High-Performing Project regarding the impact of effective leadership on improved student results. ADE’s Title I School Improvement and Intervention section is working with the University of Virginia’s Darden/Curry Partnership for Leaders in Education, in collaboration with Southwest Comprehensive Center at WestEd, to provide school turnaround leadership training for leadership teams at schools in “Priority” status. The UVA program is dedicated to establishing the school system conditions that set the stage for change and build leadership capacity to achieve quick change. In addition, Title I, SII, ESS, Standards, Highly Effective Teachers and Leaders, along with external partners—WestEd and Leadership Alliance through Arizona’s three Universities, are working together to create a leadership development opportunity—ELEVATE! Implementing ELEVATE! will allow Arizona to provide leadership development opportunities that incorporate the methods in UVA-STP to LEAs and their schools that are customized for Arizona and are provided at a cost savings. ELEVATE! Arizona’s Leadership Network is designed to educate and empower LEA leaders and principals to focus on improving teaching and learning that results in significant gains in student achievement. EDISA was developed through an initial partnership with the Data Accountability Center and more recently with Louisiana State University (LSU) to build the capacity of LEAs to utilize the continuous improvement process to improve student outcomes in reading. The current form of EDISA is a transformation from its earlier versions (TIERS and DART) and pilot project with the OSEP-funded Data Accountability Center. Revisions to the project were necessary to meet the needs of LEAs and achieve state and local goals. During working sessions, ADE and LSU staff provide the participating school and district teams with their reading data for grades 3–8. The teams analyze their data, identify problem areas, and formulate questions and hypotheses, which are then used to design implementable strategies to resolve the identified problem. LSU supported ESS and provided assistance to build the capacity of ESS staff to take over the initiative. ESS will be fully responsible for the design and implementation of EDISA in FFY 2015. The Teaching Reading Effectively (TRE) course is currently offered to support the Move On When Reading initiative in A.R.S. §15-701. –The content includes current research and evidence-based practices that are necessary for the development of technical skills in reading, along with academic vocabulary and deep comprehension. All important components of an effective comprehensive reading program designed to develop proficient readers, competent writers, and critical thinkers are included in 43 Arizona Part B State Systemic Improvement Plan FFY 2013 Arizona the training. TRE is considered the foundation knowledge that leads to Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling (LETRS). The LETRS content is designed as a course of study that connects research to practice. LETRS addresses fundamental topics in literacy and the instructional practices best supported by research. LETRS training provides excellent information for pre-K–5 teachers and special education teachers, pre-K–12. LETRS was created by Dr. Louisa Moats, internationally known reading expert, teacher, psychologist, and researcher on the topics of reading, spelling, language, and teacher preparation. The expected outcome for educators participating in TRE and LETRS is to build educators’ capacity to provide highly effective reading instruction in their classrooms and improve student outcomes in English and language arts (ELA). LETRS is the critical bridge between research and practice, providing practical knowledge to teachers at all grade levels as it addresses each essential component of reading instruction. Each LETRS course is designed to give educators the tools they need to be confident teacher leaders who seek deep learning and reflection as they prepare for the challenging work of making literacy a reality for every student. Research by Bruce Joyce and Beverly Showers demonstrates the critical role of job-embedded professional development, such as coaching in the classroom to achieve the outcomes desired—actual implementation of new practices in the classroom. Students can only benefit from instruction and interventions that they actually receive. The ADE offerings of TRE and LETRS have components to provide job-embedded professional development and ongoing support to achieve high levels of implementation. LEAs are encouraged to apply for the Trainer of Trainers (TOT) module and develop a plan for training local teachers. ADE provides support to the LEA and the trainers to ensure that teachers receive ongoing support in the use of the evidence-based practices learned during the trainings. At this time, the TOT and PD plan are optional for LEAs. As ADE moves forward with the changes to support the SIMR, this may change to a mandatory component rather than an optional one. 4(c) A description of how implementation of improvement strategies will address identified root causes for low performance and ultimately build capacity to achieve the SIMR for children with disabilities.  The likelihood that the improvement strategies will address the root causes leading to poor performance.  The extent to which the improvement strategies are based on an implementation framework and will support systemic change. The improvement strategies were selected to directly address the root causes of poor performance. The leadership improvement strategy will address the root causes regarding separate systems for general education and special education, developing a culture of all students, high expectations for all students, establishing collaboration between general educators and special educators, and ensuring there is ongoing support for educators to implement effective instructional practices. EDISA is the improvement strategy selected to address the root cause of the lack of data knowledge and the use of data to make instructional decisions, as well as to address the collaboration of general educators and special educators. TRE and LETRS were selected to address the root cause of poor 44 Arizona Part B State Systemic Improvement Plan FFY 2013 Arizona instruction. TRE and LETRS will also address lack of literacy training for all teachers, teachers’ lack of knowledge of evidence-based reading practices, lack of understanding of the progression of skills necessary for reading, lack of understanding of quality small group instruction, and the use of assessments and data analysis to drive instruction. Usable Interventions, Implementation Drivers, and Implementation Stages are the implementation frameworks used during Phase I of the SSIP development. Currently, ADE is in the exploration phase of the Implementation Stages and is taking the time to explore what to do, how to do it, and who will do it. Phase II of the SSIP will include the Installation Stage. ADE will be making changes to the infrastructure, developing a training plan, training staff, developing a coaching plan, establishing the readiness of data systems, and establishing communication protocols. ADE is in the process of selecting members for the implementation teams that will continue the work of refining the improvement strategies and designing the plan for Phase II. The improvement strategies were selected using tools specifically designed for the implementation frameworks. In order to support systemic change, ADE is taking time to ensure that the infrastructure is restructured to support the implementation of the improvement strategies. 4(d) A description of how the selection of coherent improvement strategies include the strategies, identified through the data and State infrastructure analyses, that are needed to improve the State infrastructure and to support LEA implementation of evidence-based practices to improve the State identified measurable result(s) for children with disabilities.  The extent to which the improvement strategies will address the areas of need identified within and across systems at multiple levels (e.g. State, LEA, school) and build the capacity of the State, LEA, and school to improve the SIMR.  The adequacy of the plan to implement and scale up the improvement strategies. Part of the process used in selecting the improvement strategies was to look at the systems across multiple levels to ensure that the implementation of the strategies would build the capacity of the State, LEA, and school. The theory of action was developed with the multiple levels in mind and shows the actions of the State, LEA, school, and teacher. The State will be involved in some aspect of each strategy as capacity is built within the LEA. With the increase of LEA capacity, the level of support needed from the State will be reduced and the LEA will take responsibility for implementation. All of the strategies were selected to address the needs and build capacity starting at the State level and when they are implemented with fidelity, will transfer across levels to impact teachers and students. All of the improvement strategies were selected based on the needs identified in the data and infrastructure analysis described in detail in Components #1 and #2 of this document. The use of these strategies will improve and strengthen the State’s infrastructure as changes are made to the State’s system of supports to LEAs to implement evidence-based reading strategies. Improvement Strategy Identified in Data and Infrastructure Analysis Level to Be Addressed General Education Partners 45 Arizona Part B State Systemic Improvement Plan FFY 2013 Arizona Develop highly effective leaders by providing a Leadership Development Project (ELEVATE!) Need to develop highly effective leaders who provide schoolwide systems of support that value diversity and maintain high expectations for all students through a culture of data-based decision making and collaboration focused on the implementation of consistent LETRS literacy practices for all students at their school sites State, LEA, School ADE Title I and School Improvement Data-use framework— Examining Data to Improve Student Achievement (EDISA) Need to build the capacity of LEAs to use data to drive instruction and use the continuous improvement process to improve literacy State, LEA, School Title I, School Improvement, Early Childhood Professional development for teachers in evidencebased literacy practices using Teaching Reading Effectively (TRE) and Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling (LETRS) Need to build educator effectiveness in the use of evidence-based literacy practices State, LEA, School, Teacher K–3 Literacy Professional development plan for all teachers that includes job-embedded coaching and implementation checks Need for ongoing support for implementation of evidence-based reading strategies State, LEA, School, Teacher Title I, School Improvement, K–3 Literacy, Early Childhood 4(e) A description of stakeholder involvement in the selection of coherent improvement strategies.  Multiple internal and external stakeholders were engaged in identifying improvement activities. 46 Arizona Part B State Systemic Improvement Plan FFY 2013 Arizona Many of the same stakeholders involved in selecting the improvement strategies were also involved in the data analysis, infrastructure analysis, and selection of the SIMR. ESS considered input from all stakeholders before deciding on the improvement strategies. Those involved in this process include these stakeholders: the Special Education Advisory Panel (SEAP), local education agency (LEA) administrators, secondary transition groups, early childhood groups, Arizona’s Parent Training and Information Center—Raising Special Kids, county special education administrators, the ADE School Improvement and Intervention unit, the ADE K–3 Literacy director, ESS leaders, and ESS SSIP workgroup members. Stakeholders were given the opportunity to provide input and feedback during face-to-face meetings and through the ADE SSIP Web site. Improvement Strategies Summary (Connecting the dots to the SIMR) Arizona’s SIMR is to increase the percentage passing on the State reading assessment for students with specific learning disabilities in grades 3–8 in the FFY 2014 cohort of Focus and Pre-Intervention schools. In order to achieve this, four improvement strategies were selected. 1. Effective leadership – Develop highly effective leaders through the use of ELEVATE! 2. Data analysis and use – Use Examining Data to Improve Student Achievement (EDISA) initiative to instruct LEA teams in data analysis and use of data for decision making. 3. Effective reading instruction – Train teachers in evidence-based literacy practices using Teaching Reading Effectively (TRE) and Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling (LETRS). 4. Ongoing support for implementation – Provide a professional development plan for all teachers that includes job-embedded coaching and implementation checks These four improvement strategies shown above were selected to address the following root causes of low performance.  Separate systems for general education and special education(teachers are not trained together as educators in pre-service or after employment)  Lack of leadership support to create: o a culture of inclusion of all students o high expectations for all students o collaboration between general educators and special educators, especially in the use of data to make instructional decisions o instructional coaching for educators  Lack of knowledge of data and use of data for instructional decisions  Lack of literacy training for all teachers  Lack of knowledge by teachers of evidence-based reading practices  Lack of understanding of the progression of skills necessary for reading, understanding of quality small group instruction, use of assessments and data analysis to drive instruction  Poor core instruction; poor specially designed instruction 47 Arizona Part B State Systemic Improvement Plan FFY 2013 Arizona   Fragmented instruction for students in special education. (students are pulled out to learn a discrete skill and once they return to the general education environment, are not generalizing the skills taught in isolation) ADE’s compliance-focused system of supports to LEAs (reduces the amount of resources available for results) The improvement strategies were selected based on the data and infrastructure analysis and tailored to address identified root causes for low performance; they will ultimately build capacity to achieve the SIMR for children with disabilities. In order to achieve the SIMR, significant changes will need to be made to the State’s infrastructure. ADE is currently addressing these changes using the active implementation frameworks to ensure systemic change. Component #5 Theory of Action: Elements: 5(a) A graphic illustration that shows the rationale of how implementing a coherent set of improvement strategies will increase the State’s capacity to lead to meaningful change in LEAs. 48 Arizona Part B State Systemic Improvement Plan FFY 2013 Arizona 5(b) A description of how the graphic illustration shows the rationale of how implementing a coherent set of improvement strategies will lead to the achievement of improved results for children with disabilities.  The likelihood that the theory of action will lead to a measurable improvement in the State identified result(s). The theory of action shows how the actions at the state level will create change at the district level, which will lead to actions at the school level to empower teachers to implement evidence-based reading strategies in the classroom, which will then increase student achievement in reading.   The programs that are the basis of ELEVATE! have been tested in multiple settings and have shown results by focusing on the practices and processes that help build the internal capacity necessary to initiate change and sustain success both within systems and for students’ educational outcomes. ELEVATE! is based on a continuous improvement process. When it is implemented with fidelity, this model can lead to school leaders using data to drive decisions, create positive cultures, establish high expectations for all students, and provide effective support for teachers to improve reading instruction. Reading scores in Arizona are stagnant across the board on all State level reading assessments. It is important to empower LEAs and build their capacity to use their data to drive decisions in order to improve these results. With the assistance of the EDISA data-use framework, both school district and building-level teams are taught to analyze their data, identify an area of 49 Arizona Part B State Systemic Improvement Plan FFY 2013 Arizona    need, and put forth a plan of action, which would include strategic activities for improvement and a plan for implementation of those strategies. Data analysis includes structures that encompass knowledge of assessment, effective instruction, a data-based decision making model, and interventions. Through the EDISA process, a high number of districts and schools in Arizona have identified areas of need similar to Arizona’s State Identified Measurable Result. LETRS and TRE provide deep foundational knowledge that is not a curriculum, but provides teachers with long-term strategies that can be implemented no matter what curriculum the LEA uses. The lack of adequate training for teachers in teaching reading is a root cause of low performance. It is vitally important to provide this training to LEA-level trainers using the trainer of trainers model. Implementing LETRS and TRE would provide teachers with the knowledge of how to effectively teach reading across grade levels and reading abilities, particularly focusing on teaching strategies for students with reading challenges. Utilizing trainers already at the school level will build capacity of all staff to share in the improved outcomes of students at their schools. After receiving training using the trainer of trainers model, district- and school-level literacy coaches will be instrumental in the implementation of evidence-based literacy practices. Having a coach to support teachers during the learning process will lead to improved implementation accountability and better reading instruction overall. Using the EDISA process to analyze the data and identify areas of need, literacy coaches will assist teachers in recognizing next steps and providing the necessary interventions to get there. When teachers have the proper training and support, they are able to provide high quality reading instruction to all students. With strong leadership and robust curriculum, paired with the knowledge gained from TRE and LETRS, teachers and coaches will be able to move the needle upward for reading proficiency in Arizona. 5(c) The State describes involvement of multiple internal and external stakeholders in development of the Theory of Action.  Multiple internal and external stakeholders were involved in developing the theory of action. Many of the same stakeholders involved in creating the theory of action were also involved in the data analysis, infrastructure analysis, SIMR, and selection of improvement strategies. ESS considered input from all stakeholders before deciding on the theory of action. Stakeholders involved in this process include: the Special Education Advisory Panel (SEAP), local education agency (LEA) administrators, secondary transition groups, early childhood groups, Arizona’s Parent Training and Information Center— Raising Special Kids, county special education administrators, the ADE School Improvement and Intervention unit, the ADE K–3 Literacy director, ESS leaders, and ESS SSIP workgroup members. Stakeholders were given the opportunity to provide input and feedback during face-to-face meetings and through the ADE SSIP Web site. 50 Arizona Part B State Systemic Improvement Plan FFY 2013 Arizona’s Theory of Action IF ADE uses ELEVATE! to develop highly effective leaders who provide school-wide systems of support that value diversity and high expectations of all students through a culture of databased decision making and collaboration focused on the implementation of consistent LETRS literacy practices for all students at their school sites IF ADE uses the EDISA process to build the capacity of LEAs to use the continuous improvement process to improve literacy IF target school/districts provide teachers with professional development in evidenced based literacy practices via Teaching Reading Effectively (TRE) & Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling (LETRS) IF LEAs/schools provide job embeddded support using literacy coaches that are highly trained in LETRS to support implementation of evidencedbased literacy practices IF all teachers in target schools provide evidence-based literacy instruction using the LETRS literacy practices THEN the percentage of students with specific learning disabilities passing on the State reading assessment in grades 3-8 will increase in the FFY 2014 cohort of Focus and PreIntervention schools.