Arizona Department of Education Tom Horne, Superintendent of Public Instruction Arizona FFY 2005–2010 State Performance Plan for Special Education Educational Services and Resources Division Exceptional Student Services www.ade.az.gov/ess December 2, 2005 Arizona FFY 2005–2010 State Performance Plan for Special Education Submitted to the Office of Special Education Programs U.S. Department of Education Educational Services and Resources Division Exceptional Student Services www.ade.az.gov/ess December 2, 2005 Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 5 Indicator 1: Graduation Rate ......................................................................................................................... 6 Indicator 2: Dropout Rate ............................................................................................................................ 10 Indicator 3: Participation and Performance on Assessments ..................................................................... 13 Indicator 4: Rates of Suspension and Expulsion: ....................................................................................... 19 Indicator 5: School-Aged Placements......................................................................................................... 23 Indicator 6: Preschool Placements ............................................................................................................. 26 Indicator 7: Preschool Outcomes................................................................................................................ 29 Indicator 8: Parent Involvement .................................................................................................................. 32 Indicator 9: Racial / Ethnic Disproportionality ............................................................................................. 35 Indicator 10: Racial / Ethnic Disproportionality by Disability ....................................................................... 38 Indicator 11: Evaluation Timelines .............................................................................................................. 40 Indicator 12: Preschool Transition .............................................................................................................. 42 Indicator 13: High School Transition ........................................................................................................... 45 Indicator 14: High School Outcomes .......................................................................................................... 47 Indicator 15: Effective Corrective Action ..................................................................................................... 50 Indicator 16: Complaint Investigation Timelines ......................................................................................... 58 Indicator 17: Due Process Hearing Timelines............................................................................................. 61 Indicator 18: Resolution Session Effectiveness .......................................................................................... 63 Indicator 19: Mediation Effectiveness ......................................................................................................... 65 Indicator 20: Reporting Accuracy and Timeliness ...................................................................................... 67 Attachment 1: Dispute Resolution Data ...................................................................................................... 70 Attachment 2: List of Abbreviations ............................................................................................................ 71 List of Figures Figure 1: Math Proficiency by Grade and Year........................................................................................... 15 Figure 2: Reading Proficiency by Grade and Year ..................................................................................... 15 Figure 3: Suspension Rate Decline over Time ........................................................................................... 20 Figure 4: Complaint Timelines .................................................................................................................... 59 List of Tables Table 1: Junior / Senior Percent Dropout Rates ......................................................................................... 10 Table 2: Participation and Performance Rates by Test Condition .............................................................. 14 Table 3: Comparison of Arizona LRE with National LRE............................................................................ 24 Table 4: Preschool Placements .................................................................................................................. 27 Table 5: FAPE by Age 3 Monitoring Results............................................................................................... 43 Table 6: FFY 2004 Performance Monitoring Areas and Data Sources ...................................................... 52 Table 7: Monitoring Data Analysis for FFY 2003 ........................................................................................ 54 Table 8: Compliance Unrelated to Monitoring Priorities ............................................................................. 55 ARIZONA The Arizona Part B State Performance Plan for Special Education Federal Fiscal Years 2005 to 2010 Introduction The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 2004 established a requirement that all states develop and submit to the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) a performance plan designed to advance the state from its current level of compliance with the statutory and regulatory requirements of the law and to improve the educational and functional outcomes for children with disabilities. The state plan must encompass baseline data (where available), projected targets, and activities to achieve those targets. The state is required to submit an annual report in the years following the submission of the performance plan to inform OSEP and the public on the progress toward meeting those goals. This document fulfils the first step of that process – the State Performance Plan. Overview of the State Performance Plan (SPP) Development: The Arizona State Performance Plan was drafted internally by staff with the Arizona Department of Education, Exceptional Student Services (ADE/ESS) and presented to the Special Education Advisory Panel (SEAP) for consideration and input. The specific tasks requested of the SEAP by the ADE/ESS were: • To consider baseline and trend data for each indicator when such information was available; • To assist in determining appropriate targets for each indicator in which a target was required for the SPP; • To review the planned activities, timelines, and resources and provide input into the likely efficacy of the strategies proposed; • To suggest additional approaches for the ADE/ESS to consider including in the planned activities. In addition to the formal input process undertaken with the SEAP, ADE/ESS discussed and sought input to the SPP process, indicators, and activities at regional meetings of special education administrators, statewide conferences, and in ADE/ESS publications. Special focus groups provided input on some unique indicators related to their areas of interest, and their participation is noted in this report as part of the specific indicator(s). Mountain Plains Regional Resource Center (MPRRC) assisted the agency in the development of appropriate baselines, targets and improvement planning. Following the submission of the State Performance Plan to the U.S. Department of Education, ADE/ESS will post the final version on the agency web site and will alert constituency groups of its availability via existing electronic mailing lists. Hard copies will be provided to all SEAP members and any individual making a request for one. Hard copies will also be made available for public review at each of the ADE/ESS offices—Phoenix, Tucson, and Flagstaff. Public notice about the availability of the SPP will be made in the ADE/ESS newsletter and in a press release to major Arizona newspapers. Arizona maintains accountability systems for all public education agencies in the state including state supported institutions, charter schools, school districts, and secure care facilities. Therefore, throughout this document, the term public education agency (PEA) will be used to reflect all of these iterations of educational institutions. Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority_____1_______ – Page 5__ ARIZONA Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE Indicator 1: Graduation Rate Percent of youth with IEPs graduating from high school with a regular diploma compared to percent of all youth in the State graduating with a regular diploma. (20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A)) Measurement: Measurement for youth with IEPs should be the same measurement as for all youth. Explain calculation. Overview of Issue / Description of System or Process: Arizona has traditionally used a stand-alone process to determine the graduation rate of students enrolled in high school. The study uses a five-year cohort model to identify graduation status. The five-year rate is expressed as a percentage of the class membership and reflects the proportion of the cohort class of a given year that receives a high school diploma by their fifth year spring commencement. This proportion is calculated using the total number of students who graduated within four years, as well as those who returned for a fifth year and graduated. The stand-alone study captures separate rates by ethnic groups and gender but does not currently capture any other subgroup rates. The requirements of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and the IDEA cannot be met using this study; therefore, the ADE has elected to transition the graduation study to a system that uses data extracted from the Student Accountability Information System (SAIS). As the state has elected to continue the cohort approach to the graduation rate, the SAIS must be in full operation for the term of the cohort group before an initial graduation rate using the preferred data can be extracted. This timeline for collecting graduation rates will be met with the graduating class of 2007. Beginning in FFY 2008 by using the cohort model, Arizona will be able to report comparable graduation statistics for students with and without disabilities and will be able to disaggregate data within ethnicities and disabilities to determine groups in critical need of attention. Until that time, the state will continue to report on the graduation rate of students with disabilities as calculated by the formula below. The formula that will be used until FFY 2008 is: Graduation rate = # Children ages 14–21 who graduated # Children ages 14–21 who graduated with a diploma + dropped out + died + reached maximum age Because the exit codes within SAIS are the same for all students, it is possible to use a single year’s exiting information to calculate comparable graduation rates for students with and without disabilities. The use of the SAIS codes within a single year significantly overreports students as exiters as it counts any student who was absent for 10 consecutive days, even if they return to school on the 11th day. However, if the same SAIS data and formula are used for IDEA and non-IDEA students, the relationship of the rates to one another can be determined and compared. This approach will be used to meet the State Performance Plan requirements until the cohort model is fully implemented. Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority_____1_______ – Page 6__ ARIZONA Baseline Data for FFY 2004 (2004–2005): Graduation Rate of Students without Disabilities: 68.5% of exiters aged 14–21 [N = 55,798 / 81,475] Graduation Rate of Students with Disabilities: 60.2% of exiters aged 14–21 [N = 4,592 / 7,634] Discussion of Baseline Data: This is the first year that the ADE can compare the graduation rates of students with and without disabilities. However, the graduation rate of students with disabilities as reflected in the OSEP 618 data tables has been relatively stable over the last five years and is quite close to the rate calculated for students with disabilities using SAIS data. The FFY 2004 graduation rate for students without disabilities as reported above may be somewhat elevated. The state requirement to “pass” the high school statewide test begins in January 2006, and many students elected to speed up graduation during the 2004–2005 school year in order to avoid this requirement. Students without disabilities were in a better position to do this than students with disabilities were. Subsequent years’ analysis will determine if the eight percentage point gap between students with and without disabilities present in FFY 2004 is a stable indicator of the work to be done in special education. Arizona offers only one graduation/diploma option and that option is available to all students. Beginning in January 2006, a requirement to “pass” the statewide assessment—known as the AIMS—will go into effect. During the 2005 session of the Arizona legislature, advocates successfully lobbied for a statutory change that allows students with disabilities to graduate without passing the AIMS unless their IEP teams have determined they must pass. A second bill was enacted that establishes a system whereby all students can improve their AIMS status by attaining good grades and completing appropriate high school courses. Therefore, beginning with the graduating class of 2006, students with disabilities will be able to graduate and obtain a regular high school diploma after completing the required course work in one of the following ways: 1. Taking and passing all portions of the high school AIMS with or without accommodations; 2. Taking and passing some or all portions of the AIMS under the “extra credit” for course grades; 3. Taking, but being exempt from passing, some or all portions of the AIMS through an IEP team decision. It is anticipated that the requirement to pass the AIMS for all students except those with disabilities will temporarily reduce the graduation rate for students without disabilities and may improve the rate for students with disabilities. The long-term impact of the legislative decision will be studied by the Arizona Department of Education and reported through the state’s Annual Performance Report. FFY 2005 Measurable and Rigorous Target 61% of students with disabilities who exit receive a regular high school diploma (2005–2006) 2006 62.5% of students with disabilities who exit receive a regular high school diploma (2006–2007) Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority_____1_______ – Page 7__ ARIZONA FFY 2007 Measurable and Rigorous Target 63% of students with disabilities who exit receive a regular high school diploma (2007–2008) 2008 64.5% of students with disabilities who exit receive a regular high school diploma (2008–2009) 2009 66% of students with disabilities who exit receive a regular high school diploma (2009–2010) 2010 67.5% of students with disabilities who exit receive a regular high school diploma (2010–2011) Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources: Improvement Activities Timelines Resources 1. Change of statute to allow students with disabilities (SWD) to graduate without passing AIMS if the IEP team determines it is appropriate to do so Spring 2005 Arizona Legislature 2. Creation and implementation of guidance re: AIMS requirements for SWD Fall 2005––winter 2006 ADE Administration ESS leadership SEAP 3. Continuation of the grade-level instruction and assessment initiative Fall 2005 and continuing ADE Assessment Section ESS specialists SIG Reading specialists 4. Implementation of an Assistive Technology Initiative Summer 2005 and continuing ADE/ESS AT specialist Outreach Trainings AT Training and Support Contract 5. Passage of the Arizona Textbook Accessibility statute and development of regulatory requirements Spring 2005–fall 2006 Arizona Legislature AZ Board of Education ESS leadership and AT specialist 6. Training and implementation for Improvement Activity # 5 Spring 2006 and continuing ESS specialists 7. Collaboration with Arizona State University (ASU) for web-based support for students and teachers—IDEAL Fall 2006 and continuing ADE leadership Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) ESS AT specialist ASU Instructional Technology Project Monitoring Priority_____1_______ – Page 8__ ARIZONA Improvement Activities Timelines Resources 8. Increased training and monitoring for effective transition plans and progress reporting Fall 2006 and continuing ESS staff 9. Initiation of support for high schools with low graduation rates to offer expanded work study programs and community placements Fall 2007 continuing ADE Dropout Prevention Unit ESS transition specialists Career and Technical Education Section (CTE) ESS transition specialists Vocational Rehabilitation 10. Modification of statewide calculation of graduation rates for students with/without disabilities via SAIS cohort approach Fall 2007–winter 2008 Research and Policy staff 11. Investigation of strategies to allow students who were dropped from rolls to re-enroll during the same semester Summer 2008– winter 2009 ADE Legislative Team IT/SAIS staff State Board of Education ADE Dropout Prevention Unit ESS leadership 12. Revision of the SPP/APR baseline, targets, and activities to reflect revised graduation calculations Spring 2008 ESS staff 13. Investigate “carve out” programs with Career and Technical Education (CTE) to provide specialized training opportunities for students with more significant disabilities Fall 2008 ESS leadership Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) CTE leadership Monitoring Priority_____1_______ – Page 9__ ARIZONA Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE Indicator 2: Dropout Rate Percent of youth with IEPs dropping out of high school compared to the percent of all youth in the state dropping out of high school. (20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A)) Measurement: Measurement for youth with IEPs should be the same measurement as for all youth. Explain calculation. Overview of Issue / Description of System or Process: Arizona uses an “event rate” to calculate dropout statistics for all students. Dropout rates are calculated for grades 8 through 12 and are based on a calendar year that runs from the first day of summer recess through the last day of school in the spring. The dropout rate is figured by comparing a school’s total entries during a specific school year to the dropouts during that same period. It is important to note that this particular study produces a “snapshot” of Arizona dropout activity, in that it provides information only on students who drop out and fail to return during one school year. Students who drop out during one academic year and return in a subsequent year to complete their high school education are still counted as dropouts using the present formula. These data are extracted from the total school enrollment in Arizona during the school year. Sampling was not used. Baseline Data for FFY 2004 (2004–2005): All Youth Dropout Rate: 3.59% [N = 20,584 / 573,875] Special Education Dropout Rate: 3.97% [N = 567 / 14,283] Discussion of Baseline Data: A grade-by-grade comparison of dropout rates for students with disabilities compared to all students reveals that, while there is some variability between the rates at all grades, the largest differences occur during the 11th and 12th grade years. The dropout rate for students with disabilities is significantly higher during the junior year and the dropout rate for all students is significantly higher during the senior year. Table 1 indicates the dropout rates for students with and without disabilities in the grades with significant differences between groups. Table 1: Junior / Senior Percent Dropout Rates Year Students with Disabilities All Students Junior 7.16 5.35 Senior 5.77 7.94 Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority_____2_______ – Page 10__ ARIZONA The comparison of dropout rates by ethnicity shows that, for the most part, the dropout rate of students with disabilities does not differ substantially from that of all students within their ethnic group, as only white students with disabilities drop out at a rate greater than 1% higher than all white students. FFY 2005 Measurable and Rigorous Target 3.96% of students with disabilities who exited dropped out (2005–2006) 2006 3.92% of students with disabilities who exited dropped out (2006–2007) 2007 3.90% of students with disabilities who exited dropped out (2007–2008) 2008 3.80% of students with disabilities who exited dropped out (2008–2009) 2009 3.70% of students with disabilities who exited dropped out (2009–2010) 2010 3.60% of students with disabilities who exited dropped out (2010–2011) Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources: Improvement Activities Timelines Resources 1. See Improvement Activities under Indicator # 1, Activities 1–12 2. Identify agencies with notably high dropout rates for SWD compared to rates for all students and require PEA analysis of causes Fall 2006 ESS Data and Program staff 3. Identify agencies with high dropout rates for junior SWD and develop support programs Winter 2007 ESS Data and Program staff 4. Support the development of improvement plans for agencies identified with high dropout rates Fall 2007 and continuing ESS specialists 5. Include inquiry on the postschool outcomes study on why a student dropped out of school Fall 2007 and continuing ESS transition specialists Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) ADE Dropout Prevention staff ESS programmers Monitoring Priority_____2_______ – Page 11__ ARIZONA Improvement Activities Timelines Resources 6. Collaborate with ADE Dropout Prevention Unit, AzTAP, and Vocational Rehabilitation for dissemination of dropout prevention information Spring 2008 and continuing ESS transition specialists 7. Increase student awareness of post-school support services during their sophomore year of school Fall 2008 and continuing ESS transition specialists 8. Examine the impact of the change in IDEA moving the required transition planning from age 14 to age 16 Fall 2009 ESS transition specialists Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) ADE Research and Evaluation Monitoring Priority_____2_______ – Page 12__ ARIZONA Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE Indicator 3: Participation and Performance on Assessments Participation and performance of children with disabilities on statewide assessments: A. Percent of districts meeting the State’s AYP objectives for progress for disability subgroup. B. Participation rate for children with IEPs in a regular assessment with no accommodations; regular assessment with accommodations; alternate assessment against grade level standards; alternate assessment against alternate achievement standards. C. Proficiency rate for children with IEPs against grade level standards and alternate achievement standards. (20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A)) Measurement: A. Percent = # of districts meeting the State’s AYP objectives for progress for the disability subgroup (children with IEPs) divided by the total # of districts in the state times 100. B. Participation rate = a. # of children with IEPs in grades assessed; b. # of children with IEPs in regular assessment with no accommodations (percent = b divided by a times 100); c. # of children with IEPs in regular assessment with accommodations (percent = c divided by a times 100); d. # of children with IEPs in alternate assessment against grade level standards (percent = d divided by a times 100); and e. # of children with IEPs in alternate assessment against alternate achievement standards (percent = e divided by a times 100). Account for any children included in a, but not included in b, c, d, or e above. Overall Percent = b + c + d + e divided by a. C. Proficiency rate = a. # of children with IEPs in grades assessed; b. # of children with IEPs in grades assessed who are proficient or above as measured by the regular assessment with no accommodations (percent = b divided by a times 100); c. # of children with IEPs in grades assessed who are proficient or above as measured by the regular assessment with accommodations (percent = c divided by a times 100); d. # of children with IEPs in grades assessed who are proficient or above as measured by the alternate assessment against grade level standards (percent = d divided by a times 100); and e. # of children with IEPs in grades assessed who are proficient or above as measured against alternate achievement standards (percent = e divided by a times 100). Overall Percent = b + c + d + e divided by a. Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority_____3_______ – Page 13__ ARIZONA Overview of Issue / Description of System or Process: Arizona’s statewide assessment system is called Arizona’s Instrument to Measure Standards (AIMS) and the alternate assessment against alternate achievement standards is called Arizona’s Instrument to Measure Standards-Alternate (AIMS-A). The grades tested for FFY 2004 were third through eighth, and tenth. These are the same assessments used to report under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). The AIMS assessments were changed significantly for FFY 2004 when the state moved to a dualpurpose assessment for grades 3–8 (AIMS DPA). By incorporating selected items from the Terra Nova achievement test into the AIMS for these grades, nationally-normed information can be provided to parents and schools and the time devoted to testing during the school year can be reduced. With the advent of the new test, new cut scores were determined and, in some cases, lowered. The state uses four categories to classify the proficiency status of students: • Falls Far Below the Standard (F) • Approaches the Standard (A) • Meets the Standard (lowest score considered proficient) (P) • Exceeds the Standard (E) For FFY 2004, passing scores for students with disabilities were the same as for all other students. The number of PEAs meeting the State’s AYP objectives for progress for disability subgroup was calculated on the number of PEAs having a total count of students with disabilities of >40, which is the same number used for the determination of AYP for all other students. The baseline data reported for participation and performance on the state assessment (Table 2) includes all students with disabilities who took either the AIMS (with or without standard accommodations) or the AIMS-A. Baseline Data for FFY 2004 (2004–2005): AYP Rates for PEAs with SWD: 22.7% [N = 15 / 66] Table 2: Participation and Performance Rates by Test Condition Grade level a) Enrolled b) No Accommodations c) Accommodated Administration d) e) Alternate Assessment Totals 0 # % # % # # % # % Math Participation 73,649 24179 32.8 41175 55.9 4521 6.1 69875 94.9 Reading Participation 74281 22459 30.2 43228 58.2 4521 6.1 70208 94.5 Math Performance 73,649 10353 14.1 6767 9.2 1606 2.2 18726 25.4 Reading Performance 74281 9857 13.3 8166 11.0 2094 2.8 20117 27.1 Discussion of Baseline Data: With the exception of third grade reading, all grades showed substantial improvement over the FFY 2003 scores on the AIMS test for students with disabilities. The rate of the increase is believed to be Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority_____3_______ – Page 14__ ARIZONA unusual and difficult to repeat (Figures 1 & 2). Possible explanations for the increases lie in the rapidly changing face of assessment for students with disabilities in light of the testing and reporting requirement of the No Child Left Behind Act. The development of the new AIMS DPA and new cut scores is most likely responsible for a substantial portion of the year-to-year increase. However, in FFY 2003, Arizona eliminated out-of-grade-level testing and limited the use of nonstandard accommodations for students with disabilities. Therefore, during that year many students were assessed on materials on which they had not previously received instruction and in a manner unfamiliar to them. The improvement of scores in FFY 2004 may be an artifact of changing the tests and requiring instructional approaches and accommodations to catch up to the dictates of the federal statute. Figure 1: Math Proficiency by Grade and Year Math Proficiency Percent Proficient 100 80 60 FFY 03 39.6 40 29 FFY 04 28.2 25.4 15.8 14 20 6 3 0 3rd 5th 8th 10th FFY 03 29 14 3 6 FFY 04 39.6 28.2 15.8 25.4 Figure 2: Reading Proficiency by Grade and Year Reading Proficiency Percent Proficient 100 80 60 40 FFY 03 34 34.2 0 20 17 20 FFY 04 30.1 10 27.1 17 3rd 5th 8th 10th FFY 03 34 17 10 17 FFY 04 34.2 30.1 20 27.1 Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority_____3_______ – Page 15__ ARIZONA FFY Measurable and Rigorous Targets Baseline 2004 2005 (2005–2006) 2006 (2006–2007) 2007 (2007–2008) 2008 (2008–2009) 2009 (2009–2010) 2010 (2010–2011) PEA AYP Attainment Percentage Math Participation Percentage Reading Participation Percentage Math Proficiency Percentage Reading Proficiency Percentage 22.7 94.9 94.5 25.4 27.1 23.0 100 100 26.0 35.0 23.5 100 100 35.0 40.0 24.0 100 100 40.0 45.0 24.5 100 100 45.0 50.0 25.0 100 100 50.0 55.0 25.5 100 100 55.0 60.0 Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources: Improvement Activities Timelines Resources 1. Expand ESS Reading Initiative through Reading First and the AZ SIG Goal 3 Summer 2005 2. Provide school-wide improvement assistance for agencies under NCLB sanctions Fall 2005 and continuing ADE School Improvement staff 3. Revise monitoring procedures to require agencies with below average reading achievement scores for SWD to complete a root cause analysis and improvement plan Fall 2005 and continuing ESS Monitoring Team Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) SIG reading specialists ADE Reading First section ADE-sponsored intervention teams ESS specialists MPRRC Monitoring Priority_____3_______ – Page 16__ ARIZONA Improvement Activities 4. Develop and validate the Arizona alternate assessment against grade level standards and curriculum Timelines Resources Winter 2006– winter 2008 ADE leadership ADE assessment staff ESS specialists 5. Create a Response to Intervention (RTI) specialist position to assist agencies in building capacity for early intervention Winter 2006 ESS leadership 6. Establish a statewide procedure for agencies electing to use RTI as an identification strategy for special education Winter 2006– summer 2006 ESS leadership RTI specialist CSPD Director MPRRC 7. Investigate critical components of the Arizona State Standards and AIMS assessment structure and provide guidance to the field on those elements Spring 2006 8. Disseminate information about AT and accessible textbooks available for general class use and test participation Spring 2006 and continuing ESS AT specialist 9. Conduct trainings on modifications/accommodations in grade level curriculum content areas Fall 2006 and continuing ESS specialists 10. Promote the use of the web-based AIMS practice/formative assessment to identify areas of student weakness and guide instruction Fall 2006 and continuing ESS specialists 11. Research service delivery models for ensuring highly qualified teachers for children with disabilities in the areas of math and reading Summer 2006 ESS CSPD 12. Conduct training on research-based instructional strategies for diverse learners Fall 2007 ESS specialists 13. Develop a special education information source similar to the current “School Report Cards” that will provide parents of students with disabilities access to performance information Summer 2008 Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) ESS leadership International Center for Leadership in Education ESS specialists CSPD specialists ADE IDEAL web Portal CSPD specialists ADE research staff ESS programming staff ADE IT staff Monitoring Priority_____3_______ – Page 17__ ARIZONA Improvement Activities Timelines Resources 14. Revise monitoring procedures to require agencies with below average math achievement scores for SWD to complete a cause analysis and improvement plan Summer 2008 15. Investigate the provision of grants to PEAs to equip classrooms for universal design for learning to improve performance on assessments for all students Summer 2008 ESS leadership 16. Investigate the provision of incentives to teachers who are responsible for and who produce improved results in students Summer 2009 ESS leadership Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) ESS Monitoring Team ESS specialists ADE procurement Monitoring Priority_____3_______ – Page 18__ ARIZONA Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE Indicator 4: Rates of Suspension and Expulsion: A. Percent of districts identified by the State as having a significant discrepancy in the rates of suspensions and expulsions of children with disabilities for greater than 10 days in a school year; and B. Percent of districts identified by the State as having a significant discrepancy in the rates of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year of children with disabilities by race and ethnicity. (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A); 1412(a)22)) Measurement: A. Percent = # of districts identified by the State as having significant discrepancies in the rates of suspensions and expulsions of children with disabilities for greater than 10 days in a school year divided by # of districts in the State times 100. B. Percent = # of districts identified by the State as having significant discrepancies in the rates of suspensions and expulsions for greater than 10 days in a school year of children with disabilities by race ethnicity divided by # of districts in the State times 100. Include State’s definition of “significant discrepancy.” Overview of the State Performance Plan Development for this Indicator: In addition to the public input explained at the beginning of this document, the ADE/ESS met with the leadership of the section within ADE known as “School Safety and Prevention” to solicit feedback on this indicator. The primary outcome of the collaboration was to identify reporting requirements and options that could be developed jointly by the sections in order to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of data collection and analysis. Overview of Issue / Description of System or Process: Arizona uses a comparison of the suspension/expulsion rates of students with disabilities between PEAs within the state as the method to analyze suspension/expulsion data. Arizona used the suspension and expulsion information from the OSEP-required annual data report to rank order and analyze the data submitted by each PEA in the state. At the time of the 2001 Biennial Report to OSEP, Arizona had 39 PEAs with suspension rates over 10%of their special education population. The state elected to use the 10% number as the “trigger” for intervention because it felt that it could realistically impact this number of agencies with existing resources. In addition, the distribution of scores below 10% was very tight and offered no logical cut point. The substantial reduction in number of PEAs with suspension rates above 10% enables the State to redefine “significant discrepancy” for the FFY 2004 State Performance Plan. The newly established Arizona definition of “significant discrepancy” is: • Greater than 5% of students with disabilities with more than two students included in the numerator. Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority____4________ – Page 19__ ARIZONA Baseline Data for FFY 2004 (2004–2005): A. 1.64% of the PEAs in Arizona had suspension rates of greater than 5% of their population of special education students [N = 9 / 549] B. New Indicator—No baseline established Discussion of Baseline Data: The change in Arizona’s definition of significant discrepancy makes longitudinal analysis unfeasible for FFY 2004; however, a review of the change over time in suspension/expulsion rates sheds light on the reason for the change in definition. Figure 3 illustrates the rapid decline in the number of education agencies with rates over 10% of their special education population from FFY 2000 through FFY 2004. Figure 3: Suspension Rate Decline over Time Numbers of PEAs with Suspension Rates >10% Number of PEAs 50 40 39 32 30 Rate >10% Log. (Rate >10%) 15 20 10 10 0 Rate >10% 8 FFY 2000 FFY 2001 FFY 2002 FFY 2003 FFY 2004 39 32 15 10 8 Arizona had nine education agencies that met the new definition of significant discrepancy. The range for the percent of these suspensions > 5% was from 5.14% to 27.27% of the special education population. It should be noted that out of the 549 reporting agencies, 439 reported no suspensions of students with disabilities for more than 10 days. The statewide average was 2.4%. A total of 907 students with disabilities were suspended for more than 10 days during FFY 2004. FFY 2005 (2005–2006) 2006 (2006–2007) Measurable and Rigorous Target Measurable and Rigorous Target A B 1.60% of PEAs with suspension rates ≥ 5% of their SWD population 1.55% of PEAs with suspension rates ≥ 5% of their SWD population Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority____4________ – Page 20__ ARIZONA FFY 2007 (2007–2008) 2008 (2008–2009) 2009 (2009–2010) 2010 (2010–2011) Measurable and Rigorous Target Measurable and Rigorous Target A B 1.50% of PEAs with suspension rates ≥ 5% of their SWD population 1.40% of PEAs with suspension rates ≥ 5% of their SWD population 1.35% of PEAs with suspension rates ≥ 5% of their SWD population 1.30% of PEAs with suspension rates ≥ 5% of their SWD population Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources: Improvement Activities Timelines Resources 1. Identify agencies with suspension rates of SWD >5% and require these agencies to analyze data reporting procedures and comparison rates with nondisabled students and to identify proactive initiatives to reduce suspension rates Fall 2005 and continuing ESS Data staff 2. Increase Arizona Positive Behavior Support Initiative (APBSI) participation among schools in Arizona Fall 2005 and continuing ESS CSPD staff 3. Refer PEAs with high suspension rates for SWD to the technical assistance opportunities sponsored by ESS and School Safety and Prevention Winter 2006 and continuing ESS specialists 4. Collaborate with the leadership of the School Safety and Prevention Section (SSPD) to expand the data analysis capabilities of the APBSI to schools beyond those currently enrolled Winter 2006– winter 2008 ADE SSPD staff 5. Approach the Arizona School Boards Association and Arizona School Administrators Association to collaborate on the training of school administrators on IDEA requirements Fall 2006 and continuing Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) ESS specialists APBSI participating universities APBSI ESS leadership ADE IT Programmers ESS leadership Monitoring Priority____4________ – Page 21__ ARIZONA Improvement Activities Timelines 6. Require PEAs to review IEP for a functional behavioral assessment and behavior intervention plan beginning with any suspension that brings a student’s total days to five or more in a school year Fall 2007 7. Cross train School Safety and Prevention, CSPD and ESS specialists on common discipline initiatives Winter 2007 Resources ESS leadership ESS Monitoring Team and specialists ADE SSPD staff APBSI participants ESS leadership 8. Continue the development and implementation of uniform data gathering procedures for all reporting agencies Fall 2007 and continuing ADE SSPD staff 9. Develop and distribute to PEAs a model disciplinary process that includes the requirements for students with disabilities and guidelines for all students Summer 2007 ADE SSDP staff 10. Collaborate with universities to increase the exposure to classroom management strategies for preservice teachers Fall 2008 ESS Data staff ESS leadership ESS CSPD staff ESS CSPD leadership ADE SSPD leadership ADE Discipline Initiative University Teacher Preparation Programs 11. Train PEA staff on disability specific behaviors and appropriate interventions Fall 2008 ESS specialists ESS CSPD staff APBSI participants 12. Provide additional training for middle and high school principals on positive behavior supports and the APBSI option Fall 2008 ESS CSPD staff Arizona School Administrators Association APBSI participating universities 13. Require PEAs with high suspension rates to develop alternatives to suspension Summer 2009 ESS leadership 14. In conjunction with SSPD staff, train security officers for PEAs in positive behavior supports and the APBSI project Fall 2009 ESS CSPD staff Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) ADE SSPD staff Monitoring Priority____4________ – Page 22__ ARIZONA Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE Indicator 5: School-Aged Placements Percent of children with IEPs aged 6 through 21: A. Removed from regular class less than 21% of the day; B. Removed from regular class greater than 60% of the day; or C. Served in public or private separate schools, residential placements, or homebound or hospital placements. (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A)) Measurement: A. Percent = # of children with IEPs removed from regular class less than 21% of the day divided by the total # of students aged 6 through 21 with IEPs times 100. B. Percent = # of children with IEPs removed from regular class greater than 60% of the day divided by the total # of students aged 6 through 21 with IEPs times 100. C. Percent = # of children with IEPs served in public or private separate schools, residential placements, or homebound or hospital placements divided by the total # of students aged 6 through 21 with IEPs times 100. Overview of Issue / Description of System or Process: Arizona used the federally required data reported to OSEP on December 1, 2004, to calculate the percentage of children in each of the subgroups noted above. Baseline Data for FFY 2004 (2004–2005): A. Removed less than 21% of the day 48.0% B. Removed greater than 60% of the day 17.8% C. Served in separate schools, residential placement, or home/hospital 2.7% Discussion of Baseline Data: Arizona’s placement options for students with disabilities aged 6–21 years are adequate to meet the diverse needs of individual students throughout the state. While the largest percentage of students is served in the regular classroom for most of their day, other options are clearly available and utilized by the public education agencies (PEAs) as appropriate. Table 3 compares Arizona rates for the most common placements to national rates as reported on the U.S. Department of Education web site. Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority_____5_______ – Page 23__ ARIZONA Table 3: Comparison of Arizona LRE with National LRE Placement outside the regular classroom % of AZ population % of US population* A. <21% 48.0% 50.0 B. >60% 17.8% 19.0 C. Separate facilities 2.7% 3.1 *Data taken from the USDOE/OSERS web site FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target 2005 (2005–2006) 2006 (2006–2007) 2007 (2007–2008) 2008 (2008–2009) 2009 (2009–2010) 2010 (2010–2011) Measurement A <21% Measurement B >60% Measurement C Separate 49% 17% 2.7 50% 16.5 2.5 51% 16 2.3 52% 15.5 2.1 53% 15 1.9 54% 14.5 1.7 Timelines Resources Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources: Improvement Activities 1. Initiate Autism Training Project Spring 2005 and continuing ESS leadership 2. Increase training and supervision of LRE reporting Spring 2006 ESS data staff 3. Train ESS specialists to be able to oversee and provide assistance to agencies in the area of data reporting Summer 2006 ESS Data staff Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) CSPD staff ESS Monitoring Team Monitoring Priority_____5_______ – Page 24__ ARIZONA Improvement Activities 4. Revise ADE census reporting to reflect differences between voucher placements unrelated to FAPE and those necessary for FAPE Timelines Fall 2006 Resources ESS data staff ADE School Finance staff ADE IT staff 5. Identify agencies with excessive numbers of restrictive placements and require analysis of causes and improvement planning Summer 2007 continuing ESS data staff 6. Revise the monitoring system to require agencies with high numbers of restrictive placements to investigate placement procedures and addition options Fall 2008 ESS Monitoring Team Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) ESS specialists Monitoring Priority_____5_______ – Page 25__ ARIZONA Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE Indicator 6: Preschool Placements Percent of preschool children with IEPs who received special education and related services in settings with typically developing peers (e.g., early childhood settings, home, and part-time early childhood/parttime early childhood special education settings). (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A)) Measurement: Percent = # of preschool children with IEPs who received all special education services in settings with typically developing peers divided by the total # of preschool children with IEPs times 100. Overview of the State Performance Plan Development for This Indicator: The oversight of preschool programs for children with disabilities rests with the Early Childhood Education Section (ECE) within the ADE, rather than with ESS. This unit incorporates all of the early childhood programs that are under the auspices of the ADE. The activities for improvement have been underway for more than one year and have involved multiple stakeholders both inside and outside the state. Overview of Issue / Description of System or Process: The ADE/ECE is responsible for the administration of the Early Childhood Special Education Program (IDEA, Part B, Section 619). ECE collaborates with multiple agencies, organizations, and stakeholders, as well as the Exceptional Student Services (ESS) section of ADE to promote increased access to LRE and placement of children with special needs. Arizona faces several challenges in the state’s efforts to provide more access to inclusive early childhood environments for the following reasons: ƒ State funding for programs for typically developing preschoolers has not increased for the past five years, while the state has experienced a 33% increase in the number of preschool children eligible for special needs services during the same time frame (FFY 2000—9,144 children; FFY 2004—13,564 children). ƒ Arizona’s school construction funding formula does not allocate dollars for preschool classrooms for typically developing children. When classroom space is limited, PEAs will allocate space to those programs that generate funding. • In 2004, the Arizona State Legislature approved a new law allowing public schools to bypass state preschool program licensure through the Arizona Department of Health Services for self-contained classrooms used to provide special education services to preschool children. Prior to September 2004, all preschool classroom settings required licensure. Since the passage of the new law, PEAs have increased the number of self-contained preschool classrooms in order to avoid allocating resources for licensing classrooms. ECE, with collaborative partners, will continue to address these challenges as described in the Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources section. Baseline Data for FFY 2004 (2004–2005): Of Arizona’s 3–5 year olds, 47% were served in settings with typically developing peers. Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority____6________ – Page 26__ ARIZONA Discussion of Baseline Data: All PEAs annually report LRE data elements for this indictor through the ADE SAIS. Data from four settings are used to determine the percentage of children receiving services with typically developing peers: early childhood; home; part-time early childhood and part-time special education; and reverse mainstream. Table 4 reports FFY 2004 preschool placements. Table 4: Preschool Placements Description 12/1/2004 12/1/2004 Early Childhood Setting (EC) 4,688 34.56% EC Special Education Setting (ECSE) 6,903 50.89% 19 0.14% 1,528 11.27% 1 0.01% Separate School 119 0.88% Itinerant Service Outside the Home 153 1.13% Reverse Mainstream 153 1.13% 13,564 100.00% Home Part Time EC/Part Time ECSE Residential Facility TOTAL FFY 2005 (2005–2006) 2006 (2006–2007) 2007 (2007–2008) 2008 (2008–2009) 2009 (2009–2010) 2010 (2010–2011) Measurable and Rigorous Target 48.0% of Arizona’s 3–5 year olds served in settings with typically developing peers 50.0% of Arizona’s 3–5 year olds served in settings with typically developing peers 52.0% of Arizona’s 3–5 year olds served in settings with typically developing peers 55.0% of Arizona’s 3–5 year olds served in settings with typically developing peers 57.0% of Arizona’s 3–5 year olds served in settings with typically developing peers 60.0% of Arizona’s 3–5 year olds served in settings with typically developing peers Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority____6________ – Page 27__ ARIZONA Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources: Improvement Activities Timelines Resources 1. Provide professional development on LRE during nine “Critical Issues” Outreach sessions Fall 2005–winter 2006 ECE staff 2. Continue training on accurate use of EC setting codes in SAIS Fall 2005; ongoing ESS/ECE staff 3. Develop and implement inclusion TA plan with MPRRC; convene Early Childhood Inclusion Coalition Fall 2005–fall 2007 MPRRC staff 4. Participate in National Individualizing Preschool Inclusion Project (NIPIP) with Vanderbilt University, piloting five PEA sites in partnership with the three state universities Summer 2005– summer 2007 5. Provide financial grant to AZ DEC chapter to develop Count Me In, a resource handbook for inclusion and provide targeted TA in selected PEAs Winter 2005– summer 2006 AZ DEC leadership 6. Annually review PEA level LRE data and provide specific TA to targeted PEAs that do not show an increase in the number of children receiving services in inclusive settings Winter 2006–spring 2010 ECE and ESS staff 7. Initiate discussions with the School Readiness Board and the Schools Facilities Board to include space in new school buildings for typical preschool programs Fall 2007 ECE and ESS leadership 8. Liaison with AzEIP to develop informational packets for families regarding placement options at transition time Winter 2008 Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) ECE staff ECE staff NIPIP trainers PEA pilot sites ECE staff support ADE Policy Group ECE staff AzEIP staff ADE Print Shop Monitoring Priority____6________ – Page 28__ ARIZONA Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE Indicator 7: Preschool Outcomes Percent of preschool children 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)) Measurement: A. Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships): a. Percent of preschool children who reach or maintain functioning at a level comparable to sameaged peers = # of preschool children who reach or maintain functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers divided by # of preschool children with IEPs assessed times 100. b. Percent of preschool children who improve functioning = # of preschool children who improved functioning divided by # of preschool children with IEPs assessed times 100. c. Percent of preschool children who did not improve functioning = # of preschool children who did not improve functioning divided by # of preschool children with IEPs assessed times 100. If children meet the criteria for a, report them in a. Do not include children reported in a in b or c. If a + b + c does not sum to 100%, explain the difference. B. Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/communication and early literacy) a. Percent of preschool children who reach or maintain functioning at a level comparable to sameaged peers = # of preschool children who reach or maintain functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers divided by # of preschool children with IEPs assessed times 100. b. Percent of preschool children who improved functioning = # of preschool children who improved functioning divided by # of preschool children with IEPs assessed times 100. c. Percent of preschool children who did not improve functioning = # of preschool children who did not improve functioning divided by # of preschool children with IEPs assessed times 100. If children meet the criteria for a, report them in a. Do not include children reported in a in b or c. If a + b + c does not sum to 100%, explain the difference. C. Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs: a. Percent of preschool children who reach or maintain functioning at a level comparable to sameaged peers = # of preschool children who reach or maintain functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers divided by # of preschool children with IEPs assessed times 100. b. Percent of preschool children who improved functioning = # of preschool children who improved functioning divided by # of preschool children with IEPs assessed times 100. c. Percent of preschool children who did not improve functioning = # of preschool children who did not improve functioning divided by # of preschool children with IEPs assessed times 100. If children meet the criteria for a, report them in a. Do not include children reported in a in b or c. If a + b + c does not sum to 100%, explain the difference. Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority___7________ – Page 29__ ARIZONA Overview of Issue / Description of System or Process: Arizona has collected outcome data for three early childhood programs for the past several years. Outcome data on typically developing peers in Family Literacy and state-funded preschool programs were collected using an assessment instrument called Pre-K Success™. Outcome data for children receiving special education services were collected annually through IEP goal data. For the past six months, the Early Childhood Education (ECE) Section has worked with the ADE Information Technology (IT) Section and Research and Evaluation (R&E) Section to develop a webbased data collection system that will operate through SAIS. A request for proposals is being released in December 2005 to select one or more ongoing progress monitoring assessments that will be used by all early childhood special educators in all programs administered by ADE/ECE. Proposals will be evaluated on comprehensiveness of the instrument to provide the required data elements; method of data collection and reporting information to families; usability in eligibility determination; and cost to each PEA. Training on the selected instrument(s) will occur in spring 2006, with full implementation in fall 2006. For the 2006-2007 school year, all preschool special education programs will report child outcomes in the three areas identified by OSEP. A pilot project is currently underway in a representative sample population of seven PEAs that are using either the Work Sampling System or the Assessment and Evaluation Planning System . Data from the pilot project will be reported as baseline data on the 2007 APR. Baseline Data for FFY 2004 (2004–2005): Not applicable for this report Discussion of Baseline Data: Not applicable for this report FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target 2005 (2005–2006) 2006 (2006–2007) 2007 (2007–2008) 2008 (2008–2009) 2009 (2009–2010) 2010 (2010–2011) Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority___7________ – Page 30__ ARIZONA Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources: Improvement Activities Timelines 1. Identify one or more progress monitoring systems to be used in EC programs Winter 2006 2. Train on selected progress monitoring systems Spring 2006 3. Develop a web-based data collection system to be used by all children in ADE early childhood programs Spring 2006 4. Collect baseline data from a sample of PEA EC programs through web system Summer 2006 Resources ADE Procurement Office ECE leadership ECE leadership Identified contractors ADE IT Section ECE leadership ADE IT Section ECE leadership EC teachers in pilot programs 5. Implement progress monitoring statewide Fall 2006 6. Collect exit data from the pilot programs Summer 2007 ECE leadership 7. Collect baseline and exit data from all EC programs annually Summer 2008 and continuing ECE leadership Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) ECE leadership EC Teachers Monitoring Priority___7________ – Page 31__ ARIZONA Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE Indicator 8: Parent Involvement 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)) Measurement: Percent = # of respondent parents who report schools facilitated parent involvement as a means of improving services and results for children with disabilities divided by the total # of respondent parents of children with disabilities times 100. Overview of Issue / Description of System or Process: As indicated in last year’s APR, Arizona has traditionally used multiple vehicles to obtain information on the level of parent involvement in the special education process (i.e., monitoring, annual school surveys, state performance indicators, technical assistance and training activities, Parent Information Network Specialists, and focus groups) as part of our Continuous Improvement and Monitoring SelfAssessment. Although ESS will continue to collect parent involvement data through multiple mechanisms, it is the intent to use a Parent Survey developed by the National Center for Special Education Accountability Monitoring (NCSEAM) to gather data relative to this Indicator. ESS is planning to have parents respond to the questions listed under the heading “Schools’ Efforts to Partner with Parents.” Other categories may be included in the survey, but those would be optional for parents. The agency is in the process of developing a web-based system that parents will use to submit their responses. If parents do not have access to a computer, alternate means of responding will be created to allow parents to participate in this survey. ESS will provide baseline data for FFY 2005 that will be collected annually thereafter. Baseline Data for FFY 2004 (2004–2005): Not applicable for this report Discussion of Baseline Data: Not applicable for this report FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target 2005 (2005–2006) 2006 (2006–2007) 2007 (2007–2008) Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority___8________ – Page 32__ ARIZONA 2008 (2008–2009) 2009 (2009–2010) 2010 (2010–2011) Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources: Improvement Activities Timelines Resources 1. Review NCSEAM survey to select specific items and finalize content Fall 2005 ESS leadership 2. Develop web-based system to collect data Fall 2005 IT programmer 3. Create alternate means to respond to survey Fall 2005 ESS leadership 4. Translate survey into Spanish and determine how other languages will be accommodated Winter 2006 PINS Coordinator PINS Coordinator Translators ESS leadership PINS Coordinator 5. Field test survey Spring 2006 IT programmer PEAs Parents 6. Establish baseline and transitional targets based on field test data Fall 2006 7. Report to the public Annually in late fall beginning in 2006 ESS leadership Fall 2006 and continuing IT programmer 8. Conduct survey with PEAs in year two of the ESS monitoring cycle ESS leadership SEAP ESS leadership PINS Coordinator 9. Review and revise baseline data, targets, and improvement activities based on full implementation of the parent involvement survey Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Summer 2007 IT programmer ESS leadership PINS Coordinator Monitoring Priority___8________ – Page 33__ ARIZONA Improvement Activities 10. Analyze data at state; compile simple, user-friendly reports Timelines Fall 2007 and continuing Resources IT programmer ESS leadership PINS Coordinator 11. Provide TA to PEAs re: parent involvement data in order to promote improvement strategies/activities Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Annually in winter, spring, and summer PINS Coordinator ESS specialists Monitoring Priority___8________ – Page 34__ ARIZONA Monitoring Priority: Disproportionality Indicator 9: Racial / Ethnic Disproportionality 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)) Measurement: Percent = # of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services that is the result of inappropriate identification divided by # of districts in the state times 100. Include State’s definition of “disproportionate representation.” Describe how the State determined that disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services was the result of inappropriate identification, e.g., monitoring data, review of policies, practices, and procedures under 618(d), etc. Overview of the State Performance Plan Development for This Indicator: In addition to the input provided by the SEAP, the other major groups with contributions to this indicator are: • The PEAs that were identified following the 2003 APR as having elevated weighted risk ratios; • Mountain Plains Regional Resource Center; • The Disproportionality Task Force sponsored by the ADE/ESS; and • The leadership of NCCREST (in an advisory capacity for strategies for the analysis of data and activities for improvement). Issue / Description of System or Process: Arizona has elected to use the electronic spreadsheet provided by Westat to analyze ethnicity by disability data to identify PEAs at risk of significant disproportionality that is a result of inappropriate identification. In making a determination of “significant disproportionality,” Arizona factored in the achievement rates and dropout rates for each ethnic group—both for all students and for high school students. Asian students and white students are exceeding the state average on each of these measures; therefore, these ethnic groups will not be a focus of further investigation unless data in subsequent years suggest otherwise. For the FFY 2003 Annual Performance Report, Arizona elected to use a weighted risk ratio (WRR) of 1.25 as an indicator of potential over identification at the PEA level and reduced the numbers of PEAs to investigate through a scoring system that attributed one point for every disability by ethnicity cell with a WRR at that level or higher. Upon review of the data, it was apparent that the WRRs for PEAs with 10 or fewer students in a cell were significantly skewed; therefore, small schools were eliminated from consideration for the appropriate cells. The state used the same procedures to determine WRRs for the 2004–2005 school year enrollments. When a comparative analysis was done between the WRRs for the two successive years, it was apparent that the 1.25 criteria used in the FFY 2003 report was too low, as the formula used in the Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority____9________ – Page 35__ ARIZONA calculation yielded different results with little or no change in individual PEA numbers from one year to the next. Arizona is a rapidly growing state and the increases in statewide population changed some PEAs in a positive direction without any change in policies, procedures, or practices. Conversely, some PEAs that did not fit the criteria for the FFY 2003 report did fit the criteria for FFY 2004 because of the growth in their overall numbers of students without disabilities. Therefore, Arizona will use the following scheme to identify PEAs with disproportionality that may be a result of inappropriate identification procedures: • Each PEA with any cell size student number of >10 will be awarded one point for each cell with a WRR between 1.5 and 2.0. • Each PEA with any cell size student number of >10 will be awarded two points for each cell with a WRR of 2.0 or greater. • PEAs with a total number of points of three or greater will be alerted to the potential for inappropriate identification. • PEAs that are identified for two successive years will be required to engage in a facilitated investigation of the causes of their disproportionate numbers to determine if those numbers are a result of inappropriate identification. • PEAs that have participated in this investigation and have been found to have appropriate policies, procedures, and practices will not have to engage in a subsequent investigation unless the pattern of disproportionality changes over time or the PEA modifies its identification procedures. Baseline Data for FFY 2004 (2004–2005): Not applicable for this report Discussion of Baseline Data: Not applicable for this report FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target 2005 (2005–2006) 2006 (2006–2007) 2007 (2007–2008) 2008 (2008–2009) 2009 (2009–2010) 2010 (2010–2011) Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority____9________ – Page 36__ ARIZONA Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources: Improvement Activities Timelines Resources 1. Calculate agency level weighted risk ratios (WWR) for enrollment in special education by ethnicity Spring 2005 2. Identify agencies with the highest risk factors for inappropriate disproportionality using the formula noted above in the description of system or process Summer 2005 ESS leadership 3. Consult with NCCREST to enhance Arizona’s existing disproportionality analysis tool Winter 2006 ESS leadership 4. Require identified agencies to complete the revised disproportionality analysis tool and submit it to the ESS Spring 2006 5. Select and train members for a disproportionality verification team Summer 2006 ESS leadership 6. Identify those agencies that continue to be at risk for inappropriate identification and arrange for the disproportionality verification team to conduct an on-site review Summer 2006 ESS leadership and specialists 7. Identify any agency that, following the onsite review, is determined to meet the definition of “disproportionality that is a result of inappropriate identification” Fall 2006 8. Require identified agencies to budget 15% of their IDEA grant for early intervening services for disproportionate groups Spring 2007 ESS Grants Management Unit 9. Evaluate effectiveness of early intervening services on disproportionality data Spring 2008 and continuing ESS leadership Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) ESS data staff ADE research specialist NCCREST ESS leadership Agency staff Disproportionality Task Force Disproportionality Task Force ESS specialists Monitoring Priority____9________ – Page 37__ ARIZONA Monitoring Priority: Disproportionality Indicator 10: Racial / Ethnic Disproportionality by Disability 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)) Measurement: Percent = # of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories that is the result of inappropriate identification divided by # of districts in the State times 100. Include State’s definition of “disproportionate representation.” Describe how the State determined that disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories was the result of inappropriate identification, e.g., monitoring data, review of policies, practices, and procedures under 618(d), etc. Overview of Issue / Description of System or Process: See description under Indicator 9 Baseline Data for FFY 2004 (2004–2005): Not applicable for this report Discussion of Baseline Data: Not applicable for this report FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target 2005 (2005–2006) 2006 (2006–2007) 2007 (2007–2008) 2008 (2008–2009) 2009 (2009–2010) 2010 (2010–2011) Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority______10______ – Page 38__ ARIZONA Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources: Improvement Activities Timelines Resources 1. See activities outlined for Indicator # 9 Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority______10______ – Page 39__ ARIZONA Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B / Child Find Indicator 11: Evaluation Timelines Percent of children with parental consent to evaluate who were evaluated and eligibility determined within 60 days (or State established timeline). (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B)) Measurement: a. # of children for whom parental consent to evaluate was received. b. # determined not eligible whose evaluations and eligibility determinations were completed within 60 days (or State-established timeline). c. # determined eligible whose evaluations and eligibility determinations were completed within 60 days (or State-established timeline). Account for children included in a, but not included in b or c. Indicate the range of days beyond the timeline when eligibility was determined and any reasons for the delays. Percent = b + c divided by a times 100. Overview of Issue / Description of System or Process: For information on the selection of PEAs for monitoring, refer to Indicator 15. The State has had a requirement for evaluation timelines for many years. The timeline is 60 days from consent for the collection of additional data to the determination of eligibility. If there are extenuating circumstances and both the PEA and parent agree, the timeline can be extended an addition 30 days in order to ensure appropriate and sufficient information. These extensions are considered to be within the appropriate timeline. However, the Arizona data collection system via monitoring collects data on both initial and reevaluations and is based on the review of files of children found eligible for special education services. Baseline Data for FFY 2004 (2004–2005): Not applicable for this report Discussion of Baseline Data: Not applicable for this report FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target 2005 (2005–2006) 2006 (2006–2007) Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority____11________ – Page 40__ ARIZONA FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target 2007 (2007–2008) 2008 (2008–2009) 2009 (2009–2010) 2010 (2010–2011) Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources: Improvement Activities Timelines Resources 1. Amend monitoring procedures to consider 60-day timelines for initial evaluations only Summer 2005 ESS Monitoring Team 2. Enhance corrective action plan development to require a review of student files for the reasons the 60-day requirements were not met and the implementation of actions to overcome the identified reasons Fall 2005–spring 2006 ESS specialists 3. Amend monitoring system to include the review of files of students who were found not eligible for special education Spring 2006 for fall 2006 implementation ESS Monitoring Team 4. Enhance Support Cadre membership to assist schools in evaluation procedures related to timelines Fall 2007 ESS CSPD Support Cadre 5. Consider the inclusion of evaluation timeline data as part of the collection of PEA annual performance data Summer 2008 ESS data unit 6. Monitor for PEAs’ system of tracking evaluation timelines Fall 2009 ESS Monitoring Team Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority____11________ – Page 41__ ARIZONA Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B / Effective Transition Indicator 12: Preschool Transition 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 birthday. (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B)) Measurement: a. # of children who have been served in Part C and referred to Part B for eligibility determination. b. # of those referred determined to be NOT eligible and whose eligibilities were determined prior to their third birthday. c. # of those found eligible who have an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthday. Account for children included in a, but not included in b or c. Indicate the range of days beyond the third birthday when eligibility was determined and reasons for the delays. Percent = c divided by a – b times 100. Overview of Issue / Description of System or Process: Until September 2004, the interagency agreement between the Arizona Department of Education (ADE) and the lead agency for Part C (the Arizona Early Intervention Program (AzEIP)) allowed children either to transition to a Part B program at age 3 or to remain in the Part C program until a “logical transition point” for the child. The agreement was subsequently revised, with training on the following changes provided during the 2004–2005 school year to ensure children have an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthday: • AzEIP staff arranges for a transition planning meeting between the time the child is 2.6 yrs. and 2.9 yrs. • AzEIP representative completes the newly developed Transition Planning Form, which demonstrates compliance with stipulations in the agreement, and provides documentation of the activities, timelines and responsibilities needed to transition eligible children into Part B by their third birthday. • FAPE for all eligible children begins by the child’s third birthday. However, districts may choose to serve eligible children at 2.9, but must serve them no later than their third birthday. • Upon completion, the Transition Planning Form is placed in all eligible children’s files upon transition into a Part B program Baseline Data for FFY 2004 (2004–2005): ADE ECE/ESS did not collect data isolating children referred by Part C for Part B eligibility in 2004– 2005 through any statewide data collection system. However, the ESS did monitor for compliance with transition requirements, including ensuring FAPE by age three during its standard monitoring cycle. Table 5 reports the monitoring results over the last five years on this line item. Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority______12______ – Page 42__ ARIZONA Table 5: FAPE by Age 3 Monitoring Results Percent of files in compliance % FAPE by 3 from Monitoring 100 50 0 % FAPE by 3 % FAPE by 3 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 56 68 79 82 83 Discussion of Baseline Data: See Indicator 15 for additional information on the ESS monitoring system. Prior to 2005–2006, Arizona did not collect data through SAIS on IEP implementation by a child’s third birthday. Beginning in 2005–2006, Arizona modified indicators in SAIS so that PEAs will indicate IEP development by a child’s third birthday. Beginning in 2006–2007, SAIS will be further modified so that PEAs will indicate whether or not a child was served in Part C before becoming eligible for Part B services. Both enhancements to SAIS will enable ADE ECE/ESS to capture data necessary from 100% of PEAs to accurately report on this indicator. AzEIP is also enhancing their data system by adding the following indicator fields for all children referred by Part C to Part B: “transition meeting date,” “date IEP developed,” and “preschool start date.” These additional fields will provide further checks on data reported by PEAs for this indicator in the future. FFY 2005 (2005–2006) 2006 (2006–2007) 2007 (2007–2008) 2008 (2008–2009) 2009 (2009–2010) 2010 (2010–2011) Measurable and Rigorous Target 100% of eligible children will transition to Part B by their third birthday 100% of eligible children will transition to Part B by their third birthday 100% of eligible children will transition to Part B by their third birthday 100% of eligible children will transition to Part B by their third birthday 100% of eligible children will transition to Part B by their third birthday 100% of eligible children will transition to Part B by their third birthday Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority______12______ – Page 43__ ARIZONA Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources: Improvement Activities Timelines Resources 1. Continue providing targeted TA on transition agreement compliance to PEAs as requested or identified through monitoring and data analysis Fall 2005–spring 2011 ECE staff 2. Enhance corrective action plan development as a result of monitoring findings to require the review of student files for the reasons the FAPE by three requirement was not met and the implementation of actions to overcome the identified causes Fall 2005–spring 2011 ESS and ECE staff 3. Mine data from the enhanced AzEIP data system to validate FAPE by age three information required by OSEP indicators Fall 2005–spring 2006 AzEIP leadership and contracted service providers 4. Enhance SAIS by adding FAPE by three and Part C indicator fields for student level data record Fall 2005–spring 2007 ADE IT Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) AzEIP staff PEA staff ECE and ESS leadership Monitoring Priority______12______ – Page 44__ ARIZONA Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B / Effective Transition Indicator 13: High School Transition Percent of youth aged 16 and above with an IEP that includes coordinated, measurable annual IEP goals and transition services that will reasonably enable the student to meet the postsecondary goals. (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B)) Measurement: Percent = # of youth with disabilities aged 16 and above with an IEP that includes coordinated, measurable, annual IEP goals and transition services that will reasonably enable the student to meet the postsecondary goals divided by # of youth with an IEP age 16 and above times 100. Overview of Issue / Description of System or Process: The data for this indicator will be taken from the ESS monitoring system as described in Indicator 15. Sample selection for files reviewed during monitoring is by stratified sampling. The stratification is based on disability, grade, and school site with an appropriate number of students in the mandated transition range included in the sample. Baseline Data for FFY 2004 (2004–2005): Not applicable for this report Discussion of Baseline Data: Not applicable for this report FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target 2005 (2005–2006) 2006 (2006–2007) 2007 (2007–2008) 2008 (2008–2009) 2009 (2009–2010) 2010 (2010–2011) Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority_______13_____ – Page 45__ ARIZONA Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources: Improvement Activities 1. Identify items in the existing monitoring system that address the indicator Timelines Summer 2005 Resources ESS Monitoring Team ESS transition specialists MPRRC staff 2. Train ESS monitors to require the insertion of birth date in the computer program to allow for discrete analysis of items for transitionaged youth Fall 2005 ESS Director of Program Support 3. Develop new sample forms for PEAs that support high quality transition planning in the IEP process Summer 2006 ESS transition specialists 4. Utilize and disseminate transition resources listed on the ESS web site Fall 2006 5. Provide training to PEAs on the development of local interagency planning groups that support transition Winter 2007 ESS transition specialists 6. Train school personnel to develop meaningful, measurable, and individualized IEP transition goals Winter 2007 ESS specialists 7. Enhance monitoring and TA system to provide additional guidance on postsecondary goal determinations. Summer 2008 ESS Monitoring Team Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Transition Work Group ESS transition specialists PINS ESS transition specialists Monitoring Priority_______13_____ – Page 46__ ARIZONA Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B / Effective Transition Indicator 14: High School Outcomes Percent of youth who had IEPs, are no longer in secondary school, and who have been competitively employed, enrolled in some type of postsecondary school, or both, within one year of leaving high school. (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B)) Measurement: Percent = # of youth who had IEPs, are no longer in secondary school and who have been competitively employed, enrolled in some type of postsecondary school, or both, within one year of leaving high school divided by # of youth assessed who had IEPs and are no longer in secondary school times 100. Overview of Issue / Description of System or Process: Currently, Arizona does not have a system in place to collect, analyze, and report postsecondary school outcome data. In order to develop and implement such a system, ESS has initiated the following activities: • Collection of information on existing state data collection systems; • Review of those systems in terms of their data collection, analysis, and reporting procedures; • Discussion of this information with the postsecondary school outcome data focus group and the State’s Special Education Advisory Panel; • Participation in teleconferences concerning the collecting of post-school outcome data on Youth with Disabilities; • Discussions with the National Center on Secondary Transition and Postsecondary School Outcomes for Students with Disabilities and with Mountain Plains Regional Resource Center; • Participation in NASDSE’s Community of Practice that focuses on secondary transition; • Participation in national transition summits; and • Establishment of the Arizona Transition Leadership Team that now has about thirty members who represent the diversity of stakeholders. The ESS focus group is composed of individuals from several sections within the Arizona Department of Education, universities, multiple PEAs, other state agencies, and a parent from the Advisory Panel. Mountain Plains Regional Resource Center facilitates the meetings. The purpose of the focus group is to provide options to the State Director for consideration relative to post school outcome data collection, analysis, and reporting procedures. In order to accomplish this task, the focus group will define terms such as “competitive employment,” “enrolled” and “postsecondary school.” The Special Education Advisory Panel will have an opportunity to provide input into this process. No matter what data collection procedures are finally agreed upon, ESS will provide baseline data for FFY 2006 that will be collected annually between April and June beginning in FFY 2007. ESS will sample each of the public education agencies (PEAs) at least once every six years and will annually include PEAs with average daily membership (ADM) over 50,000 each year. ESS will develop a system that will attempt to include youth who completed school (graduated) during the prior school year and those who dropped out or aged out during the prior school year or did not return for the Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority___14_________ – Page 47__ ARIZONA current school year. ESS will build into the system an analysis and correction of nonresponse. No personally identifiable information about individual students will be disclosed. Baseline Data for FFY 2004 (2004–2005): Not applicable for this report Discussion of Baseline Data: Not applicable for this report FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target 2005 (2005–2006) 2006 (2006–2007) 2007 (2007–2008) 2008 (2008–2009) 2009 (2009–2010) 2010 (2010–2011) Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources: Improvement Activities 1. 2. 3. Timelines With the input from the PSO focus group, R&E specialist, and the SEAP, design a web-based PSO data collection system and sampling plan Winter 2006 Provide ongoing information about reporting requirements during the development and implementation stages to PEAs through electronic mailing lists and meetings Ongoing Gather contact information on students leaving during the 2005– 2006 school year Spring 2006 Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Resources MPRRC IT programmer/analyst R & E specialist State transition specialists ESS leadership PEA Special Education Administrators State transition specialists PEA staff Monitoring Priority___14_________ – Page 48__ ARIZONA 4. Gather PSO data on students who left during 2005–2006 school year April–June 2007 State transition specialists IT programmer PEA staff 5. Build baseline of exit and postschool outcome data annually Fall 2007, then annually in the fall IT programmer State transition specialists ESS leadership 6. Analyze data at state and district level; compile simple, user friendly reports Fall 2007, then annually in the fall IT programmer/analyst ESS transition specialists ESS leadership 7. Set six year and annual rigorous and measurable targets based on baseline data Prior to 2/1/2008 ESS leadership ESS transition specialists SEAP 8. Provide TA to PEAs re: PSO data in order to promote improvement strategies/activities Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Annually in Winter and Spring ESS transition specialists ESS specialists Monitoring Priority___14_________ – Page 49__ ARIZONA Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B / General Supervision Indicator 15: Effective Corrective Action General supervision system (including monitoring, complaints, hearings, etc.) identifies and corrects noncompliance as soon as possible, but in no case later than one year from identification. (20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(B)) Measurement: A. Percent of noncompliance related to monitoring priority areas and indicators corrected within one year of identification: a. # of findings of noncompliance made related to monitoring priority areas and indicators. b. # of corrections completed as soon as possible, but in no case later than one year from identification. Percent = b divided by a times 100. For any noncompliance not corrected within one year of identification, describe what actions, including technical assistance and/or enforcement that the State has taken. B. Percent of noncompliance related to areas not included in the above monitoring priority areas and indicators corrected within one year of identification: a. # of findings of noncompliance made related to such areas. b. # of corrections completed as soon as possible, but in no case later than one year from identification. Percent = b divided by a times 100. For any noncompliance not corrected within one year of identification, describe what actions, including technical assistance and/or enforcement that the State has taken. C. Percent of noncompliance identified through other mechanisms (complaints, due process hearings, mediations, etc.) corrected within one year of identification: a. # of agencies in which noncompliance was identified through other mechanisms. b. # of findings of noncompliance made. c. # of corrections completed as soon as possible but in no case later than one year from identification. Percent = c divided by b times 100. For any noncompliance not corrected within one year of identification, describe what actions, including technical assistance and/or enforcement that the State has taken. Overview of Issue / Description of System or Process: Compliance Monitoring Exceptional Student Services (ESS) conducts compliance monitoring for all IDEA procedural requirements on a six-year cycle. The activities conducted in each of the six years of the cycle for FFY 2004 were as follows: Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority___15_________ – Page 50__ ARIZONA Year 1: Policy and procedure review (if revised) or verification of no revisions Year 2: Optional submission and review of PEA forms Year 3: Training and technical assistance in preparation for on-site monitoring Year 4: On-site monitoring Year 5: Technical assistance and training related to any corrective action Year 6: Continued corrective action closeout for agencies monitored prior to January 15, 2005 The number of PEAs monitored each year of the six-year cycle ranges from 80 to 100 with a regional balance from year to year. Each year of the cycle also has a mix of elementary, unified districts, and high school districts, charter schools, and other agencies (such as secure care, accommodation schools, or state institutions). Except in those PEAs with less than 10 students with disabilities, a stratified sampling methodology is used to select the files to be reviewed for compliance. The sample always represents the range of grade levels, disabilities, and sites served by the PEA. If appropriate, the sample also includes students who have exited special education, been suspended or expelled, or placed in an out-of-PEA placement by the IEP team. The compliance monitoring system is standards-based with all forms, guide steps, enforcement and reward options, and a sample summary of findings provided to PEAs at the beginning of each school year. Data collection includes file reviews, interviews, surveys, and classroom observations. There are four monitoring options for PEAs. The specific level for each PEA is determined by ESS in consultation with the PEA by using information from state-established performance indicators, PEA participation rates in ESS trainings, and assessments by the ESS specialist assigned to work with the PEA. The monitoring options are: • Level 1: Active participation of some PEA staff, but with no independent work. The ESS team is generally larger and more active than the PEA participating staff. • Level 2: The PEA and ESS work as a team to complete the monitoring with some tasks completed by PEA staff after training by ESS. The ESS team is generally smaller than the PEA team and acts as trainers and verifiers of the PEA work. • Level 3: PEA leads and works independently in some areas, and ESS staff is on site for other activities. The level of independence is determined in consultation with ESS and the PEA. The ESS specialist assigned to the PEA works with a monitoring coordinator to schedule tasks and provide selected training. The PEA is allowed up to three months to complete all monitoring activities. ESS staff members verify the monitoring findings to ensure validity and reliability. • Level 4: The PEA team leads and works independently in all areas. ESS verifies findings. The ESS specialist assigned to the PEA ensures that progress toward completion of the monitoring is adequate and verifies the findings periodically during the three months allowed for the monitoring. Following the January 11, 2005, notification by OSEP that the state must revise its two-year monitoring closeout procedures, the state notified the PEAs of the change in policy. All PEAs with two-year closeout dates will complete their cycle by January 31, 2006. The closeout rates reported in the baseline below reflect the FFY 2003 monitoring year; therefore, a number of agencies have not reached the end of their two-year corrective action timelines. Performance Monitoring ADE/ESS monitors the performance of PEAs on critical indicators through analysis of data from multiple sources. While performance on all indicators is rank ordered and published, ADE/ESS selects specific areas for additional supervision each year. Table 6 indicates the areas (and their data sources) investigated by the ADE/ESS in the FFY 2004. Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority___15_________ – Page 51__ ARIZONA Table 6: FFY 2004 Performance Monitoring Areas and Data Sources Critical Area Data Source # of PEA SelfAssessments Suspension rates 618 data 5 Disproportionality by disability SAIS 16 Disproportionality in LRE SAIS 18 The PEAs with the highest negative ranking in each area were required to respond to a specific set of questions provided by the ADE/ESS. The questions are designed to assist the PEA in investigating the source of their numbers, the root causes, and possible remedies within their environment. Targeted technical assistance is available to support agencies in their efforts to improve performance. Specific information regarding each of the critical areas is located in the section of the State Performance Plan related to the aligned indicator. Dispute Resolution System In addition to monitoring, other procedures used to identify IDEA noncompliance in a timely manner are formal complaints, mediation and due process hearings. ESS employs five 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. ESS employs a Corrective Action Compliance Monitor (CACM) to collect the required documentation, monitor timelines, and provide technical assistance, as necessary. Arizona has an early complaint resolution (ECR) option available to parents and PEAs when both parties agree that a mutually beneficial resolution can be reached without a full investigation. A complaint investigator is assigned to work with both parties to the dispute and if the disagreement can be resolved within 10 days of the filing of the complaint, the complaint is considered resolved and is not further investigated. During the FFY 2004, Arizona had a two-tiered due process procedure with the first level of hearing conducted by an independent hearing officer assigned by the ESS and agreed to by both parties to the dispute. All hearing officers were attorneys who are knowledgeable about the IDEA and who had been trained yearly through ESS. Appeals to the first hearing level were conducted through the state Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). These proceedings were held before any one of several administrative law judges who had also been trained in the requirements of the IDEA and related state law and rules. Arizona has a system that allows for mediation on any dispute between parents and education agencies— 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. Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority___15_________ – Page 52__ ARIZONA Incentives, Sanctions, and Enforcement 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 is a listing of the state’s enforcement steps that may be imposed: 1. Interruption of IDEA payments until adequate compliance is achieved. For charter schools not receiving IDEA funds, a request to begin withholding 10% of state payments; 2. Assignment of a special monitor or with ADE concurrence, permanent withholding of IDEA funds for a specific year. For charter schools receiving federal funds, a request to begin withholding 10% of state payments; 3. For charter schools, a request to the appropriate board for a notice of intent to revoke the charter; 4. With State Board approval, interruption of Group B–weighted state aid; 5. Referral to the Office of the Attorney General for legal action. During FFY 2004, the state offered the following incentives for PEAs that exhibited exemplary compliance with IDEA requirements during and after their monitoring. 1. Eligibility for a noncompetitive Capacity Building grant if the PEA was in compliance in four of five monitoring areas, including delivery of services; 2. ADE/ESS–paid team registration for ESS Directors’ Institute for closing out all monitoring corrective actions within one year of the exit conference; 3. ADE/ESS–paid registration for one staff member at ESS Directors’ Institute for closing out all monitoring corrective actions within two years of the exit conference. Upon a finding of noncompliance identified in a state administrative complaint, corrective action is ordered in a letter of findings. If the corrective action is not submitted in accordance with the letter of findings, the CACM will send one or more of a variety of letters: 1. A Letter of Inquiry to the PEA asking why the corrective action submitted was incomplete or was not submitted and explaining that the PEA must provide a Letter of Explanation. • If the explanation is acceptable, the CACM will send a Letter of Understanding outlining any remaining concerns and a new plan of action. If the explanation is unacceptable or the PEA fails to respond to the Letter of Inquiry, the CACM will send a Letter of Concern. • If the corrective action documentation was not completed as specified in the Letter of Findings, the CACM will send a Letter of Clarification informing the PEA that the documentation must be revised and assigning a new due date for the revision. 2. If after the steps outlined above have been taken, the corrective action documentation remains incomplete, has not been received by the ESS, or has not been completed properly, the CACM sends a Letter of Concern to the chief administrator of the school that outlines the problem, offers assistance to bring the school into compliance, and informs that if compliance is not achieved, a Letter of Enforcement is the next step. 3. If the issues outlined in the Letter of Concern are not addressed as required, the CACM sends the chief administrator of the school a Letter of Enforcement indicating that if the school fails to comply with the corrective action required, one or more of the enforcement actions previously noted will occur. 4. Once the corrective action has been received, reviewed, and accepted by the CACM, a Letter of Completion is sent to the school chief administrator. This entire process will take place well within a year. Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority___15_________ – Page 53__ ARIZONA Baseline Data for FFY 2003* (2003–2004): Indicator Subsections Total # monitored A. Monitoring findings related to priority areas closed within one year 90 CAP Closed ≤1 year Operating Revoked 43 5 Closed ≤2 years Closeout Not Due 24 18 27% 20.1% 53% B. Monitoring findings not related to priority areas closed within one year C. Other mechanisms findings closed within 1 year Same as above # PEAs with findings # of findings CAP Closed ≤1 year 33 39 38 97% *Data reported as of 10/1/2005 Discussion of Baseline Data: Monitoring The Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) provided assistance to states in analyzing compliance monitoring findings relative to each of the federal indicators for the State Performance Plan in a document called the Part B Related Requirements and Investigative Questions Table. Arizona used this document to match line items from the state’s compliance monitoring system with the appropriate federal requirement. In Table 6 below, the state reports the total number of individual data points and the total number of out-of-compliance findings from the FFY 2003 monitoring for the noted indicator(s). Arizona tracks the date that each PEA closes out a corrective action plan; therefore, all items have the same “closeout” date within a specific PEA. Column D in Table 7 reflects the compliance status on the line items as of one year from the exit conference for all PEAs in the state. This equates to all of the PEAs that were in compliance during the original monitorings plus the 53% of the noncompliant PEAs that were closed out within one year of the monitoring. Thus, the FFY 2004 rate of compliance on all of the PEAs under section A of this indicator was 80.5%. Table 7: Monitoring Data Analysis for FFY 2003 A Sum of PEAs Reviewed 196 B Sum of PEAs with findings 94 3. Statewide Assessments 246 64 4. Suspension 27 4 5. LRE 6–21 6. LRE 3–5 591 281 SPP Indicator 1. Graduation 2. Dropout 13. Transition Plans 14. Secondary Outcomes Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) C # Corrected in 1 year D % Compliance in 1 year Monitoring Priority___15_________ – Page 54__ ARIZONA SPP Indicator 12. In-by-3 A Sum of PEAs Reviewed 35 B Sum of PEAs with findings 10 C # Corrected in 1 year D % Compliance in 1 year 1,095 453 240 (453 X 53%) 80.5% (A–B+C÷A) PEAs monitored in FFY 2003 # Closed within 1 year of exit conference % CAPS closed within 1 year TOTALS Table 8 reflects the compliance status on all other ESS federal monitoring requirements not reported in Section A above. The percentage reported in column D reflects the FFY 2004 compliance rate when all of the Section A items and all state-only requirements are subtracted. Table 8: Compliance Unrelated to Monitoring Priorities All other compliance requirements Child Find Evaluation IEP Service Delivery Procedural Safeguards ESS Monitoring Sections A # Reviewed B # with findings C # Corrected in 1 year D % Compliance in 1 year 5 432 340 180 63% (340 X 53%) (A–B+C÷A) Dispute Resolution There was one agency that did not correct its noncompliance within one year of identification. The particular agency was found noncompliant system-wide and was issued significant corrective action. Due to the necessity for a system-wide changes, the agency was given an extended period of time to complete the corrective action. FFY 2005 (2005–2006) 2006 (2006–2007) 2007 (2007–2008) 2008 (2008–2009) Measurable and Rigorous Target 100% of corrective actions completed within one year of identification 100% of corrective actions completed within one year of identification 100% of corrective actions completed within one year of identification 100% of corrective actions completed within one year of identification Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority___15_________ – Page 55__ ARIZONA FFY 2009 (2009–2010) 2010 (2010–2011) Measurable and Rigorous Target 100% of corrective actions completed within one year of identification 100% of corrective actions completed within one year of identification Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources: Improvement Activities for Monitoring Timelines Resources 1. Notify all agencies of the OSEP requirement that all CAPs be cleared within one year January 2005 ESS Director of Program Support 2. Emphasize at all exit conferences the one year closeout requirement Winter 2005 and continuing ESS specialists 3. Modify the ESS monitoring system to accurately capture the closeout status of all monitorings on an ongoing basis Summer 2005 ESS programmers 4. Add a “close out due” notification letter to be sent to all PEAs 45–60 days prior to the expiration of their one year Fall 2005 ESS specialists 5. Continue to require intensive TA to all PEAs unable to close out within one year Ongoing ESS specialists 6. Copy the president of the school board and the business manager of the PEA on first warning letter regarding fund interruption Spring 2006 ESS specialists 7. Provide a copy of the corrective action plan to the president of the school board when a PEA is out of compliance in more than two areas Winter 2006 ESS Director of Program Support 8. Continue to implement progressive enforcement activities for failure to complete corrective action items Ongoing ESS leadership 9. Train monitoring staff on what to look for in 1 year closeouts as systemic change may not be observable in one year Summer 2006 Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Charter School Board leadership ESS Monitoring Team Monitoring Priority___15_________ – Page 56__ ARIZONA Improvement Activities for Monitoring Timelines Resources 10. Continue to provide incentives to close out in 1 year and add an incentive for 9 month closeout Summer 2007 ESS leadership 11. Develop a status update form for use at 9 month date Summer 2008 ESS Monitoring Team 12. Require PEAs to provide status update to specialist 3 months prior to close out date Fall 2008 ESS leadership Improvement Activities for Complaint Investigation Timelines 1. Continue established tracking system to monitor submission of required corrective actions Summer 2005 and continuing CACM coordinator 2. Modify procedures so that corrective action orders that allow the school greater than one year to complete will no longer be issued Fall 2005 and continuing Complaint investigators 3. Train a backup CACM coordinator so that no interruption of oversight could occur Summer 2006 CACM coordinator Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Resources Monitoring Priority___15_________ – Page 57__ ARIZONA Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B / General Supervision Indicator 16: Complaint Investigation Timelines Percent of signed written complaints with reports issued that were resolved within 60-day timeline or a timeline extended for exceptional circumstances with respect to a particular complaint. (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B)) Measurement: Percent = (1.1(b) + 1.1(c)) divided by (1.1) times 100. Overview of Issue / Description of System or Process: ESS employs five 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 approves all letters of finding. Arizona has an early complaint resolution option available to parents and PEAs when both parties agree that a mutually beneficial resolution can be reached without a full investigation. Generally, the assigned complaint investigator will work with both parties to the dispute and if the disagreement can be resolved without the need for a full, formal investigation, the investigator assists the parties in drafting a resolution agreement. The complaint is considered resolved and is not further investigated. Baseline Data for FFY 2004 (2004–2005): 73.9 % of complaints were completed within 60 days or the extended timeline in FFY2004 Discussion of Baseline Data: Arizona receives a high volume of state administrative complaints—generally about 150 per year. Each of the five full-time complaint investigators, at any given time, investigates between three and six complaints. Although the goal is to issue a Letter of Findings within the mandated 60-day time frame, an extension can be granted if it becomes apparent that a complaint will not be completed within the 60 days. Typical reasons for the granting of an extension are as follows: unavailability of relevant parties for interviews (often due to breaks in the school year) or an extraordinarily large volume of documentation. Extensions range from one week to 30 days. The main reason for the 73.9% timeliness figure stems from complaints being filed with the timelines coming due during extended school break periods. The complaint investigators are finding it increasingly difficult to contact relevant school personnel or obtain necessary documentation, particularly during the summer break. Even with the use of extensions, it was not possible to issue all Letters of Findings within the required time frame. Steps (discussed below) are being taken to remedy this challenge. Figure 4 indicates the timeliness rate of the issuance of complaint findings over the last three years. Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority___16_________ – Page 58__ ARIZONA % Reports issued within 60 days Figure 4: Complaint Timelines Complaint Report Timelines 100 % Complaints within 60 days 50 0 FFY 02 FFY 03 FFY 04 49 80 74 % Complaints within 60 days FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target 2005 (2005–2006) 2006 (2006–2007) 2007 (2007–2008) 2008 (2008–2009) 2009 (2009–2010) 2010 (2010–2011) 100% of state complaints findings issued within 60 days of receipt 100% of state complaints findings issued within 60 days of receipt 100% of state complaints findings issued within 60 days of receipt 100% of state complaints findings issued within 60 days of receipt 100% of state complaints findings issued within 60 days of receipt 100% of state complaints findings issued within 60 days of receipt Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources: Improvement Activities 1. Add a new paragraph to each Letter of Acknowledgement outlining ADE’s expectation that the parties to the complaint will provide the investigator relevant documentation and make the necessary individuals available for interviews or risk the Letter of Findings being written without their input Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Timelines Fall 2005 and ongoing Resources ESS Director of Dispute Resolution ESS Dispute Resolution Coordinator Monitoring Priority___16_________ – Page 59__ ARIZONA Improvement Activities 2. 3. Timelines Establish a reminder system to alert the complaint investigator a week prior to a complaint due date that the 60day timeline is about to expire. The investigator will be granted an extension prior to the timeline running out if one is justified Fall 2005 and ongoing Analyze work flow quarterly and adjust assignments as necessary between offices and investigators Summer 2006 and continuing Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Resources ESS Director of Dispute Resolution ESS Dispute Resolution Coordinator ESS leadership Dispute Resolution Director Monitoring Priority___16_________ – Page 60__ ARIZONA Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B / General Supervision Indicator 17: Due Process Hearing Timelines Percent of fully adjudicated due process hearing requests that were fully adjudicated within the 45-day timeline or a timeline that is properly extended by the hearing officer at the request of either party. (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B)) Measurement: Percent = (3.2(a) + 3.2(b)) divided by (3.2) times 100. Overview of Issue / Description of System or Process: During FY 2004–2005, Arizona operated under a two-tiered due process system with the first level of hearing conducted by an independent hearing officer assigned randomly by the ESS. All hearing officers are attorneys who are knowledgeable about the IDEA and who have been trained yearly through ESS. Appeals to the first hearing level are conducted through the state Office of Administrative Hearings. These proceedings were held before any one of several administrative law judges who had also been trained in the requirements of the IDEA and related state law and rules. Beginning August 12, 2005, Arizona moved from its previous two-tiered due process system to a onetier system. Under the current system, due process hearing requests are received by ESS and are then immediately forwarded to the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), a state agency charged with conducting administrative hearings and making decisions in contested cases and appealable agency actions for various state agencies. OAH employs full time Administrative Law Judges (ALJ), four of whom are assigned to hear special education due process hearings. The ALJs are attorneys who are knowledgeable about the IDEA and related state law and rules and are trained yearly through ESS. Baseline Data for FFY 2004 (2004–2005): 86% within timelines for FFY 2004. Discussion of Baseline Data: First tier hearing officers routinely granted extensions based upon mutual agreement of the parties. Because of a concern about the number of extensions being granted, the ESS Director of Dispute Resolution cautioned the hearing officers about unnecessary or unwarranted extensions. However, because hearing officers were independent, extensions continued to be granted and mandated timelines were not always adhered to. FFY 2005 (2005–2006) 2006 (2006–2007) Measurable and Rigorous Target 100% of due process hearing decisions issued within 45 days of filing 100% of due process hearing decisions issued within 45 days of filing Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority___17_________ – Page 61__ ARIZONA FFY 2007 (2007–2008) 2008 (2008–2009) 2009 (2009–2010) 2010 (2010–2011) Measurable and Rigorous Target 100% of due process hearing decisions issued within 45 days of filing 100% of due process hearing decisions issued within 45 days of filing 100% of due process hearing decisions issued within 45 days of filing 100% of due process hearing decisions issued within 45 days of filing Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources: Improvement Activities Timelines Resources 1. Implement new legislation that changed Arizona to a one-tier due process system August 2005 Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings 2. Propose changes to Arizona Administrative Code rules relating to due process Summer 2005 ESS Director of Dispute Resolution Develop due process hearing procedures to outline how timelines will be adhered to Winter 2006 Provide training to Administrative Law Judges Ongoing through 2010 3. 4. Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) State Board of Education ESS Director of Dispute Resolution Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings ESS Director of Dispute Resolution MPRRC staff Monitoring Priority___17_________ – Page 62__ ARIZONA Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B / General Supervision Indicator 18: Resolution Session Effectiveness 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)) Measurement: Percent = 3.1(a) divided by (3.1) times 100. Overview of Issue / Description of System or Process: Not applicable for this report Baseline Data for FFY 2004 (2004–2005): Not applicable for this report Discussion of Baseline Data: Not applicable for this report FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target 2005 (2005–2006) 2006 (2006–2007) 2007 (2007–2008) 2008 (2008–2009) 2009 (2009–2010) 2010 (2010–2011) Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority___18_________ – Page 63__ ARIZONA Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources: Improvement Activities 1. Timelines Resources Modify ESS Dispute Resolution data base to capture data required by IDEA 2004 regarding resolution sessions Winter/spring 2006 Continue to work with the Arizona OAH to develop an efficient interagency data tracking system Ongoing 3. Offer a workshop to PEAs on mediation, negotiation, and facilitation techniques in order to encourage resolution of due process complaints Spring 2006 Various private consulting companies 4. Review and analyze results semiannually and modify training and procedures to improve outcomes Summer 2006 and continuing Dispute Resolution Director 2. IT programmer ESS Dispute Resolution Coordinator ESS Director of Dispute Resolution Arizona OAH . Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority___18_________ – Page 64__ ARIZONA Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B / General Supervision Indicator 19: Mediation Effectiveness Percent of mediations held that resulted in mediation agreements. (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B)) Measurement: Percent = (2.1(a)(i) + 2.1(b)(i)) divided by (2.1) times 100. Overview of Issue / Description of System or Process: Arizona has a system that allows for mediation of special education related disputes between parents and education agencies—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. Baseline Data for FFY 2004 (2004–2005): 82% of mediation requests resulted in a mediation agreement. Discussion of Baseline Data: It is difficult to explain why only 82% of mediations resulted in a mediation agreement since mediations are conducted by contracted mediators and are confidential. Presumably, some parties are unable to come to resolution and must utilize the due process system to resolve their disputes. FFY 2005 (2005–2006) 2006 (2006–2007) 2007 (2007–2008) 2008 (2008–2009) 2009 (2009–2010) 2010 (2010–2011) Measurable and Rigorous Target 82.0 of mediation requests resulted in a mediation agreement 82.5 of mediation requests resulted in a mediation agreement 83.0 of mediation requests resulted in a mediation agreement 83.5 of mediation requests resulted in a mediation agreement 84.0 of mediation requests resulted in a mediation agreement 84.5 of mediation requests resulted in a mediation agreement Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority___19_________ – Page 65__ ARIZONA Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources: Improvement Activities Timelines Resources 1. Provide mediation training December 2005 ESS Dispute Resolution unit 2. Utilize PINS specialists to discuss value of mediation with parents Winter 2006 and continuing PINS specialists 3. Analyze feedback from mediation survey sent to parties following mediation to determine what ADE can do to improve the mediation system Spring 2006 and continuing ESS Dispute Resolution Coordinator Present training sessions at annual Directors’ Institute on mediation Fall 2006 and continuing 4. Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) ESS Director of Dispute Resolution ESS Dispute Resolution unit Monitoring Priority___19_________ – Page 66__ ARIZONA Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B / General Supervision Indicator 20: Reporting Accuracy and Timeliness State reported data (618 and State Performance Plan and Annual Performance Report) are timely and accurate. (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B)) Measurement: State reported data, including 618 data and annual performance reports are: A. Submitted on or before due dates (February 1 for child count, including race and ethnicity, placement; November 1 for exiting, discipline, personnel; and February 1 for Annual Performance Reports); and B. Accurate (describe mechanisms for ensuring accuracy). Overview of Issue / Description of System or Process: Arizona collects December 1 child count, placement, and ethnicity data through a state agency data collection system know as the Student Accountability Information System (SAIS). Public education agencies (PEAs) input student level data for all students into the SAIS system and ADE/ESS extracts the required special education information from that source. SAIS is the system used by school finance to provide state funding to schools; therefore, enrollment data, attendance records, withdrawal notification, and similar data are captured by SAIS. Unique student identifiers are used with the expectation that—at some point—dropout and graduation rates can be calculated by SAIS. The complexity of the system and the fact that it is used for funding purposes has presented some challenges to the “single point in time” concept of the December 1 count, in that PEAs are allowed to amend SAIS data for up to three years in order to capture additional appropriate state funding. The annual OSEP data requirements that are not collected at the time of the child count are collected through a web application developed and managed by ADE/ESS. PEAs report cumulative numbers that are reviewed by ADE/ESS personnel, and subsequently verified by the PEAs themselves. ADE/ESS use this same system to collect performance indicators in a few areas other than those required by OSEP—such as parent satisfaction information and preschool IEP goal attainment. Baseline Data for FFY 2004 (2004–2005): Data Element Due Date Preliminary Child Count February 1 Submission Date 2001–2002 2002–2003 2003–2004 2004–2005 2/4/02 2/5/03 1/15/04 1/28/05 Preliminary Placement N/A 2/5/03 1/15/04 1/28/05 Final Child Count 4/22/02 7/10/03 7/7/04 7/13/05 Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority___20_________ – Page 67__ ARIZONA Data Element Final Placement Submission Date Due Date 10/31/02 7/10/03 7/7/04 7/13/05 2001–2002 2002–2003 2003–2004 2004–2005 10/31/02 10/31/03 10/29/04 10/29/05 Exit 10/31/02 10/31/03 10/29/04 10/29/05 Discipline 11/22/02 10/31/03 10/29/04 10/29/05 Personnel November 1 Discussion of Baseline Data: FFY 2005 (2005–2006) 2006 (2006–2007) 2007 (2007–2008) 2008 (2008–2009) 2009 (2009–2010) 2010 (2010–2011) Measurable and Rigorous Target 100% of data will be reported accurately and by the deadline 100% of data will be reported accurately and by the deadline 100% of data will be reported accurately and by the deadline 100% of data will be reported accurately and by the deadline 100% of data will be reported accurately and by the deadline 100% of data will be reported accurately and by the deadline Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources: Improvement Activities 1. Improve data integrity checks in Student Accountability Information System (SAIS) 2. Collaborate with Safe and Drug Free Schools staff to build data set for suspension/expulsion Timelines Spring 2005 Resources Data Manager IT programmer/analyst Fall 2005 Data Manager Director of Program Support Director of School Safety and Prevention Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority___20_________ – Page 68__ ARIZONA 3. Extract exit data from SAIS Summer 2006 Data Manager IT programmer/analyst 4. Maintain the timeliness of data submission at 100% and review annually, at a minimum, to update/improve accuracy and timeliness Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) 2007 and continuing Data Manager Director of Program Support IT programmer/analyst Monitoring Priority___20_________ – Page 69__ Part B – SPP /APR Attachment 1 ____Arizona___ Attachment 1: Dispute Resolution Data SECTION A: Signed, written complaints (1) Signed, written complaints total (1.1) Complaints with reports issued 128 117 (a) Reports with findings 25 (b) Reports within timeline 66 (c) Reports within extended timelines 19 (1.2) Complaints withdrawn or dismissed (1.3) Complaints pending (a) Complaint pending a due process hearing 10 1 0 SECTION B: Mediation requests (2) Mediation requests total 43 (2.1) Mediations (a) Mediations related to due process (i) Mediation agreements (b) Mediations not related to due process (i) Mediation agreements (2.2) Mediations not held (including pending) 7 5 36 17 16 SECTION C: Hearing requests (3) Hearing requests total (3.1) Resolution sessions (a) Settlement agreements (3.2) Hearings (fully adjudicated) 51 0 0 7 (a) Decisions within timeline 0 (b) Decisions within extended timeline 6 (3.3) Resolved without a hearing 25 SECTION D: Expedited hearing requests (related to disciplinary decision) (4) Expedited hearing requests total (4.1) Resolution sessions (a) Settlement agreements (4.2) Expedited hearings (fully adjudicated) (a) Change of placement ordered Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) 4 0 0 1 0 – Page 70__ Part B – SPP /APR Attachment 2 ____Arizona___ Attachment 2: List of Abbreviations APBSI Arizona Positive Behavior Support Initiative ADE Arizona Department of Education AIMS Arizona’s Instrument to Measure Standards AIMS-A Arizona’s Instrument to Measure Standards – Alternate Assessment ALJ Administrative Law Judge APR Annual Performance Report AT Assistive Technology AYP Adequate Yearly Progress AzEIP Arizona Early Intervention Program for Infants and Toddlers CACM Corrective Action Compliance Monitor CAP Corrective Action Plan CSPD Comprehensive System of Personnel Development CTE Career and Technical Education Section ECE Early Childhood Education Section ESS Exceptional Student Services Section FAPE Free appropriate public education FFY Federal Fiscal Year Group B Arizona Funding Category for Significant Disabilities IDEA The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act IDEAL Integrated Data to Enhance Arizona’s Learning IEP Individualized Education Program IT Information Technology LRE Least restrictive environment MPRRC Mountain Plains Regional Resource Center NASDSE National Association of State Directors of Special Education Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) – Page 71__ Part B – SPP /APR Attachment 2 ____Arizona___ NCCRESt APBSI participants National Center for Culturally Responsive Education Systems NCLB No Child Left Behind Act NCSEAM National Center for Special Education Accountability and Monitoring OAH Office of Administrative Hearings OSEP Office of Special Education Programs/U.S. Department of Education PEA Public Education Agency PINS Parent Information Network Specialist PSO Post School Outcome RTI Response to Intervention SAIS Student Accountability Information System SEAP Special Education Advisory Panel SIG State Improvement Grant SPP State Performance Plan SSPD School Safety and Prevention Section SWD Students with Disabilities TA Technical Assistance WRR Weighted Risk Ratio Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) – Page 72__ The Arizona Department of Education of the State of Arizona does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, disability, religion, sexual orientation or age in its programs, activities or in its hiring and employment practices The following division has been designated to handle inquiries regarding the non-discrimination policies: Administrative Services 1535 W. Jefferson Phoenix, AZ 85007 Phone: (602) 542-3186 Fax: (602) 542-3073