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 February 1, 2007 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 February 1, 2007 Table of Contents Introduction _____________________________________________________________________ 5 Indicator 1: Graduation Rate ________________________________________________________ 7 Indicator 2: Dropout Rate _________________________________________________________ 11 Indicator 3: Participation and Performance on Assessments ______________________________ 14 Indicator 4: Rates of Suspension and Expulsion________________________________________ 20 Indicator 5: School-Aged Placements ________________________________________________ 25 Indicator 6: Preschool Placements __________________________________________________ 28 Indicator 7: Preschool Outcomes ___________________________________________________ 31 Indicator 8: Parent Involvement_____________________________________________________ 35 Indicator 9: Racial / Ethnic Disproportionality __________________________________________ 39 Indicator 10: Racial / Ethnic Disproportionality by Disability _______________________________ 44 Indicator 11: Evaluation Timelines __________________________________________________ 48 Indicator 12: Preschool Transition___________________________________________________ 51 Indicator 13: High School Transition _________________________________________________ 54 Indicator 14: High School Outcomes_________________________________________________ 57 Indicator 15: Effective Corrective Action ______________________________________________ 60 Indicator 16: Complaint Investigation Timelines ________________________________________ 67 Indicator 17: Due Process Hearing Timelines __________________________________________ 70 Indicator 18: Resolution Session Effectiveness ________________________________________ 72 Indicator 19: Mediation Effectiveness ________________________________________________ 74 Indicator 20: Reporting Accuracy and Timeliness _______________________________________ 76 Attachment 1: Sample Parent Involvement Survey______________________________________ 79 Attachment 3: List of Acronyms_____________________________________________________ 84 List of Figures Figure 1: Math Proficiency by Grade and Year for FFY 2003–2005..........................................................16 Figure 2: Reading Proficiency by Grade and Year for FFY 2003–2005....................................................17 Figure 3: Suspension Rate Decline over Time..............................................................................................21 Figure 4: Complaint Timelines .........................................................................................................................68 List of Tables Table 1: Junior / Senior Percent Dropout Rates FFY 2004.........................................................................12 Table 2: Participation and Performance Rates by Test Condition for FFY 2004 (2004–2005)..............16 Table 3: Comparison of Arizona LRE with National LRE.............................................................................26 Table 4: Preschool Placements.......................................................................................................................29 Table 5: Root Cause Analysis by Race by Disability for FFY 2005 ...........................................................45 Table 6: FAPE by Age 3 Monitoring Results .................................................................................................52 Table 7: Monitoring Data Analysis for FFY 2003 ..........................................................................................63 Table 8: Compliance Unrelated to Monitoring Priorities...............................................................................64 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, 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 (SPP). FFY 2005 Update to the State Performance Plan: When the State Performance Plan (SPP) was originally submitted to the OSEP, there were several indicators that were considered to be new indicators—thus not requiring baseline data, targets, and improvement plans from the states. The expectation was that a state would develop strategies for data collection and incorporate the new information into a revised State Performance Plan. This is the first such revision for Arizona. In addition, in submitting revised plans, states are offered the opportunity to revise baselines, targets, and improvement plans when subsequent years of information indicate that the original information was inaccurate or misleading. Several of Arizona’s indicators meet this requirement. The revised SPP reports the new baselines with justifications and amended targets. Public input for the revisions was solicited in the same manner as for the original submission. Overview of the State Performance Plan (SPP) Development: The Arizona State Performance Plan was drafted internally by staff within 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 Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Page 5__ ARIZONA 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 statesupported 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) Page 6__ 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. Overview of Issue / Description of System or Process: Arizona traditionally used a stand-alone process to determine the graduation rate of students enrolled in high school. The study used a five-year cohort model to identify graduation status. The five-year rate was expressed as a percentage of the class membership and reflected the proportion of the cohort class of a given year that received a high school diploma by their fifth year spring commencement. This proportion was 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 captured separate rates by ethnic groups and gender but did not capture any other subgroup rates. The requirements of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and the IDEA could not be met using the study; therefore, the ADE elected to transition the graduation study to a system that uses data extracted from the Student Accountability Information System (SAIS). As the state elected to continue the cohort approach to the graduation rate, the SAIS had to be in full operation for the term of the cohort group before an initial graduation rate using the preferred data could be extracted. This timeline for collecting graduation rates could be met with the graduating class of 2006. Beginning with the FFY 2005 State Performance Report, Arizona is able to report comparable graduation statistics for students with and without disabilities using a statewide procedure and is able to disaggregate data within ethnicities and disabilities to determine groups in critical need of attention. The new method gives a more accurate picture of the status of special education students and allows a more accurate comparison of the graduation rates of students with and without disabilities than the method of calculation used in the SPP submitted for FFY 2004. The new four-year cohort baselines are reported below. Adjusted Baseline Data for FFY 2005 (2005–2006): 2005 Cohort Graduates Graduation Rate of All Students Graduation Rate of Students with Disabilities 75.5% [N = 38,132/50,521]] 61.0% [N = 971/1,591] Discussion of Baseline Data: FFY 2005 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 Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority_____1_______ – Page 7__ ARIZONA 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. 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 Arizona’s Instrument to Measure Standards or AIMS—went 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 are 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 (2005–2006) 2006 (2006–2007) 2007 (2007–2008) 2008 (2008–2009) 2009 (2009–2010) 2010 (2010–2011) Measurable and Rigorous Target 61% of students with disabilities who exit receive a regular high school diploma 62.5% of students with disabilities who exit receive a regular high school diploma 63% of students with disabilities who exit receive a regular high school diploma 64.5% of students with disabilities who exit receive a regular high school diploma 66% of students with disabilities who exit receive a regular high school diploma 67.5% of students with disabilities who exit receive a regular high school diploma Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority_____1_______ – Page 8__ ARIZONA Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources: Note: Progress on Improvement Activities is reported in the Arizona Annual Performance Report. 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 (AT) 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—Integrated Data to Enhance Arizona’s Learning (IDEAL) portal for K–12 learning Fall 2006 and continuing ADE leadership 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 AT specialist ASU Instructional Technology Project ESS transition specialists Career and Technical Education Section (CTE) ESS transition specialists Vocational Rehabilitation Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority_____1_______ – Page 9__ ARIZONA Improvement Activities Timelines Resources 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 Information Technology (IT) / Student Accountability Information System (SAIS) staff State Board of Education ADE Dropout Prevention Unit ESS leadership 1 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 14. Coordinate with the SAIS staff to modify the reporting of SWD to eliminate the double reporting requirement for year-end status 1 Winter 2007 for implementation in fall 2008 CTE leadership ESS leadership SAIS staff New activity added FFY 2005 Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority_____1_______ – Page 10__ 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. 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. FFY 2005 Update to the State Performance Plan: The need to adjust the FFY 2004 baseline data is predicated on an adjustment to the formula used by the ADE to calculate the dropout rate for all youth. End of summer status, i.e., students who do not return to school after the summer break, is captured in the new baseline thereby increasing the dropout rate. Adjusted Baseline Data for FFY 2005 (2005–2006): Youth Status All Youth Youth in Special Education FFY 2005 (Adjusted Baseline) 6.32 [22,765/360,420] 5.44 [N = 659/12,123] Discussion of Baseline Data: A grade-by-grade comparison of dropout rates in FFY 2004 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 during FFY 2004 for students with and without disabilities in the grades with significant differences between groups. Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority_____2_______ – Page 11__ ARIZONA Table 1: Junior / Senior Percent Dropout Rates FFY 2004 Year Students with Disabilities All Students Junior 7.16 5.35 Senior 5.77 7.94 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 (2005–2006 2006 (2006–2007) 2007 (2007–2008) 2008 (2008–2009) 2009 (2009–2010) 2010 (2010–2011) Measurable and Rigorous Target 3.96% of students with disabilities who exited dropped out 2006 Baseline and subsequent Targets adjust due to changes in calculation method No more than 5.50% of students with disabilities will be deemed to have dropped out No more than 5.40% of students with disabilities will be deemed to have dropped out No more than 5.30% of students with disabilities will be deemed to have dropped out No more than 5.20% of students with disabilities will be deemed to have dropped out No more than 5.10% of students with disabilities will be deemed to have dropped out Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources: Note: Progress on Improvement Activities is reported in the Arizona Annual Performance Report. 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 Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority_____2_______ – Page 12__ ARIZONA Improvement Activities Timelines Resources 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 ADE Dropout Prevention staff ESS programmers 6. Collaborate with ADE Dropout Prevention Unit, Arizona Technology Access Program (AzTAP), and Vocational Rehabilitation for dissemination of dropout prevention information Spring 2008 and continuing ESS transition specialists 7. Increase student awareness of postschool 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 13__ 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 adequate yearly progress (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; and 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 14__ 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 3rd through 8th, and 10th. 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] Adjusted Baseline Data for FFY 2005 (2005–2006) Arizona did not calculate and report FFY 2004 AYP rates for the special education subgroup by curriculum area in the State Performance Plan submitted in March 2006. These data were calculated for FFY 2005 and are reported in the amended State Performance Plan submitted in February 2007. AYP Rate for PEAs with SWD—Math AYP Rate for PEAs with SWD—Reading AYP Rate for PEAs with SWD—Overall Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) 18.92% [N = 14 / 74] 16.22% [N = 12 / 74] 12.16 [N = 9 / 74] Monitoring Priority_____3_______ – Page 15__ ARIZONA Table 2: Participation and Performance Rates by Test Condition for FFY 2004 (2004–2005) Grade level a) Enrolled b) No Accommodations c) Accommodated Administration d) e) Alternate Assessment Totals 0 # % # % # # % # % Math Participation 73,649 24,179 32.8 41,175 55.9 4,521 6.1 69,875 94.9 Reading Participation 74,281 22,459 30.2 43,228 58.2 4,521 6.1 70,208 94.5 Math Performance 73,649 10,353 14.1 6,767 9.2 1,606 2.2 18,726 25.4 Reading Performance 74,281 9,857 13.3 8,166 11.0 2,094 2.8 20,117 27.1 Discussion of Baseline Data: With the exception of 3rd 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 unusual and difficult to repeat (Figures 1 and 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. Figures 1 and 2 illustrate the change over time in the reading and math scores of children with disabilities in selected grades on the general statewide assessment. Figure 1: Math Proficiency by Grade and Year for FFY 2003–2005 Math Proficiency Percent Proficient 100.0 80.0 FFY 03 60.0 40.0 39.643.0 25.4 16.0 15.816.0 14.0 20.0 0.0 FFY 04 28.230.0 29.0 6.0 3.0 3rd 5th 8th 10th FFY 03 29.0 14.0 3.0 6.0 FFY 04 39.6 28.2 15.8 25.4 FFY 05 43.0 30.0 16.0 16.0 Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) FFY 05 Monitoring Priority_____3_______ – Page 16__ ARIZONA Figure 2: Reading Proficiency by Grade and Year for FFY 2003–2005 Reading Proficiency Percent Proficient 100.0 80.0 FFY 03 60.0 40.0 34.034.236.0 20.0 0.0 FFY 04 30.129.0 17.0 3rd 5th 8th 10th FFY 03 34.0 17.0 10.0 17.0 FFY 04 34.2 30.1 20.0 27.1 FFY 05 36.0 29.0 20.0 25.0 FFY Overall 2005 (2005–2006) 2006 (2006–2007) 2007 (2007–2008) 2008 (2008–2009) 2009 (2009–2010) 2010 (2010–2011) 2 FFY 05 Measurable and Rigorous Targets—Amended PEA AYP Attainment Percentage Baseline 2004 20.020.0 10.0 27.125.0 17.0 Math Math Participation Percentage Reading Participation Percentage Math Proficiency Percentage Reading Proficiency Percentage 94.9 94.5 25.4 27.1 Reading 22.7 23.0 18.92 16.22 95 2 95 26.0 35.0 23.5 19.0 16.5 95 95 35.0 40.0 24.0 19.2 16.75 95 95 40.0 45.0 24.5 19.5 17.0 95 95 45.0 50.0 25.0 20.0 17.5 95 95 50.0 55.0 25.5 20.5 18.0 95 95 55.0 60.0 Targets adjusted to 95% to align with NCLB requirements Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority_____3_______ – Page 17__ ARIZONA Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources: Note: Progress on Improvement Activities is reported in the Arizona Annual Performance Report. Improvement Activities Timelines Resources 1. Expand ESS Reading Initiative through Reading First and the Arizona State Improvement Grant (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 4. Develop and validate the Arizona alternate assessment against grade level standards and curriculum Winter 2006– winter 2008 SIG reading specialists ADE Reading First section ADE-sponsored intervention teams ESS specialists MPRRC 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 Comprehensive System of Personnel Development (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 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 Monitoring Priority_____3_______ – Page 18__ ARIZONA Improvement Activities Timelines Resources 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 14. Revise monitoring procedures to require agencies with below average math achievement scores for SWD to complete a root 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) CSPD specialists ADE research staff ESS programming staff ADE IT staff ESS Monitoring Team ESS specialists ADE procurement Monitoring Priority_____3_______ – Page 19__ 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. 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 20__ 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 Additional Baseline Data for FFY 2005 (2005–2006): B) 1.86% of the PEAs in Arizona had suspension rates of greater than 5% of their population of special education students in any racial/ethnic group [N = 10 / 549] 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% 15 20 10 0 Rate >10% Log. (Rate >10%) 10 8 5 FFY 2000 FFY 2001 FFY 2002 FFY 2003 FFY 2004 FFY 2005 39 32 15 10 8 5 Arizona had nine education agencies that met the FFY 2004 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 Revision to Indicator 4: Arizona used the same definition of significant discrepancy when analyzing suspension data by race/ethnicity. Ten PEAs had at least one cell that met the >5% of the SWD population and more than two students suspended. Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority____4________ – Page 21__ ARIZONA FFY 2006 (2006–2007) 2007 (2007–2008) 2008 (2008–2009) 2009 (2009–2010) 2010 (2010–2011) Measurable and Rigorous Target Measurable and Rigorous Target A B 1.55% of PEAs with suspension rates ≥ 5% of their SWD population 1.50% of PEAs with suspension rates ≥ 5% of their SWD population 1.80% of PEAs with suspension rates ≥ 5% of their SWD population by ethnicity 1.40% of PEAs with suspension rates ≥ 5% of their SWD population 1.75% of PEAs with suspension rates ≥ 5% of their SWD population by ethnicity 1.35% of PEAs with suspension rates ≥ 5% of their SWD population 1.70% of PEAs with suspension rates ≥ 5% of their SWD population by ethnicity 1.30% of PEAs with suspension rates ≥ 5% of their SWD population 1.65% of PEAs with suspension rates ≥ 5% of their SWD population by ethnicity Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources: Note: Progress on Improvement Activities is reported in the Arizona Annual Performance Report. 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 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 Monitoring Priority____4________ – Page 22__ ARIZONA Improvement Activities Timelines Resources 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 ESS leadership 6. Require PEAs to review IEPs for functional behavioral assessments and behavior intervention plans beginning with any suspension that brings a student’s total days to five or more in a school year Fall 2007 ESS leadership 7. Cross train School Safety and Prevention, CSPD, and ESS specialists on common discipline initiatives Winter 2007 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 SSPD 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 Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Summer 2009 ESS leadership Monitoring Priority____4________ – Page 23__ ARIZONA Improvement Activities 3 Timelines Resources 14. In conjunction with SSPD staff, train security officers for PEAs in positive behavior supports and the APBSI project Fall 2009 15. Study the appropriateness of amending the criteria for significance from an N count of >2 to an N count of >4 3 Fall 2007 ESS leadership 16. Identify agencies with suspension rates of SWD by race/ethnicity >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 within the discrepant group(s) Fall 2007 and continuing ESS Data staff ESS CSPD staff ADE SSPD staff ESS specialists New activities 15 and 16 in FFY 2005 Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority____4________ – Page 24__ 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 25__ 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 Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources: Note: Progress on Improvement Activities is reported in the Arizona Annual Performance Report. Improvement Activities 1. Initiate Autism Training Project 2. Increase training and supervision of least restrictive environment (LRE) reporting Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Timelines Resources Spring 2005 and continuing ESS leadership Spring 2006 ESS data staff CSPD staff Monitoring Priority_____5_______ – Page 26__ ARIZONA Improvement Activities 4 Timelines Resources 3. Train ESS specialists in overseeing and providing assistance to agencies in the area of data reporting Summer 2006 4. Revise ADE census reporting to reflect differences between voucher placements unrelated to a free, appropriate public education (FAPE)and those necessary for FAPE Fall 2006 5. Identify agencies with excessive numbers of restrictive placements and require analysis of causes and improvement planning Summer 2007 and continuing ESS data staff 6. Incorporate assistive technology (AT) into the appropriate root cause analyses for monitoring. 4 Summer 2007 ESS Monitoring Team 7. Revise the monitoring system to require agencies with high numbers of restrictive placements to investigate placement procedures and additional options Fall 2008 ESS data staff ESS Monitoring Team ESS data staff ADE School Finance staff ADE IT staff ESS specialists ESS AT specialists ESS Monitoring Team New activity in FFY 2005 Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority_____5_______ – Page 27__ 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/part-time 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 the least restrictive environment (LRE) for 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 28__ 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 29__ ARIZONA Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources: Note: Progress on Improvement Activities is reported in the Arizona Annual Performance Report. 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 and ongoing ESS/ECE staff 3. Develop and implement inclusion technical assistance (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 Arizona 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 Arizona Early Intervention Program (AzEIP) to develop informational packets for families regarding placement options at transition time Winter 2008 9. Collaborate with the Special Education Advisory Panel (SEAP) to bring the space issues associated with preschool to the attention of the Arizona legislature and other political officials Winter 2007 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 ECE staff ESS leadership SEAP membership Monitoring Priority____6________ – Page 30__ 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 did not improve functioning = [(# of preschool children who did not improve functioning) divided by the (# of preschool children with IEPs assessed)] times 100. b. Percent of preschool children who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-aged peers = [(# of preschool children who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-aged peers) divided by the (# of preschool children with IEPs assessed)] times 100. c. Percent of preschool children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it = [(# of preschool children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it) divided by the (# of preschool children with IEPs assessed)] times 100. d. Percent of preschool children who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers = [(# of preschool children who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers) divided by the (# of preschool children with IEPs assessed)] times 100. e. Percent of preschool children who maintained functioning at a level comparable to sameaged peers = [(# of preschool children who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers) divided by the (# of preschool children with IEPs assessed)] times 100. If a + b + c + d + e 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 did not improve functioning = [(# of preschool children who did not improve functioning) divided by the (# of preschool children with IEPs assessed)] times 100. b. Percent of preschool children who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-aged peers = [(# of preschool children who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-aged peers) divided by the (# of preschool children with IEPs assessed)] times 100. c. Percent of preschool children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it = [(# of preschool children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it) divided by the (# of preschool children with IEPs assessed)] times 100. d. Percent of preschool children who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers = [(# of preschool children who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers) divided by the (# of preschool children with IEPs assessed)] times 100. Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority___7________ – Page 31__ ARIZONA e. Percent of preschool children who maintained functioning at a level comparable to sameaged peers = [(# of preschool children who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers) divided by the (# of preschool children with IEPs assessed)] times 100. C. Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs: a. Percent of preschool children who did not improve functioning = [(# of preschool children who did not improve functioning) divided by the (# of preschool children with IEPs assessed)] times 100. b. Percent of preschool children who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-aged peers = [(# of preschool children who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-aged peers) divided by the (# of preschool children with IEPs assessed)] times 100. c. Percent of preschool children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it = [(# of preschool children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it) divided by the (# of preschool children with IEPs assessed)] times 100. d. Percent of preschool children who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers = [(# of preschool children who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers) divided by the (# of preschool children with IEPs assessed)] times 100. e. Percent of preschool children who maintained functioning at a level comparable to sameaged peers = [(# of preschool children who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers) divided by the (# of preschool children with IEPs assessed)] times 100. Overview of Issue / Description of System or Process: For the past 18 months, the Early Childhood Education (ECE) Office has worked with ADE Information Technology (IT) and Research and Evaluation to develop a Web-based data collection system that will operate through the ADE Student Accountability Information System (SAIS). Data collected for programs providing special education services for preschool children, as well as programs providing services for typically developing peers will be used to report on the outcomes specified in this indicator. Sampling will not be used for this indicator as all preschool children with disabilities will have their entry status and exit status assessed as outlined. All early childhood programs must select and administer one assessment tool from a State Board approved menu of four ongoing progress monitoring assessments: 1) Child Observation Record (High/Scope Educational Research Foundation, Ypsilanti, MI) 2) Creative Curriculum Developmental Continuum for Ages 3–5 (Teaching Strategies, Inc., Washington, DC) 3) Galileo Preschool Online Educational Management System (Assessment Technology, Incorporated, Tucson, AZ) 4) Work Sampling System (Pearson Learning Group, Parsippany, NJ) Training on selected instruments and fidelity regarding assessment documentation was provided to Arizona programs by specific instrument publishing companies in summer and fall 2006. ADE ECE and IT staff provided training on data submission in SAIS to program administrators and SAIS coordinators in 11 half-day sessions throughout the state in summer and fall 2006. Ongoing technical assistance (TA) for SAIS, including the early childhood assessment component, is provided by the ADE IT System Training and Response (STaR) Team, which is the technical assistance component of SAIS. Program submission of data and utilization of SAIS is governed by a set of SAIS documents addressing business rules, transactions, and design requirements. These documents may be Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority___7________ – Page 32__ ARIZONA reviewed at: http://www.ade.az.gov/sais/. Specific information regarding the early childhood assessment transaction in SAIS may be reviewed in the 2007 SAIS Requirements Overview on page 39 at: http://www.ade.az.gov/sais/FY07RequirementsOverview.doc Outcome data analysis is provided by ADE Research and Evaluation, utilizing extrapolation of raw assessment data from SAIS. “Comparable to same age peers” is defined as a score that is equal to or greater than the score obtained by 50% of the typical preschool children evaluated during the same time frame using the same instruments. Entry Status Data: Entry data is reported for the three outcome indicators in two reporting categories for children who entered programs from July 1, 2006–December 1, 2006: Positive socialemotional skills Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills Use of appropriate (adaptive) behavior to meet needs FFY 2005 [N = 3,026] Percent of children functioning at a level comparable to same aged peers 48% [N = 1,454] Percent of children functioning at a level below same aged peers 52% [N = 1,572] Percent of children functioning at a level comparable to same aged peers 39% [N = 1,167] Percent of children functioning at a level below same aged peers 61% [N = 1,859] Percent of children functioning at a level comparable to same aged peers 3% [N = 80] Percent of children functioning at a level below same aged peers 97% [N = 2,946} Discussion of Baseline Data: Baseline data due with FFY 2006 report. Measurable and Rigorous Target: Targets will be established once baseline data are available. FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target 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 33__ ARIZONA Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources: Improvement Activities Resources 1. Facilitate training for all PEAs on selected assessment instrument July 1, 2006– October 30, 2006 Assessment instrument publishing companies 2. Provide statewide training sessions on assessment data submission in SAIS September 2006– December 2006 ECE staff December 2007 ECE and Research and Evaluation (R&E) staff 4. Prepare list of changes/improvements for subsequent years and develop edit checks for the online reporting January 2008 and continuing ECE and IT staff 5. Use the Early Childhood Quality Improvement Practices (ECQUIP) project to monitor programs and determine quality October 2006 and continuing ECE staff July 2006 and continuing ECE staff and AzEIP leadership 3. Review and analyze data to determine response rates and to identify potential systems issues 5 6. Participate in Part C EC Outcome Data Advisory Committee to align data collection methods and reports 5 Timelines New activities 3–6 in FFY 2005 Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority___7________ – Page 34__ 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: Although ESS collects parent involvement data through multiple mechanisms, the state is using a variation of the Parent Survey developed by the National Center for Special Education Accountability Monitoring (NCSEAM) to gather data relative to this indicator. The survey is attached to this report. The agency developed a Web-based system for parents to use to submit their responses. If parents do not have access to a computer, they may complete a paper version of the survey that is then entered into the ADE/ESS data base via the Web. The survey is available in both English and Spanish for both the online and print versions. The use of the Web-based system allows school staff to assist parents who may require the survey to be read because of literacy or language needs or who may require support with the computer technology. Public education agencies (PEAs) that are in Year 2 of the ESS monitoring cycle and districts with enrollment greater than 50,000 provide instructions, confidential user identifications (IDs), and passwords to all of their parents of students with disabilities. PEAs are required to facilitate parent participation by arranging for computer access (e.g., following IEP meetings, at parent nights, and other events which bring parents to the school.) Paper copies with self addressed stamped envelopes must be provided upon request. The ESS Parent Information Network Specialists (PINS) actively assist PEAs with establishing systems that provide maximum parent participation and they include information about the survey in all parent and agency training opportunities and in their quarterly newsletter. In addition, the Parent Training Institute (PTI) in Arizona assists the ESS in alerting parents to the survey and making their computer resources available when appropriate. ESS instructs school administrators about the Parent Survey at statewide conferences, in newsletters, and through frequent e-mail announcements. The public-at-large has access to the list of participating PEAs and sample surveys through the ESS Web site on the What’s New page. The ESS hosts a collaborative single point-of-contact Web site for all parent groups in the state called Enhancing Arizona’s Parent Network (EAPN). This site is used to promote the survey and to reach additional parents. Each of the 57 EAPN groups is asked to forward information about the survey to their listservs and/or to feature the survey in a newsletter. The Web survey became available in May 2006; therefore, the state’s baseline is calculated on all surveys submitted by parents between that date and December 2006. ESS offers PEAs technical assistance and routine parent response updates to encourage timely and full participation. Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority___8________ – Page 35__ ARIZONA Baseline Data for FFY 2005 (2005–2006): 44.9% [N = 1,375 / 3,061] of Arizona’s parents of students with disabilities reported that schools facilitated parent involvement as a means of improving services and results for children with disabilities. Discussion of Baseline Data: The Assessment and Research and Evaluation Sections of the ADE assisted ESS in the analysis of the surveys submitted by parents through the use of the Winsteps measurement software program. Support for the ADE analysis was also provided by the National Center for Special Education Accountability and Monitoring (NCSEAM) staff and contractors through telephone and computer consultation. The method of analysis identifies a threshold item on the survey that serves as the “cut point”—that is to say, the score at which it can be concluded that a school “facilitates parent involvement as a means of improving services and results for children with disabilities.” The threshold item was determined to have a scale score of 600 (out of 800). This means that 44.9% of the Arizona respondents strongly agreed (to very strongly agreed) with the threshold item and by assumption, other items below it. The threshold item on this survey is “The school explains what options parents have if they disagree with a decision of the school.” While the percentage of schools participating in the current survey that reached the standard was only 44.9%, it is rewarding to note that the most commonly occurring rating by parents was the maximum score of 800 (457 / 3,061). Other ratings were fairly evenly distributed across the scale. The mean for all responses for FFY 2005 was 595 with a standard deviation of 140. The short time frame between the end of the initial data collection period and the due date for the State Performance Plan made full analysis of response rates impractical. However, the ADE/ESS will conduct such analysis and adjust activities to ensure representative response rates among geographic, ethnic, and age groups for the FFY 2006 APR. FFY 2006 (2006–2007) 2007 (2007–2008) 2008 (2008–2009) 2009 (2009–2010) 2010 (2010–2011) Measurable and Rigorous Target 45.0% of parents report schools facilitated parent involvement as a means of improving services and results for children with disabilities 46.0% of parents report schools facilitated parent involvement as a means of improving services and results for children with disabilities 47.0% of parents report schools facilitated parent involvement as a means of improving services and results for children with disabilities 48.0% of parents report schools facilitated parent involvement as a means of improving services and results for children with disabilities 50.0% of parents report schools facilitated parent involvement as a means of improving services and results for children with disabilities Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority___8________ – Page 36__ ARIZONA 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. Establish baseline and transitional targets based on initial test data Winter 2006 6. Report to the public Annually in late fall beginning in 2006 ESS leadership Fall 2006 and continuing IT programmer 7. Conduct survey with PEAs in year two of the ESS monitoring cycle ESS leadership SEAP ESS leadership PINS Coordinator 8. Review and revise baseline data, targets, and improvement activities based on full implementation of the parent involvement survey 6 Summer 2007 9. Incorporate a Parent Participation cluster into the ESS monitoring system including compliance items and a root cause analysis for PEAs with below average parent ratings or poor response rates. Summer 2007 for implementation in fall 2007 and continuing Monitoring Team 10. Analyze data at state level; compile simple, user-friendly reports Fall 2007 and continuing IT programmer IT programmer ESS leadership PINS Coordinator ESS leadership PINS Coordinator ESS leadership PINS Coordinator 6 New activities 8–11 added in FFY 2005 Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority___8________ – Page 37__ ARIZONA Improvement Activities 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) Timelines Annually in winter, spring, and summer Resources PINS Coordinator ESS specialists Monitoring Priority___8________ – Page 38__ 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. 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 Annual Performance Report (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 the National Center for Culturally Responsive Education Systems (NCCREST) (in an advisory capacity for strategies for the analysis of data and activities for improvement). Overview of Issue / Description of System or Process: Arizona has elected to use the electronic spreadsheet provided by Westat Research Corporation to analyze §618 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 overidentification 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. As most charter schools fell into this group and inherit students already identified as students with disabilities, attention was focused on district status with regard to disproportionality. 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 calculation yielded different results with little or no change in individual district numbers from one year to the next. Arizona is a rapidly growing state and the increases in statewide population changed Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority____9________ – Page 39__ ARIZONA some districts in a positive direction without any change in policies, procedures, or practices. Conversely, some districts 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 districts with disproportionality that may be a result of inappropriate identification procedures: • Each district 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 district with any cell size student number of >10 will be awarded two points for each cell with a WRR of 2.0 or greater. • Districts with a total number of points of 3 or greater will be alerted to the potential for inappropriate identification. • Districts that are identified for two successive years and are in Year 4 of the ESS monitoring cycle 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. • Districts 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. FFY 2005 Amendment to the Description: Arizona defined “potential disproportionate representation” in the State Performance Plan; however, as the state gains experience in the use of the weighted risk ratio (WRR) formula to investigate the potential for disproportionality that is a result of inappropriate identification, some adjustments to the plan outlined in the SPP are necessary. Arizona will continue to investigate districts with cell sizes greater than 10 students and WRR above 1.5 for two consecutive years. As charter schools are schools of choice and frequently have populations which are skewed by self-selection, they will not be part of the initial work on disproportionality. The critical issue facing the state is no longer the identification of those districts with potential disproportionate representation, but rather the determination of when that disproportionality is a result of inappropriate identification practices. The steps the ESS followed in making the baseline determinations for this indicator were: 1. Using the OSEP-provided related requirements document as a starting point, ESS and the Special Education Advisory Panel identified the elements of the state’s monitoring system that could be used to determine the “appropriateness” of a district’s special education identification practices. 2. Using the Arizona computerized monitoring system that allows for the isolation of PEAs with findings of noncompliance by line item, ESS staff paired the line item monitoring results of the districts from the 2005–2006 school year with the WRR results for those same districts. Districts with a total number of disproportionality points of 3 or more (see above) and findings of noncompliance in the identification process were flagged for more in depth consideration. 3. After consultation with the Special Education Advisory Panel (SEAP), ESS required all of identified districts to submit additional information based on the root cause analysis worksheet developed for the newly revised ESS monitoring system. 4. The ESS staff reviewed the submitted root cause analyses with the SEAP members and district level determinations were made regarding the appropriateness of identification practices based on all of the information. Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority____9________ – Page 40__ ARIZONA Baseline Data for FFY 2005 (2005–2006): No districts [N = 0 / 47] monitored during the FFY 2005 were found to have disproportionality that was a result of inappropriate identification policies, procedures, or practices. Discussion of Baseline Data: Twelve school districts were identified as being “at risk” for potentially inappropriate disproportionality. None of these districts had a WRR >1.5 for more than one racial group. The results of on-site monitoring visits (of these twelve districts) documented substantial procedural issues with the special education identification process in only three of the districts. These three districts were directed to correct the procedural errors and to complete an investigation of the causes of the disproportionality (beyond compliance) and to submit that analysis to the ADE/ESS for a final determination. It should be noted that all three of these districts also had disproportionality by a specific disability group and their analysis investigated both the overall disproportionality and the disproportionality by disability reported in SPP Indicator 10. The root cause analyses of the three identified districts revealed the following: ƒ District B was identified as having a 1.5 WRR for Black students in special education in 2004. The district was in the investigated group because the WRR for Hispanic autistic students pushed their disproportionality points to 3. Data from their 2005 special education enrollment indicated that the percentage of Black students with disabilities was the same as their percentage of Black students enrolled in their district. Therefore, it is determined that the small disproportionality that was present in 2004 no longer exists, and the district is not inappropriately identifying Black students as children with disabilities. ƒ Districts C and D, while separate legal entities, are an elementary district and a union high school district in the same small rural community. They have the same governing board and administration and therefore, will be addressed as if they are one district for this report. In this district, there is a significantly higher percentage of Hispanic students identified as eligible for special education than one would project from their general population and the disability most impacted by the over identification is specific learning disabilities (SLD). When monitored, the district had noncompliance issues related to line items directly affecting SLD identification. However, when the district responded to the root cause analysis, it was apparent that they have already taken the appropriate steps to address the issue of over identification of Hispanic students. The steps they have initiated are: ƒ Budgeting 15% of their IDEA entitlement grant to assist teachers in the general education classrooms; ƒ Contracting for in-service training for teaching staff on effective intervention strategies in the general education classroom; ƒ Utilizing the services of bilingual evaluators when appropriate; ƒ Participating in the pilot project for Arizona Responsiveness to Intervention (RTI) model including tiered intervention and frequent progress monitoring for students at risk for failure, and; ƒ Extensive staff training for both general education and special education teachers on RTI strategies. Therefore, the district was found to have appropriate policies, procedures, and practices. Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority____9________ – Page 41__ ARIZONA FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target 2005 (2005–2006) 2006 (2006–2007) 2007 (2007–2008) 2008 (2008–2009) 2009 (2009–2010) 2010 (2010–2011) 0% of Arizona’s districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services that is the result of inappropriate identification 0% of Arizona’s districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services that is the result of inappropriate identification 0% of Arizona’s districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services that is the result of inappropriate identification 0% of Arizona’s districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services that is the result of inappropriate identification 0% of Arizona’s districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services that is the result of inappropriate identification Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources: Improvement Activities Timelines Resources 1. Calculate agency level weighted risk ratios (WWR) for enrollment in special education by ethnicity for all PEAs Spring 2005 and continuing ESS data staff 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. Revise the ESS monitoring system to require agencies with 3 or more points to focus on the compliance requirements most closely related to Spring 2006 Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) ADE research specialist NCCREST ESS Monitoring Team ESS Programmers Monitoring Priority____9________ – Page 42__ ARIZONA Improvement Activities Timelines Resources disproportionality (as extracted from the OSEP Related Requirements document) 7 7 5. Require agencies that are in Year 4 of the ESS monitoring cycle and have 3 or more points to complete a disproportionality analysis tool and submit it to the ESS Spring 2006 and continuing ESS leadership 6. Identify agencies with the highest risk factors for inappropriate disproportionality and advise them of their status Summer 2006 and continuing ESS leadership 7. Identify any agency that, following an on-site review and submission of the analysis, is determined to meet the definition of “disproportionality that is a result of inappropriate identification” Fall 2006 and continuing ESS leadership after consultation with the SEAP 8. Establish a statewide Response to Intervention (RTI) system to facilitate effective pre-referral interventions Spring 2006 RTI specialist 9. Require identified agencies to budget 15% of their IDEA grant for early intervening services for disproportionate groups Spring 2007 and continuing ESS Grants Management Unit 10. Provide “enhancement” points to agencies with significant disproportionality in the application process for RTI participation Spring 2007 CSPD and ESS Grants Management Unit 11. Build support for addressing disproportionality into the state’s application for the continuation of the State Improvement Grant. Spring 2007 CSPD staff 12. Evaluate effectiveness of early intervening services on disproportionality data Spring 2008 and continuing ESS leadership Agency staff ESS leadership Activities 4–11 are either modified or added in FFY 2005 Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority____9________ – Page 43__ 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.” Overview of Issue / Description of System or Process: The same system of identification of potential overrepresentation of racial and ethnic groups in the general population of students with disabilities was used to identify potential overidentification of race/ethnicity by disability in the required subgroups (See Indicator 9). Arizona will investigate districts with cell sizes of more than 10 students; WRR > 1.5 for two consecutive years in any of the following disabilities: mental retardation (MR), specific learning disabilities (SLD), autism (A), emotional disturbance (ED), speech/language impairment (SLI), and other health impairment (OHI) crossed with a race/ethnicity of Native American, Black, or Hispanic; and a total of 3 or more “disproportionality points” from all cells involved in the analysis from Indicators 9 and 10. A complete description of the process used to investigate the cause of the disproportionate WRR can be found in Indicator 9. Baseline Data for FFY 2004 (2004–2005): No districts [N = 0 / 47] monitored during the FFY 2005 were found to have disproportionality by disability that was a result of inappropriate identification policies, procedures, or practices. Discussion of Baseline Data: Nine districts that were monitored during the 2005–2006 school year had disproportionality “risk” points of 3 or greater. Of these nine districts, six were identified as having substantial procedural issues with the special education identification process. These six districts were directed to correct the procedural errors and to complete an investigation of the causes of the disproportionality (beyond compliance) and to submit that analysis to the ADE/ESS for a final determination. Table 5 indicates the number of districts for each disability and ethnicity that were required to submit the root cause analysis. Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority____9________ – Page 44__ ARIZONA Table 5: Root Cause Analysis by Race by Disability for FFY 2005 Race/Ethnicity Autism Emotional Disability Mental Retardation Speech Language Learning Disability Other Health Impaired American Indian 0 1 0 0 0 0 Black 2 2 0 0 0 2 Hispanic 1 0 0 0 2 0 The root cause analyses of the three identified districts revealed the following: ƒ District A is a rapidly growing district on the far eastern fringe of the metropolitan Phoenix area. The population boom of 2004–2006 increased the overall population of the community as housing in this area remained relatively affordable. The disproportionality that was identified was for American Indian children with an emotional disability and Black children with autism. All of the children in both of these disability/ethnicity groups moved into the district with their eligibility by category already established. The district reviewed the evaluations and determined they substantiated the disability category. The district has a prereferral intervention system that operates effectively at each campus site. Assessment instruments are appropriate for the population and assessment staff is properly trained. The district has corrected all compliance issues related to identification. The disproportionality in this district is not the result of inappropriate policies, procedures, or practices. ƒ District B is a medium-sized district in northern Arizona. The disproportionality identified in the district is in the area of autism for Hispanic children and overall identification of Black students. See Indicator 9 for a discussion of the Black student issues. The district documented that two of the Hispanic students with autism are children in the same family who moved into their district with eligibility already established. Prior to these children entering the district, disproportionality had not been identified. The two issues of noncompliance found in the monitoring process in the area of identification do not impact children with autism. The disproportionality in this district is not the result of inappropriate policies, procedures, or practices. ƒ The status of Districts C and D were covered in Indicator 9. ƒ District H is a smaller but rapidly growing district in the west valley of the metropolitan Phoenix area. The disabilities by ethnicities identified as overidentified in this district were Black children with autism, Black children with an emotional disability, and Black children with an other health impairment. The district has four therapeutic group homes for students with significant special needs including homes specifically established for children with autism and emotional disabilities. The majority of the children with disabilities enrolled in this district were identified by other districts, both in and out of Arizona. The district has a well established prereferral system that includes interventions in the general education classroom prior to a referral to special education. They have sufficient assessment options to meet the needs of students. They have well qualified staff for evaluations and have conducted in-service diversity training for administrative and school-based personnel. The ADE/ESS determined that the disproportionality in this district is not the result of inappropriate policies, procedures, or practices. ƒ District M is a large elementary district in Western Arizona. The disproportionality that was present in the district in FFY 2004 was in the areas of Black children with an emotional disability and Black children with an other health impairment. These two categories remained over identified in FFY 2005; however, two children with OHI moved out of the district for the current school year and the district is not now disproportionate in that disability category. Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority____9________ – Page 45__ ARIZONA District M is home to two large military bases and many of the children they serve are identified in other states and enter the district with special education eligibility established. The services offered by the district make it an attractive assignment for military families with children with disabilities as well as for children from other districts who enroll under Arizona’s liberal open enrollment policies. The records of children transferring into the district are reviewed for compliance with Arizona eligibility standards by the school psychologists. Following the ESS monitoring, the district revised their child study team process to ensure appropriate classroom interventions prior to referral to special education. The district has adequate and appropriate assessment materials and well trained doctoral level evaluation staff. The ADE/ESS has determined that the disproportionality in this district is not the result of inappropriate policies, procedures, or practices. It should be noted that all of the districts identified with disproportionality for this report—either by disability or in general—are small to medium districts with cell sizes that barely make the minimum for consideration for inappropriateness of policies, practices, and procedures. One or two families moving in or out of a district can shift their status with regard to race and disability. Arizona’s transient population and commitment to school choice exacerbates the issues surrounding disproportionality analysis in the state. The FFY 2005 statewide numbers document that identification of special education status by ethnicity is not an issue in the state as the statewide risk ratios for Hispanic, Black, and Native American children fall well below the risk threshold of 1.5. FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target 2006 0% of Arizona’s districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories that is the result of inappropriate identification (2006–2007) 2007 (2007–2008) 2008 (2008–2009) 2009 (2009–2010) 2010 (2010–2011) 0% of Arizona’s districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories that is the result of inappropriate identification 0% of Arizona’s districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories that is the result of inappropriate identification 0% of Arizona’s districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories that is the result of inappropriate identification 0% of Arizona’s districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories that is the result of inappropriate identification Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority____9________ – Page 46__ ARIZONA Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources: Improvement Activities Timelines Status Report/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____9________ – Page 47__ 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 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 were completed within 60 days (or Stateestablished timeline). c. # determined eligible whose evaluations 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 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 data for this indicator are collected through the ESS monitoring system. The 60-day timeline for initial evaluations is measured from parental consent for the collection of additional data to the date of the eligibility determination on the sampled files. During the FFY 2005, ESS monitored the files of only those students found eligible for special education; therefore, the data reported below are based on eligible children only. Because evaluation teams do not know in advance which children will be found eligible, it is presumed that the timelines for children ultimately found not to be eligible mirrors the timelines of the eligible students. The monitoring system has been adjusted for the 2006–2007 school year to include a sample of children who were evaluated and found to be not eligible to ensure that the reporting on this indicator addresses both groups of students. Baseline Data for FFY 2004 & FFY 2005: Year FFY 2004 FFY 2005 # of initial evaluations 618 672 # completed within 60 days of consent 505 577 Percent compliant 82% 86% Discussion of Baseline Data: Of the 672 initial placement files reviewed during the FFY 2005 monitoring, 86% met the 60-day requirement for evaluation. While this does not reach the target of 100%, it might be considered a respectable figure given that the 60-day timeline is a new federal requirement. Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority____11________ – Page 48__ ARIZONA The ESS monitoring system was modified for FFY 2005 to include a root cause analysis when a PEA did not meet the 100% compliance status. In addition, the monitoring system now requires that 100% compliance on this requirement be demonstrated either through extensive file sampling or data base analysis prior to closing out a PEA’s monitoring. Information regarding the specific reasons for delays will be available for the FFY 2006 Annual Performance Report; however, anecdotal reports indicate that delays are caused by staff availability issues, inadequate tracking systems, parentally-caused delays, and the need for medical or other highly specialized evaluations that are difficult to schedule quickly. FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target 2006 100% of children with parental consent to evaluate were evaluated within 60 days (2006–2007) 2007 (2007–2008) 2008 (2008–2009) 2009 (2009–2010) 2010 (2010–2011) 100% of children with parental consent to evaluate were evaluated within 60 days 100% of children with parental consent to evaluate were evaluated within 60 days 100% of children with parental consent to evaluate were evaluated and eligibility determined within 60 days 100% of children with parental consent to evaluate were evaluated within 60 days Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources: Improvement Activities Timelines Resources 1. Amend monitoring procedures to consider 60day 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 Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority____11________ – Page 49__ ARIZONA Improvement Activities Timelines Resources 4. Enhance the System for Utilizing Peers in Program Organization, Review, and Technical Assistance (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 50__ 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 3rd 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. 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 6 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 51__ ARIZONA Table 6: 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 development 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 Update to the State Performance Plan: Prior to the 2005–2006 school year, the only data collection method that Arizona had for this indicator was monitoring statistics. The data reported in the SPP was based on a sample size of 236 files of children who were Part B eligible. With the publication of the requirements for the SPP, this method of calculation was no longer viable as it did not consider the timelines for children who were found ineligible for Part B, nor did it seem to represent sufficient sample size. To respond to this problem, the ADE/ESS instituted a year-end report (to coincide with the collection of other §618 data) that captured the data as it was required for the SPP. The reporting requirement was extended to all elementary and unified districts in the state, and thus, the data presented in the FFY 2005 APR is no longer based on a sample but on the entire population of children exiting Part C who were referred to Part B. FFY 2005 (2005–2006) 2006 (2006–2007) 2007 (2007–2008) 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 Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority______12______ – Page 52__ ARIZONA 2008 (2008–2009) 2009 (2009–2010) 2010 (2010–2011) 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 Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources: Note: Progress on Improvement Activities is reported in the Arizona Annual Performance Report. Improvement Activities 8 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 age 3 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 3 information required by OSEP indicators Fall 2005–spring 2006 AzEIP leadership and contracted service providers 4. Enhance SAIS by adding FAPE by age 3 and Part C indicator fields for student level data record Fall 2005–spring 2007 ADE IT 5. Modify the EC transition data collection form to include the new requirement to identify those children whose parents were the cause of any transition delay 8 Winter 2007 ESS Data Collection Manager 6. Require demonstration of 100% compliance with transition timelines prior to closing any monitoring from the 2005–2006 school year Fall 2006–summer 2007 ESS Regional Specialists 7. Publish the EC transition compliance status for all applicable districts through the ADE/ESS Web site Winter 2007 ESS Leadership 8. Require districts with significant problems on this indicator to conduct a root cause analysis and develop an improvement plan Fall 2007 and continuing EC Leadership AzEIP staff PEA staff ECE and ESS leadership ESS Leadership New activities 5–8 in FFY 2005 Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority______12______ – Page 53__ 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: Data for the baseline on this indicator are extracted from the ESS monitoring system in effect for the 2004–2005 and the 2005–2006 school years. (See Indicator 15 for a complete description of the ESS monitoring procedures.) Two line items that most closely match the intent of the indicator were selected for each school year to represent the performance of the state. . Baseline Data: School Year 2004–2005 Monitoring Line Item # of data points # in compliance % in compliance at on-site % in compliance within 1 yr Students needs, preferences, interests identified 838 694 83% 97.6% Results-oriented, coordinated transition activities 580 404 70% 96.9% 1,418 1,098 77.4% 97.3% Students needs, preferences, interests identified 632 532 84.2% Transition services needed to reach postsecondary goals 368 303 82.3% 1 year compliance timeline not yet reached. No data available. 1,000 835 83.5% Total 2005–2006 Total Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority_______13_____ – Page 54__ ARIZONA Discussion of Baseline Data: During the summer of 2005, the ESS Monitoring Team and the transition specialists identified the line items in the existing monitoring system that most closely reflected performance on this indicator so that baseline data could be captured. Additionally, other elements of the monitoring system were targeted for revision so that future data collection would yield the precise information needed to match the indicator. During the 2005–2006 school year, the following adjustments were made to the system: • Requiring the insertion of student birthdays into the demographics collected during monitoring (Fall 2005); • Revising the process to include an evaluation of IEPs relative to the presence of measurable post-school goals, and; • Restructuring the postmonitoring requirements to include a root cause analysis when compliance is less than 100% for the line items related to this indicator. 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 youth aged 16 and above have an IEP that includes coordinated, measurable annual IEP goals and transition services that will reasonably enable the student to meet the postsecondary goals. 100% of youth aged 16 and above have an IEP that includes coordinated, measurable annual IEP goals and transition services that will reasonably enable the student to meet the postsecondary goals. 100% of youth aged 16 and above have an IEP that includes coordinated, measurable annual IEP goals and transition services that will reasonably enable the student to meet the postsecondary goals. 100% of youth aged 16 and above have an IEP that includes coordinated, measurable annual IEP goals and transition services that will reasonably enable the student to meet the postsecondary goals. 100% of youth aged 16 and above have an IEP that includes coordinated, measurable annual IEP goals and transition services that will reasonably enable the student to meet the postsecondary goals. Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority_______13_____ – Page 55__ ARIZONA Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources: Note: Progress on Improvement Activities is reported in the Arizona Annual Performance Report. Improvement Activities 1. Identify items in the existing monitoring system that address the indicator Timelines Resources Summer 2005 ESS Monitoring Team ESS transition specialists MPRRC staff 9 2. Train ESS monitors to require the insertion of birth date in the computer program to allow for discrete analysis of items for transition-aged 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 funding for Community-Based Transition Teams in urban and rural locations and with Native American and secure care (correctional facility) populations to build local capacity to support post-school outcomes and opportunities 9 Fall 2006 and continuing ESS leadership 6. Sponsor a Statewide Transition Conference featuring model programs, national experts, and student leadership Fall 2006 and continuing ESS transition specialists 7. Participate with the NASDSE Community of Practice for Transition to enhance ESS awareness of effective practices occurring in other states Fall 2006 and continuing 8. Provide training to PEAs on the development of local interagency planning groups that support transition Winter 2007 ESS transition specialists 9. Train school personnel to develop meaningful, measurable, and individualized IEP transition goals Winter 2007 and continuing ESS transition and regional specialists 10. Enhance monitoring and TA system to provide additional guidance on postsecondary goal determinations. Summer 2008 ESS Monitoring Team Transition Work Group ESS transition specialists PINS ADE Procurement ESS leadership ESS transition specialists New activities 5–7 in FFY 2005 Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority_______13_____ – Page 56__ 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: At the time of submission of the original State Performance Plan, Arizona did 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 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 postschool 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 30 members who represent the diversity of stakeholders. The ESS focus group, known as the Post School Outcomes Group (PSO) was 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 facilitated the meetings. The purpose of the focus group was to provide options to the State Director for consideration relative to postschool outcome data collection, analysis, and reporting procedures. In order to accomplish this task, the focus group defined terms such as “drop out,” “competitive employment,” 10 “enrolled,” “minimum N size,” and “postsecondary school.” 11 10 Competitive employment has the same meaning as in the Rehabilitation Act. Postsecondary school means the provision of further education and/or training in such entities as a university, college, community or junior college, vocational/trade school, apprenticeship program, short-term education or employment training program, a military school, or jail/prison school on either a full or part-time basis. 11 Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority___14_________ – Page 57__ ARIZONA With input from the PSO group, ADE Research and Evaluation staff, and the SEAP, ESS developed a sampling methodology and Web-based data collection system. As each year of the ESS six-year monitoring cycle includes a representative sample of the districts and charter schools and of the geographic and ethnic diversity in the state, it was determined that collecting exiting student contact information during the 2nd year of the cycle and student outcomes during the 3rd year of the cycle was the preferred option. PEAs with fewer than 50,000 students will include their entire exited special education population in their efforts. Districts with greater than 50,000 students will collect information each year and may choose to sample using a sampling plan approved by the ADE/ESS that meets the sampling requirements of OSEP. To date, the two PEAs with greater than 50,000 students are electing not to sample but to collect data on all students who are school leavers. ESS developed and disseminated the student contact questionnaire and guidance document during spring 2006. ESS will provide baseline data for FFY 2006 that will be collected annually between April and June beginning in FFY 2007. The ESS system 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 current school year. ESS will build into the system an analysis and correction of nonresponses. Technical assistance will be provided to those PEAs with inadequate or unrepresentative returns. 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) Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority___14_________ – Page 58__ ARIZONA Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources: Improvement Activities 1. 2. Timelines Provide ongoing information about reporting requirements during the development and implementation stages to PEAs through electronic mailing lists and meetings Ongoing Build baseline of exit and postschool outcome data annually Fall 2007, then annually in the fall Resources State transition specialists ESS leadership PEA special education administrators IT programmer State transition specialists ESS leadership 3. 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 4. Set six year and annual rigorous and measurable targets based on baseline data Prior to Feb. 2008 ESS leadership ESS transition specialists SEAP 5. Determine the return rates and sample representation (including disability, ethnicity, gender, and age) of state and local results Spring 2008 ADE Research & Policy analyst ESS transition specialists ESS leadership 6. 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 59__ 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: Percent of noncompliance corrected within one year of identification: a. # of findings of noncompliance. 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. 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: 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: Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority___15_________ – Page 60__ ARIZONA • 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 completed 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. Performance data on all appropriate indicators are rank ordered and published. ADE/ESS selects specific areas for further investigation for each PEA monitored during a given year. See Indicator 15 for a complete explanation of the ADE/ESS monitoring system. Dispute Resolution System In addition to monitoring, other procedures used to identify IDEA noncompliance in a timely manner are formal complaints, mediations, 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 Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority___15_________ – Page 61__ ARIZONA 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. 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. Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority___15_________ – Page 62__ ARIZONA 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. Baseline Data for FFY 2003* (2003–2004): Indicator Subsections Total # monitored Monitoring findings closed within 1 year 90 Complaint findings closed within 1 year 39 TOTAL 129 CAP Closed ≤ 1 year 53% [N = 48/90] 97% [N = 38/39] 66.7% [N = 86/129] *These baseline data were recalculated from FFY 2004 as a result of a change in the measurement strategy required by the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs. 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 7 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 B Sum of PEAs with findings 1. Graduation 2. Dropout 13. Transition Plans 14. Secondary Outcomes 196 94 3. Statewide Assessments 4. Suspension 246 27 64 4 5. LRE 6–21 591 281 SPP Indicator 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 63__ ARIZONA SPP Indicator A Sum of PEAs Reviewed B Sum of PEAs with findings 35 10 1,095 453 C # Corrected in 1 year D % Compliance in 1 year 240 (453 X 53%) 80.5% (A–B+C÷A) 6. LRE 3–5 12. In-by-3 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) 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 Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority___15_________ – Page 64__ ARIZONA FFY 2008 (2008–2009) 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 100% of corrective actions completed within one year of identification Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources: Note: Progress on Improvement Activities is reported in the Arizona Annual Performance Report. 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 oneyear 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 one-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 65__ ARIZONA Improvement Activities for Monitoring Timelines Resources 10. Continue to provide incentives to close out in one year and add an incentive for ninemonth closeout Summer 2007 ESS leadership 11. Develop a status update form for use at nine month date Summer 2008 ESS Monitoring Team 12. Require PEAs to provide status update to specialist three months prior to close out date Fall 2008 ESS leadership Improvement Activities for Complaint Investigation Timelines Resources 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) Monitoring Priority___15_________ – Page 66__ 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 FFY 2004. 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 address this challenge and remedy the lack of timeliness. 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 67__ ARIZONA % Reports issued within 60 days Figure 4: Complaint Timelines Complaint Report Timelines 100 % Complaints within 60 days 50 0 % Complaints within 60 days FFY 02 FFY 03 FFY 04 49 80 74 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: Note: Progress on Improvement Activities is reported in the Arizona Annual Performance Report. 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 68__ 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 60-day 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 69__ 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 45day 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) Measurable and Rigorous Target 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 70__ ARIZONA 2006 (2006–2007) 2007 (2007–2008) 2008 (2008–2009) 2009 (2009–2010) 2010 (2010–2011) 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 100% of due process hearing decisions issued within 45 days of filing Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources: Note: Progress on Improvement Activities is reported in the Arizona Annual Performance Report. Improvement Activities Timelines Resources 1. Implement new legislation that changed Arizona to a one-tiered 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. State Board of Education ESS Director of Dispute Resolution Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings ESS Director of Dispute Resolution MPRRC staff Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority___17_________ – Page 71__ 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: Arizona PEAs that experience a due process hearing request are complying with the federal requirement to offer the parent an opportunity for a meeting to resolve the due process complaint(s). When the parent agrees to the resolution session, the PEA conducts the meeting with the required participants. Baseline Data for FFY 2004 (2004–2005): 57.9% [N = 11 / 19] of the of hearing requests that went to resolution sessions were resolved through resolution session settlement agreements. Discussion of Baseline Data: There were only 19 resolution sessions held in Arizona during FFY 2005. An informal inquiry into why this is the case revealed that parents who are represented by an attorney are generally advised to request mediation instead of agreeing to a resolution session. The justification for this is that parents and schools have been unsuccessful in the past in resolving the issues on their own and that a third party mediator is necessary in order to make any progress. FFY 2006 (2006–2007) 2007 (2007–2008) 2008 (2008–2009) 2009 (2009–2010) Measurable and Rigorous Target 60.0% of the of hearing requests that go to resolution sessions are resolved through resolution session settlement agreements 63.0% of the of hearing requests that go to resolution sessions are resolved through resolution session settlement agreements 68.0% of the of hearing requests that go to resolution sessions are resolved through resolution session settlement agreements 70.0% of the of hearing requests that go to resolution sessions are resolved through resolution session settlement agreements Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority___18_________ – Page 72__ ARIZONA 2010 (2010–2011) 75.0% of the of hearing requests that go to resolution sessions are resolved through resolution session settlement agreements 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 5. Develop a feedback system for participants in resolution sessions to determine the reasons for success or failure Summer 2007 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 73__ 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 74__ ARIZONA Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources: Note: Progress on Improvement Activities is reported in the Arizona Annual Performance Report. 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 75__ 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 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 uses 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. Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority___20_________ – Page 76__ ARIZONA 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 1/18/06 Preliminary Placement N/A 2/5/03 1/15/04 1/18/06 Final Child Count 4/22/02 7/10/03 7/7/04 7/13/06 Final Placement 7/10/03 7/7/04 7/13/05 7/13/06 10/31/03 10/29/04 10/29/05 10/25/06 Exit 10/31/03 10/29/04 10/29/05 10/25/06 Discipline 10/31/03 10/29/04 10/29/05 10/25/06 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 Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority___20_________ – Page 77__ ARIZONA Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources: Note: Progress on Improvement Activities is reported in the Arizona Annual Performance Report. Improvement Activities Timelines 1. Improve data integrity checks in Student Accountability Information System (SAIS) Spring 2005 2. Collaborate with Safe and Drug Free Schools staff to build data set for suspension/expulsion Fall 2005 Resources Data Manager IT programmer/analyst Data Manager Director of Program Support Director of School Safety and Prevention 3. Extract exit data from SAIS Summer 2006 Data Manager IT programmer/analyst 4. Collaborate with NCSEAM and with other similarly situated states to improve ESS census verification process Fall 2006 5. Maintain the timeliness of data submission at 100% and review annually, at a minimum, to update/improve accuracy and timeliness 2007 and continuing Data Manager Director of Program Support Data Manager Director of Program Support IT programmer/analyst 6. Review ADE/ESS efforts to ensure valid and reliable data through the use of the data standards Spring 2007 and continuing Data Manager 7. Initiate discussions with other ADE divisions with federal reporting requirements that are extracted from SAIS to build rationale for statutory change Summer 2007 Associate Superintendents and ADE Management Team Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Director of Funding Monitoring Priority___20_________ – Page 78__ Part B – SPP /APR Attachment 1 ____Arizona___ Attachment 1: Sample Parent Involvement Survey Arizona Parent Satisfaction Survey Greetings! The Arizona Department of Education, Exceptional Student Services (ADE/ESS) and local schools have a history of commitment to family involvement in the special education process. State and local activities focus on improving outcomes for students by promoting family and school partnerships. Parental feedback is regularly collected in a variety of ways to evaluate the success of education programs. Our State Performance Plan includes a goal to measure how well your district/school has involved you to improve special education services and results for your child. Your input on the Web-based Parent Survey will help to enhance the relationship you have with your district/school. This confidential survey was developed by the National Center for Special Education Accountability Monitoring (NCSEAM). The results will be tabulated annually for public distribution. Your district/school and family will benefit from knowing how well the needs of special education students and their parents are being met. Listed below are instructions for the confidential survey. Please take a few minutes to answer questions about how your school has facilitated your involvement as a means to improve special education services and results for your child. INSTRUCTIONS • We prefer you complete the survey online at www.ade.az.gov/parentsurvey. It’s easy! If that’s not possible, complete this form. • ALL of the statements in Section A and 25 questions in Section B must be answered. • Enter the confidential survey User ID and Password given to you by your child’s school. • Check one box - ; - for each of the following statements and questions. • MAIL the completed survey in the envelope provided by the school. Your survey will be sent to your district or school administrative office for data entry. Do not write your name or address on the survey or the envelope. Your survey is confidential. Section A Confidential Survey User ID: __________ Password: _________ My child’s grade level is: † Preschool † Kindergarten † 1 † 2 † 3 † 4 † 5 † 6 † 7 † 8 † 9 † 10 † 11 † 12 My child's age in years is: † 3 † 4 † 5 † 6 † 7 † 8 † 9 † 10 † 11 † 12 † 13 † 14 † 15 † 16 † 17 † 18 † 19 † 20 † 21 † 22 My child's primary disability is: † Preschool - Moderate Delay † Preschool - Severe Delay Impairment † Preschool - Speech or Language Delay † Autism Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) † Severe Mental Retardation † Multiple Disability - Severe Sensory † Orthopedic Impairment † Other Health Impairment Attachment 1_________ – Page 79__ Part B – SPP /APR Attachment 1 † Deafness † Emotional Disability † Hearing Impairment † Mild Mental Retardation † Moderate Mental Retardation My child's race / ethnicity is: † White / Caucasian † Black / African-American † Hispanic / Latino ____Arizona___ † Specific Learning Disability † Speech or Language Impairment † Traumatic Brain Injury † Visual Impairment † Asian / Pacific Islander † American Indian / Alaskan Native † Multi-racial My child's gender is: † Male † Female Section B 1. I am considered an equal partner with teachers and other professionals in planning my child's program. † Very Strongly Agree † Strongly Agree † Agree † Disagree † Strongly Disagree † Very Strongly Disagree 2. At the IEP meeting, we discussed how my child would participate in statewide assessments. † Very Strongly Agree † Strongly Agree † Agree † Disagree † Strongly Disagree † Very Strongly Disagree 3. At the IEP meeting, we discussed accommodations and modifications my child would need. † Very Strongly Agree † Strongly Agree † Agree † Disagree † Strongly Disagree † Very Strongly Disagree 4. We discussed whether my child needed services beyond the regular school year. † Very Strongly Agree † Strongly Agree † Agree † Disagree † Strongly Disagree † Very Strongly Disagree 5. Written justification was given for the extent that my child would not receive services in the regular classroom. † Very Strongly Agree † Strongly Agree † Agree † Disagree † Strongly Disagree † Very Strongly Disagree 6. I was given information about organizations that offer information and training for parents of students with disabilities. † Very Strongly Agree † Strongly Agree † Agree † Disagree † Strongly Disagree † Very Strongly Disagree 7. I have been asked for my opinion about how well special education services are meeting my child's needs. † Very Strongly Agree † Strongly Agree † Agree † Disagree † Strongly Disagree † Very Strongly Disagree 8. My child's evaluation report is written in terms I understand. † Very Strongly Agree † Strongly Agree † Agree † Disagree † Strongly Disagree † Very Strongly Disagree 9. Written information I receive is written in an understandable way. Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Attachment 1_________ – Page 80__ Part B – SPP /APR Attachment 1 ____Arizona___ † Very Strongly Agree † Strongly Agree † Agree † Disagree † Strongly Disagree † Very Strongly Disagree 10. Teachers are available to speak with me. † Very Strongly Agree † Strongly Agree † Agree † Disagree † Strongly Disagree † Very Strongly Disagree 11. Teachers treat me as a team member. † Very Strongly Agree † Strongly Agree † Agree † Disagree † Strongly Disagree † Very Strongly Disagree 12. Teachers and administrators seek out parent input. † Very Strongly Agree † Strongly Agree † Agree † Disagree † Strongly Disagree † Very Strongly Disagree 13. Teachers and administrators show sensitivity to the needs of students with disabilities and their families. † Very Strongly Agree † Strongly Agree † Agree † Disagree † Strongly Disagree † Very Strongly Disagree 14. Teachers and administrators encourage me to participate in the decision-making process. † Very Strongly Agree † Strongly Agree † Agree † Disagree † Strongly Disagree † Very Strongly Disagree 15. Teachers and administrators at my child's school answered any questions I had about Procedural Safeguards. † Very Strongly Agree † Strongly Agree † Agree † Disagree † Strongly Disagree † Very Strongly Disagree 16. Teachers and administrators respect my cultural heritage. † Very Strongly Agree † Strongly Agree † Agree † Disagree † Strongly Disagree † Very Strongly Disagree 17. The school has a person on staff who is available to answer parents' questions. † Very Strongly Agree † Strongly Agree † Agree † Disagree † Strongly Disagree † Very Strongly Disagree 18. The school communicates regularly with me regarding my child's progress on IEP goals. † Very Strongly Agree † Strongly Agree † Agree † Disagree † Strongly Disagree † Very Strongly Disagree 19. The school gives me choices with regard to services that address my child's needs. † Very Strongly Agree † Strongly Agree † Agree † Disagree † Strongly Disagree † Very Strongly Disagree 20. The school offers parents training about special education issues. † Very Strongly Agree † Strongly Agree † Agree † Disagree † Strongly Disagree † Very Strongly Disagree 21. My child's school told me how to request services that my child needs. † Very Strongly Agree † Strongly Agree † Agree † Disagree † Strongly Disagree † Very Strongly Disagree 22. The school offers parents a variety of ways to communicate with teachers. Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Attachment 1_________ – Page 81__ Part B – SPP /APR Attachment 1 ____Arizona___ † Very Strongly Agree † Strongly Agree † Agree † Disagree † Strongly Disagree † Very Strongly Disagree 23. The school gives parents the help they may need to play an active role in their child's education. † Very Strongly Agree † Strongly Agree † Agree † Disagree † Strongly Disagree † Very Strongly Disagree 24. The school provides information on agencies that can assist my child in the transition from school. † Very Strongly Agree † Strongly Agree † Agree † Disagree † Strongly Disagree † Very Strongly Disagree 25. The school explains what options parents have if they disagree with a decision of the school. † Very Strongly Agree † Strongly Agree † Agree † Disagree † Strongly Disagree † Very Strongly Disagree Thank you for completing the Parent Survey. Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Attachment 1_________ – Page 82__ Part B – SPP /APR Attachment 2 ____Arizona___ Attachment 2: Dispute Resolution Data SECTION A: Signed, written complaints 128 (1) Signed, written complaints total 117 (1.1) Complaints with reports issued (a) Reports with findings 25 (b) Reports within timeline 66 (c) Reports within extended timelines 19 10 (1.2) Complaints withdrawn or dismissed 1 (1.3) Complaints pending 0 (a) Complaint pending a due process hearing SECTION B: Mediation requests 43 (2) Mediation requests total (2.1) Mediations 7 (a) Mediations related to due process 5 (i) Mediation agreements 36 (b) Mediations not related to due process 17 (i) Mediation agreements 16 (2.2) Mediations not held (including pending) SECTION C: Hearing requests 51 (3) Hearing requests total (3.1) Resolution sessions 0 0 (a) Settlement agreements 7 (3.2) Hearings (fully adjudicated) (a) Decisions within timeline 0 (b) Decisions within extended timeline 6 25 (3.3) Resolved without a hearing 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 Attachment 2_________ – Page 83__ Part B – SPP /APR Attachment 3 ____Arizona___ Attachment 3: List of Acronyms 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 AT Assistive Technology AYP Adequate Yearly Progress AzEIP Arizona Early Intervention Program for Infants and Toddlers AzTAP Arizona Technology Access Program CACM Corrective Action Compliance Monitor CAP Corrective Action Plan CSPD Comprehensive System of Personnel Development CTE Career and Technical Education Section DEC Division of Early Childhood EAPN Enhancing Arizona’s Parent Networks EC Early Childhood ECE Early Childhood Education Section ECQUIP Early Childhood Quality Improvement Practices ECSE Early Childhood Special Education 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 Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Attachment 3_________ – Page 84__ Part B – SPP /APR Attachment 3 ____Arizona___ 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 NCCRESt 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 PTI Parent Training Institute R&E Research and Evaluation RTI Response to Intervention SAIS Student Accountability Information System SEAP Special Education Advisory Panel SIG State Improvement Grant SSP School Safety and Prevention Section STaR System Training and Response SUPPORT System for Utilizing Peers in Program Organization, Review, and Technical Assistance 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) Attachment 3_________ – Page 85__ 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 nondiscrimination policies: Administrative Services 1535 W. Jefferson Phoenix, AZ 85007 Phone: (602) 542-3186 Fax: (602) 542-3073