Arizona Department of Education Tom Horne, Superintendent of Public Instruction Arizona FFY 2005 Annual Performance Report for Special Education Educational Services and Resources Division Exceptional Student Services www.ade.az.gov/ess February 1, 2007 Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Arizona FFY 2005 Annual Performance Report 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 Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 4 Indicator 1: Graduation Rate ......................................................................................................................... 5 Indicator 2: Dropout Rate .............................................................................................................................. 8 Indicator 3: Participation and Performance of Children with Disabilities .................................................... 10 Indicator 4: Rates of Suspension and Expulsion ........................................................................................ 15 Indicator 5: School-Aged Placements......................................................................................................... 18 Indicator 6: Preschool Placements ............................................................................................................. 20 Indicator 12: Preschool Transition .............................................................................................................. 23 Indicator 15: General Supervision System.................................................................................................. 26 Indicator 16: Complaint Investigation Timelines ......................................................................................... 29 Indicator 17: Due Process Hearing Timelines............................................................................................. 31 Indicator 19: Mediation Effectiveness ......................................................................................................... 33 Indicator 20: Reporting Accuracy and Timeliness ...................................................................................... 35 Attachment 1: Table 6—Participation and Performance of Students with Disabilities................................ 38 Attachment 2: Dispute Resolution Data ...................................................................................................... 56 Attachment 3: List of Abbreviations ............................................................................................................ 57 Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) The Arizona Part B Annual Performance Report for Special Education Federal Fiscal Year 2005 Introduction The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 2004 requires that each State submit an annual performance report that reflects the State’s progress toward the goals established in the State Performance Plan submitted to the U.S. Department of Education in December 2005. This document was developed to meet that requirement. The Arizona State Performance Plan is available on the Arizona Department of Education Web site at www.ade.az.gov/ess/programsupport. Overview of the Annual Performance Report Development The Annual Performance Report draft was initially developed by the staff at the Arizona Department of Education/Exceptional Student Services (ADE/ESS). As data became available at the close of the 20052006 school year, the ADE/ESS staff reported to the Special Education Advisory Panel (SEAP) on each indicator. In addition, the activities outlined in the State Performance Plan were reviewed and revised in consultation with the SEAP. Special Education Monitoring Alerts were distributed to the field via the ADE/ESS listserv as each data element became available and PEA results were posted on the ADE Web site. Data on the performance of the State and all PEAs on all indicators will be disseminated to the public on the Web site by the end of February 2007. A press release on the availability of the information will be provided to major newspapers throughout the State. Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Page 4 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 The 4-year cohort methodology includes all students who entered an Arizona high school at any grade over the previous four school years minus any student who dropped out, transferred out, or deceased during that same time period. Graduation Statistics Baseline FFY 2004 (2004-2005) Target FFY 2005 (2005–2006) Results FFY 2005 (2005–2006) 60.2% of students with disabilities aged 14-21 exited high school with a regular high school diploma [N = 4,592 / 7,634] 61% of students with disabilities who exit receive a regular high school diploma 61% of special education students in the 2002 high school cohort graduated in 2006 [N = 1402 / 2282] Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage Note: While the FFY 2005 results match the 2005 target set in the State Performance Plan (SPP), it was calculated in a different manner. FFY 2005 (Class of 2006) was the first year that Arizona could calculate a graduation rate based on a cohort model. Initial SPP targets were set using a surrogate method based on §618 exit codes. The new method of extracting student status from SAIS allows for a more accurate comparison of the graduation rates of students with and without disabilities. The 4-year cohort approach revised baselines are reported below. 4-Year Graduation Rate of students without disabilities 75.5% [N = 51,066 / 68,498] 4-Year Graduation Rate for students with disabilities 61.0% [N = 1402 / 2282] Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority_____1_______ – Page 5__ All improvement activities that were outlined in the State Performance Plan were completed and two that were not scheduled for another year were able to be moved forward. Arizona met the target for the goal in spite of the calculation method being substantially different. The graduation gap between students with and without disabilities appears to be wider than was reported in the SPP; however, that difference is likely to be a result of the new calculation method rather than any change in the actual gap. Narrowing this gap will continue to be the focus of Arizona’s work to improve the graduation rate of students with disabilities. Beginning with the FFY 2006 APR, Arizona will also report a 5-year cohort graduation rate, as a 5-year rate is used to determine the status of schools under the state’s accountability model, Arizona LEARNS. Improvement Activities completed through FFY 2005 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. Status: The statutory change was enacted during the 2005 legislative session. A.R.S. 15-701.01(3) spells out the circumstances under which an IEP team shall determine the AIMS graduation status of a student with an IEP. 2. Creation and implementation of guidance re: AIMS requirements for SWD. Status: The 2005-2006 guidance document regarding the administration of the AIMS test was published in August 2005 and is located on the ADE Web site. 3. Continuation of the grade-level instruction and assessment initiative. Status: ADE/ESS continued its on-going efforts to ensure the provision of grade-level instruction to students with disabilities. Efforts included staff development projects through the State Improvement Grant, Outreach training by ESS specialists, and special initiatives such as the High Achievement for All project. 4. Implementation of an Assistive Technology initiative. Status: ESS migrated Arizona’s AT initiative from a contracted provider to an in-house unit during FFY 2005. The unit is scheduled for 6 full-time AT specialists located throughout the State. 5. Passage of the Arizona Textbook Accessibility statute and development of regulatory requirements. Status: Statute passed in May 2004. Implementing rules have been submitted to the State Board of Education with consideration scheduled for February 2007. 6. Training and implementation for Improvement Activity # 5. Status: Fifty statewide trainings have been conducted on the Textbook Accessibility requirements as well as the NIMAS requirements during FFY 2005 and the beginning of FFY 2006. 7. Modification of the statewide calculation of graduation rates for students with/without disabilities via SAIS cohort approach. Status: This activity was scheduled to be reported in the FFY 2006 APR; however, a 4-year cohort rate could be determined for this APR and the graduation rate reported above used the cohort methodology. Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority_____1_______ – Page 6__ Improvement Activities completed through FFY 2005 8. Revision of the SPP/APR baseline, targets, and activities to reflect revised graduation calculations. Status: Target terminology has been revised to reflect the new methodology for calculating graduation rates. The targets themselves have not been revised. Revisions to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources for FFY 2005 One revision from the Arizona SPP for this indicator is the method of calculation. As noted in the SPP, Arizona has been unable to disaggregate students with disabilities from all students using its previous process for determining graduation rates for all students. The state recognized this deficiency and moved to establish a new system of extracting graduation information from its Student Accountability Information System (SAIS). Beginning with the graduating class of 2006, SAIS had sufficient longitudinal data to compute a 4-year graduation rate and that methodology was used to collect the data for this APR. Arizona is also adding another activity (see the State Performance Plan) related to improving the reporting of SWD year-end status through SAIS in order to reduce the double reporting requirements that now exist. Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority_____1_______ – Page 7__ 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 An event rate methodology is used to calculate the dropout rate for all students in Arizona. It is a ratio of dropouts to the total enrollment in a particular year. Dropout Statistics Baseline FFY 2004 (2004-2005) Target FFY 2005 (2005–2006) Results FFY 2005 (2005–2006) 3.97% of students with disabilities who exited dropped out [N = 567 / 14,283] 3.96% of students with disabilities who exited dropped out 5.59% of special education students dropped out of school during the 2005-2006 school year [N = 671 / 12,013] Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage The FFY 2005 result is a significant departure from the target set in the State Performance Plan (SPP). While the basic concept of an “event rate” calculation remains the same, the method the state used this year differs substantially from that used last year for the SPP. As with graduation, the state had previously used a dropout calculation method that did not permit disaggregating by disability. In order to respond to the requirements of the SPP, ESS calculated the FFY 2004 dropout rate using codes identical to the exit codes required for the §618 report but extracted data from the Student Accountability Information System (SAIS). The Arizona Department of Education, as a whole, did not use this system last year. All divisions within the ADE are now calculating dropout rates using the event rate method extracted from SAIS. However, the codes and grade levels that are included in the agency calculations encompass a wider range of events than does the §618 report, therefore—while more accurate and more consistent with agency results—the numbers cannot be compared with numbers generated last year for the SPP. The targets for future reporting are adjusted in this APR and in the SPP to reflect the new baseline information. Of particular note, the dropout rate for special education students is lower than the dropout rate for the general population. 2005-2006 Dropout Rate of students without disabilities 2005-2006 Dropout Rate of student with disabilities Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) 6.32% [N = 22,765 / 360,420] 5.59% [N = 671 / 12,013] Monitoring Priority_____2_______ – Page 8__ All improvement activities that were outlined in the SPP were completed within timelines. It is interesting to note that the small gap between students with and without disabilities that appeared to exist using the calculation method employed for 2004-2005 in the SPP is reversed with the new agency-wide approach. Improvement Activities 1. See Improvement Activities Report under Indicator 1. 2. Identify agencies with notably high dropout rates for SWD compared to rates for all students and require PEA analysis of causes. Status: The ESS monitoring system was revised during FFY 2005 for implementation during FFY 2006 to require monitored PEAs with high dropout rates to investigate compliance and conduct a root cause analysis. Revisions to Proposed Targets / Activities / Timelines / Resources for FFY 2006 No revisions are proposed to activities during this next year. Substantial revisions to targets for 20062010 are necessary because of the ADE adoption of a calculation method that allows for disaggregating of students with disabilities and the reporting of comparable information to the public. FFY Revised Measurable and Rigorous Target 2006 (2006–2007) No more than 5.50% of students with disabilities will be deemed to have dropped out 2007 (2007–2008) No more than 5.40% of students with disabilities will be deemed to have dropped out 2008 (2008–2009) No more than 5.30% of students with disabilities will be deemed to have dropped out 2009 (2009–2010) No more than 5.20% of students with disabilities will be deemed to have dropped out 2010 (2010–2011) No more than 5.10% of students with disabilities will be deemed to have dropped out Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority_____2_______ – Page 9__ Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE Indicator 3: Participation and performance of children with disabilities on statewide assessments A. Percent of districts that have a disability subgroup that meets the State’s minimum “n” size meeting the State’s AYP objectives for progress for disability subgroup. B. Participation rate for children with IEPs in a regular assessment with no accommodations; regular assessment with accommodations; alternate assessment against grade level standards; alternate assessment against alternate achievement standards. C. Proficiency rate for children with IEPs against grade level standards and alternate achievement standards. (20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A)) Measurement A. Percent = [(# of districts meeting the State’s AYP objectives for progress for the disability subgroup (children with IEPs)) divided by the (total # of districts that have a disability subgroup that meets the State’s minimum “n” size in the State)] times 100. B. Participation rate = a. # of children with IEPs in assessed grades; 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 achievement 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 assessed grades; b. # of children with IEPs in assessed grades 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 assessed grades 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 assessed grades who are proficient or above as measured by the alternate assessment against grade level achievement standards (percent = [(d) divided by (a)] times 100); and e. # of children with IEPs in assessed grades who are proficient or above as measured 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)]. Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority_____3_______ – Page 10__ Statewide Assessments Statistics Baselines FFY 2004 (2004-2005) % of PEAs meeting AYP 22.7 Math Participation Reading Participation Math Proficiency Reading Proficiency 94.9 94.5 25.4 27.1 [N = 15 / 66] Targets FFY 2005 (2005-2006) % of PEAs meeting AYP Math Participation Reading Participation Math Proficiency Reading Proficiency 23.0 95* 95* 26.0 35.0 Results FFY 2005 (2005-2006) % of PEAs meeting AYP Math 18.92% [N = 14 / 74] Reading 16.22% [N = 12 / 74] Overall 12.16% [N = 9 / 74] Math Participation Reading Participation Math Proficiency Reading Proficiency 98.1 98.5 26.9 26.4 *Revised target based on OSEP clarification Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage Arizona met its FFY 2005 targets in 3 of the 5 subcategories from the State Performance Plan—Math participation, Reading participation, and Math performance. The state missed the target in Reading performance by a considerable amount. In fact, there was a small decline (<1%) in the total percentage of students with disabilities meeting or exceeding the standard on the state’s reading assessments. It will be necessary to study the scores over a longer period of time to determine if this drop was an artifact of this particular year or a trend. The state did not meet its goal of increasing the percentage of PEAs making AYP for students with disabilities. It is not anticipated that the state will meet this goal in future years as the percentage of students who must pass the AIMS test will increase substantially in order to meet the NCLB requirement that 100% of students pass the State test by 2014. Even if the percentage of students with disabilities passing each test increases each year, the rate will not match the rising NCLB targets; therefore, the percent of PEAs making AYP will continue to decline. Figures 1 and 2 indicate the progress of children with disabilities in recent years. Longitudinal data will be reported for grades 3, 5, 8, and HS as these are the grades that have been tested in Arizona until recently. Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority_____3_______ – Page 11__ Figure 1: Math Proficiency by Grade and Year Math Proficiency Percent Proficient 100 80 FFY 03 60 FFY 04 40 FFY 05 20 0 3rd 5th 8th 10th FFY 03 29 14 3 6 FFY 04 39.6 28.2 15.8 25.4 FFY 05 44.5 31.4 19 17.4 Figure 2: Reading Proficiency by Grade and Year Reading Proficiency Percent Proficient 100 80 FFY 03 60 FFY 04 40 FFY 05 20 0 3rd 5th 8th 10th FFY 03 34 17 10 17 FFY 04 34.2 30.1 20 27.1 FFY 05 33.6 27.8 20.6 26.8 Improvement Activities 1. Expand ESS Reading Initiative through Reading First and the AZ SIG Goal 3. Status: SIG reading personnel were transferred to the Reading First team to expand and improve the collaboration between SIG and Reading First. This alliance provides the potential for providing support for students struggling with reading before referral to special education through the Arizona Response to Intervention model and for providing reading intervention strategies to a larger number of students already identified as special education. Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority_____3_______ – Page 12__ Improvement Activities 2. Provide school-wide improvement assistance for agencies under NCLB sanctions. Status: ADE maintains a division whose function it is to provide assistance to agencies that do not make AYP. This year, that division has required schools in their “warning” year (1st year not making AYP) to develop a plan to improve and to communicate to parents and staff of the failure to make AYP. 3. Revise monitoring procedures to require agencies with below average reading achievement scores for SWD to complete a root cause analysis and improvement plan. Status: The ESS monitoring system in use during the 2005-2006 school year required PEAs with 3rd grade reading scores below the state average to complete a worksheet designed to identify potential root causes for low reading achievement and to develop a plan to address the causes. The monitorings will not be closed out for these PEAs without sufficient investigation and planning. 4. Develop and validate the Arizona alternate assessment against grade level standards and curriculum. Status: Work on this activity was not initiated as the energy of the department was to complete the NCLB requirements for our general assessment and the alternate assessment against alternate achievement standards. Arizona’s assessment system was approved by the USDOE in the summer of 2006. Work on an alternate assessment against grade level standards will commence when the USDOE releases the requirements for an assessment under the 2% rule. 5. Create a Response to Intervention (RTI) specialist position to assist agencies with building capacity for early intervention. Status: A specialist position was established in January 2006 and was filled full-time in June 2006. 6. Establish a statewide procedure for agencies electing to use RTI as an identification strategy for special education. Status: Forty-eight school teams are enrolled in the AZRTI pilot project during the 2005-2006 school year. These schools are assisting the state with fine tuning the RTI model by providing data on student outcomes and changes in identification rates for special education. Approximately 50,000 students are being served in the pilot. The agency continues to work on aligning the RTI procedures used by Reading First schools and the model being proposed for use in the identification of reading disabilities. 7. Disseminate information about AT and accessible textbooks available for general class use and test participation. Status: The creation of the Assistive Technology unit within the ESS division and the implementation of the requirements for NIMAC/NIMAS have raised awareness of the potential for AT to facilitate student achievement and success on the State assessments. The majority of the work to date has focused on alerting schools to the options now open to them. Regional Outreach trainings were scheduled for the fall 2006. 8. Investigate critical components of the Arizona State Standards and AIMS assessment structure and provide guidance to the field on those elements. Status: The investigation into the critical components revealed that the consistency between the State Standards and the AIMS is very high. Therefore, it is not possible to provide information to teachers about what constitutes the most critical skills/knowledge to teach first. This improvement activity did not yield the hoped for narrowing of skill sets for students with disabilities. Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority_____3_______ – Page 13__ Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources for FFY 2005. Arizona is not modifying targets, improvement activities, or timelines at this point. Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority_____3_______ – Page 14__ 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 and ethnicity divided by # of districts in the State times 100. “Significant discrepancy” is a rate above 5% of the special education population with more than two students suspended. Suspension and Expulsion Statistics A Baseline FFY 2004 (2004-2005) Target FFY 2005 (2005–2006) Results FFY 2005 (2005–2006) 1.64% of PEAs in Arizona had suspension and expulsion rates of greater than 5% of their population of special education students [N = 9 / 549] 1.60% of PEAs with suspension and expulsion rates ≥ 5% of their population of special education students 2.3% of the PEAs in Arizona had suspension and expulsion rates greater than 5% of their population of special education students [N = 14 / 591] Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage Arizona did not meet its target for FFY 2005. In order to achieve the target rate of 1.60%, all but 9 PEAs had to have suspension rates 1 of less than 5% of their special education students. A total of 14 PEAs had rates above 5% and suspended more than 2 students. An analysis of these PEAs shows that 5 of them suspended only 3 students but the size of their agency caused their rate to exceed the 5% allowance. In addition, of the 14 PEAs in the analysis only 2 were on the list for a second year. 1 Arizona uses the term “suspension” in this report to refer to both suspensions longer than 10 days and expulsions. All data include both types of removals from school. Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority____4________ – Page 15__ Arizona has tracked the number of districts with suspension rates over 10% for six years and that number continues to decline. Figure 3 indicates the progress the State has made in finding alternatives to suspension for students with disabilities. 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 Improvement Activities 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. Status: The ESS monitoring system was revised during FFY 2005 for implementation during FFY 2006 to require monitored PEAs with high suspension rates to investigate compliance issues and conduct a root cause analysis. 2. Increase Arizona Positive Behavior Support Initiative (APBSI) participation among schools in Arizona. Status: Eleven new districts have joined the APBSI project during FFY 2005. In addition, one regional cooperative was formed in which a multi-agency executive team attends the trainings and returns to their respective schools to provide professional development and to coach on-site participants. 3. Refer PEAs with high suspension rates for SWD to the technical assistance opportunities sponsored by ESS and School Safety and Prevention. Status: The ESS monitoring system has focused attention on those agencies with high suspension rates. ESS specialists working with the agencies provide information regarding APBSI and other professional development opportunities. Approximately 50% of the 135 SUPPORT Cadre visits conducted between July 1, 2005 and June 30, 2006 were related to behavior management issues. Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority____4________ – Page 16__ Improvement Activities 4. Collaborate with the leadership of the School Safety and Prevention Division (SSPD) to expand the data analysis capabilities of the APBSI to schools beyond those currently enrolled. Status: An agency-wide team has identified common data elements and is developing EDENcompatible definitions that meet the federal reporting requirements for all programs. Funding to build a Web-based data collection system has been obtained. Revisions to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources Arizona is not revising its proposed targets for 4.A. Two additional improvement activities have been added in the revised State Performance Plan. Activity 15 will involve consideration of changing the minimum number of students a PEA must have suspended in order to fall into the significance range. The original N count that Arizona has used (two students) may be unrealistically low given the number of small districts and charter schools in the state. Had the N count been set at five students, Arizona would have met its target with ease. Activity 16 will required PEAs identified with a significant discrepancy regarding suspensions by race/ethnicity to engage in the same root cause analysis in which PEAs with general suspension issues are required to engage. Indicator 4.B information is available in the State Performance Plan. Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority____4________ – Page 17__ 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. Baseline FFY 2004 (2004-2005) Target FFY 2005 (2005-2006) Results FFY 2005 (2005-2006) Measurement A Measurement B Measurement C <21% >60% Separate 48.0% 17.8% 2.7% 49.0% 17.0% 2.7% 50.5% 17.2% 2.6% [N = 55,774 / 110,442] [N = 19,003 / 110,442] [N = 2,837 / 110,442] Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage Arizona met or exceeded its FFY 2005 targets for this indicator and completed all improvement activities on or ahead of schedule. Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority______5______ – Page 18__ Improvement Activities 1. Initiate Autism Training Project. Status: The state has implemented a personnel preparation program for teachers of children with autism. The program consists of a three-year curriculum, with a new cohort starting each year. Three cohorts, enrolling 27 districts, are now engaged in the project. The curriculum was developed jointly with the universities in Arizona and is presented over six in-service days and a summer summit. 2. Increase training and supervision of LRE reporting. Status: The ADE provides training to all education agencies through a team known as the STaR (System Training and Response) team. They provide guidance, training, and ongoing technical support to PEAs in all areas of data collection, including special education data. 3. Train ESS specialists to be able to oversee and provide assistance to agencies in the area of data reporting. Status: The ESS monitoring system was revised for the SY 2006-2007 (see Activity 6) to include the use of SPP/APR Performance Indicators as selectives for monitoring components. In order to identify the appropriate components for their PEAs, ESS specialists must understand and be able to explain the specific data elements, the sources of information, and potential reliability and validity issues, including those associated with LRE data. During the summer monitoring training and in subsequent staff meetings, the Director of Program Support and the ESS Data Manager provided ESS specialists with the tools to assist their assigned PEAs in accurately reporting placement information through the State’s student accountability system. 4. Revise ADE census reporting to reflect differences between voucher placements unrelated to FAPE and those necessary for FAPE. Status: The implementation of this activity is scheduled for FFY 2006. 5. Identify agencies with excessive numbers of restrictive placements and require analysis of causes and improvement planning. Status: See Activity 6. 6. Revise the monitoring system to require agencies with high numbers of restrictive placements to investigate placement procedures and addition options. Status: The ESS monitoring system was completely revamped for SY 2006-2007. The new system uses individual PEA data on the SPP/APR Performance Indicators to identify some of the compliance elements to be addressed during a specific monitoring. In addition, for selected indicators, a root cause analysis is incorporated into the corrective action plan for the monitoring. (See Indicator 15 for additional information on the revised monitoring system.) Five PEAs were identified as needing to address the compliance items related to self-contained placements for school-aged children. Nine PEAs were selected on the basis of preschool LRE, and three PEAs were identified as needing to address LRE in both their school-aged and preschool populations. Root cause analyses were required of the PEAs with the most significant variance from the state average percentages for LRE. Revisions to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources for FFY 2006 No revisions are necessary. Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority______5______ – Page 19__ Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE Indicator 6: Preschool Placements Percent of preschool children with IEPs who received special education and related services in settings with typically developing peers (e.g., early childhood settings, home, and part-time early childhood/parttime early childhood special education settings). (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A)) Measurement Percent = # of preschool children with IEPs who received all special education services in settings with typically developing peers divided by the total # of preschool children with IEPs times 100. Preschool Placements Statistics Baseline FFY 2004 (2004-2005) Target FFY 2005 (2005-2006) Results FFY 2005 (2005–2006) 47% of Arizona’s 3–5 year olds served in settings with typically developing peers 48.0% of Arizona’s 3–5 year olds served in settings with typically developing peers 45.9% of Arizona’s 3–5 year olds were served in settings with typically developing peers [N = 6,456* / 14,062] *Includes children placed in reverse mainstream preschools with 50% typical peers Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage Increasing placements of Arizona preschool children with IEPs with typical peers continued to be a challenge in FFY 2005. The largest challenge to increasing LRE placements is due to a disincentive in Arizona law that excludes from child care licensure requirements any classroom that serves four or less children without compensation. Schools seek exemption from the complexity and cost of child care licensure by keeping the number of typical peers at four or less. Additionally, federal and state funding available to provide preschool for typically developing children has decreased or remained level, while the number of children with IEPs has increased, further decreasing the number of typical peers enrolled in preschool programs. Another significant challenge facing Arizona schools is lack of space for preschool programming. The state funding formula for school capital improvements does not recognize preschool classroom space used for children that do not have IEPs. Schools allocate limited classroom space to programs that generate capital funding, resulting in restricted classroom space and programs serving typical peers. The SEA will continue improvement activities that focus on building inclusive community placements, and building the knowledge and understanding of the benefits of inclusive environments for children among state early childhood partners and education leaders. Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority______6______ – Page 20__ Improvement Activities 1. Provide professional development on LRE during nine “Critical Issues” Outreach sessions. Status: Critical Issues Outreach sessions were completed FY 2005-2006. Additionally, LRE training was conducted within the five “A Team Approach to Preschool Evaluations and Transition to SchoolAged Services” conferences that were held between February of 2005 and January of 2007 and at the Arizona Early Learning Conference in June 2006. Continuum of services, and scaffolding funds between state programs such as Early Childhood Block Grant, Family Literacy, Community Education and Special Education Programs within school districts were addressed. Combining children in classrooms was promoted, as well as servicing children within their current childcare placements as a service option. Collaboration with Head Start programs to provide inclusive opportunities was also emphasized. 2. Continue training on accurate use of EC setting codes in SAIS. Status: Will provide technical assistance papers and outreach trainings to train on the new Part B Educational Environments Data Collection for Children Ages 3–5 for the FY 2008 reporting period. 3. Develop and implement inclusion TA plan with MPRRC; convene Early Childhood Inclusion Coalition. Status: Arizona Early Childhood Inclusion Coalition is a cross-agency statewide initiative to promote inclusive options for young children with disabilities. This group was established in Chapel Hill, NC at the Early Childhood Inclusion Institute in July 2005, with the goal to improve the number of preschool students who receive services in inclusive environments. Current agenda items are to develop a set of talking points regarding preschool inclusion, promote inclusion with Governor Janet Napolitano’s School Readiness Board, and address issues of the School Facilities Board and Department of Health Services Licensure that are barriers to inclusion in Arizona. The Early Childhood Inclusion Coalition will continue to focus on resolving these issues and barriers. 4. Participate in National Individualizing Preschool Inclusion Project (NIPIP) with Vanderbilt University, piloting five PEA sites in partnership with the three state universities. Status: The pilot was completed in May of 2006. The information from NIPIP was presented at the statewide Director’s Institute in October 2006. The presentation focused on embedding therapies, engagement with typical peers, and functional goal writing. Arizona plans to continue this professional development opportunity at the Early Learning Institute and through Outreach trainings to continue in FY 2007 and FY 2008. 5. Provide financial grant to Arizona Council of Exceptional Children’s Division of Early Childhood (AZ DEC) chapter to develop Count Me In, a resource handbook for inclusion, and provide targeted technical assistance in selected PEAs. Status: Arizona has continued to promote resources such as the “High Quality Inclusion Opportunities for Preschool-aged Children with Disabilities” Proceedings Document from July 2005 and “An Administrator’s Guide to Preschool Inclusion”. These resources are posted on the early childhood Web site and promoted at trainings, monitoring visits, and during technical assistance. The “Count Me In” resource handbook specific to Arizona continues to be in the development stage. A Spring Conference was co-hosted with Arizona DEC targeting preschool behavioral issues, which are often a barrier to preschool inclusion. 6. Annually review PEA-level LRE data and provide specific technical assistance to targeted PEAs that do not show an increase in the number of children receiving services in inclusive settings. Status: In addition to the TA provided through the Early Childhood Office, the ESS monitoring system was revised to require greater attention to preschool LRE in those districts with a low percentage of 3– Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority______6______ – Page 21__ Improvement Activities 5 year olds in inclusive settings. See Activity 6 in Indicator 5. Revisions to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources for FFY 2006 One additional improvement activity was added to the State Performance Plan. Activity 9 revolves around the growing problem with space for preschool programs that is adequate to house both special education preschool children and their typical peers. Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority______6______ – Page 22__ Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B / Effective Transition Indicator 12: Preschool Transition Percent of children referred by Part C prior to age 3 who are found eligible for Part B and who have an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthday. (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B)) Measurement a. # of children who have been served in Part C and referred to Part B for eligibility determination. b. # of those referred determined to be NOT eligible and whose eligibilities were determined prior to their third birthdays. c. # of those found eligible who have an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthdays. d. # of children for whom parent refusal to provide consent caused delays in evaluation or initial services. Account for children included in a but not included in b, c, or d. Indicate the range of days beyond the third birthday when eligibility was determined and the IEP developed and the reasons for the delays. Percent = [(c) divided by (a – b)] times 100. Preschool Transition Statistics Baseline FFY 2004 (2004-2005) Target FFY 2005 (2005-2006) Results FFY 2005 (2005–2006) 83% of children referred by Part C prior to age 3 had their eligibility established and, if eligible, have an IEP developed and, if appropriate, implemented by their 3rd birthday*. 100% of children referred by Part C prior to age 3 have their eligibility established and, if eligible, have an IEP developed and, if appropriate, implemented by their 3rd birthday. 63.61% of children referred by Part C prior to age 3 had their eligibility established and, if eligible, have an IEP developed and, if appropriate, implemented by their 3rd birthday*. *Substantial modification of data collection and reporting occurred between the baseline and the FFY 2005 report. See the State Performance Plan for additional information. Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority______12______ – Page 23__ Breakdown of Results a. # referred by Part C < age 3 b. # determined not eligible ≤ to age 3 c. # eligible with IEPs ≤ to age 3 d. # with parental delay % of children meeting ≤ age 3 requirement 2487 229 1353 Not available 63.61 Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that occurred for FFY 2005 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 this APR is no longer based on a sample but on the entire population of children exiting Part C who were referred to Part B. Correcting non-compliance on this indicator with individual PEAs is a joint function of the Exceptional Student Services and Early Childhood divisions. ESS now requires documentation of 100% compliance prior to closing any monitoring corrective action plans (See Indicator 15 for closeout results within one year) and EC works with non-compliant PEAs to resolve the roadblocks to 100% compliance. Improvement Activities 1. Continue providing targeted technical assistance on transition agreement compliance to PEAs as requested or identified through monitoring and data analysis. Status: In Fall 2006, ECE and AzEIP partnered to present half-day interactive regional training sessions titled “Seamless Transitions from AzEIP to Early Childhood Special Education Services” to targeted groups of school district and AzEIP personnel throughout the state. The sessions provided explicit instructions and recommendations for each step of the transition process, and allowed teams from each district and AzEIP service provider to create actions steps to comply with the transition agreement requirements. ECE and AzEIP will continue regional trainings in Fall 07. Districts that did not attend prior training will be identified and targeted for these sessions. Updates on the revised transition IGA will also be included. 2. Enhance corrective action plan development as a result of monitoring findings to require the review of student files for the reasons the FAPE-by-three requirement was not met and the implementation of actions to overcome the identified causes. Status: This requirement was built into the monitoring system that was implemented during the 2005– 2006 school year. As districts reach their timelines for completing corrective actions and demonstrating compliance, ESS monitors will evaluate the districts’ findings and action plans to determine the effectiveness of the changes. Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority______12______ – Page 24__ Improvement Activities 3. Mine data from the enhanced AzEIP data system to validate FAPE-by-age-three information required by OSEP indicators. Status: To be determined in Spring – Fall 2007 4. Enhance SAIS by adding FAPE-by-three and Part C indicator fields for student level data record. Status: The SAIS system requirements for indicating Part C participation are in effect for the 2006-2007 school year. However, the OSEP calculation method for this indicator requires the inclusion of children who were found not to be eligible. Therefore, SAIS will not be an effective method of collection of the data for this indicator as only those preschool children who are eligible can be entered into the student record system. Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources for FFY 2006 Arizona is adding additional improvement activities (See State Performance Plan) to improve the results on this indicator. Activity 5 will focus on modifying the data collection form to capture the children who were delayed in placement because of parental wishes. Activity 6 will require districts to demonstrate 100% compliance with the indicator prior to the closeout of their monitoring corrective action plan. Activity 7 will shed light on the districts with less than 100% compliance with the publication of the APR results on the ESS website. Finally, Activity 8 will require districts with significantly poor performance on this indicator to respond annually to a root cause analysis similar to the one used during the monitoring cycle. Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority______12______ – Page 25__ Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B / General Supervision Indicator 15: 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. For any noncompliance not corrected within one year of identification, describe what actions, including technical assistance and enforcement actions, that the State has taken. Corrective Action Statistics Baseline FFY 2003 (2003-2004) Target FFY 2005 (2005-2006) Results FFY 2004 (2004-2005) 65.9% of corrective actions completed within one year of identification Recalculated according to new SPP/APR measurement requirements 100% of corrective actions completed within one year of identification 92.4% of corrective actions were completed within one year of identification [N = 208 / 225] The total of 225 included 97 monitorings and 128 complaints. Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that occurred for 2005 Monitoring Substantial progress was made by the State in achieving Corrective Action Plan closeouts within one year of the Exit Conference date for monitoring. The baseline percentage reported in the State Performance Plan was a 1-year-closeout rate of 53%. The improvement is attributed to adequate notification of the expectation by the State to the PEAs, an increased emphasis by assigned specialists upon adherence to the timelines, and a process of notifying PEAs of their impending deadline for closing out. Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority___15_________ – Page 26__ Sixteen PEAs that were monitored during FFY 2005 did not complete all corrective action and demonstrate compliance by the end of their allotted year. The enforcement steps taken by the ADE/ESS are reported in Table 1. Table 1: ESS Enforcement Steps used for FFY 2004 monitoring Enforcement Steps Number of PEAs Results 1. Failure to close notice—30–day deadline 16 9 closed with no further action 2. Interruption of IDEA payments—60–day deadline 7 1 closed with no further action 3. Special monitor/interruption of 10% state aid 6 3 closed with no further action 4. Request for a Notice of Intent to Revoke or Voluntary Surrender of the charter 2 1 school surrendered 5. Permanent withholding of FFY 2005 funds 1 Note: The charter school failed to respond to the option of a special monitor and the notice of the opportunity for a hearing. 1 school was revoked The school closed the monitoring in Fall 2006 Step 1 of the enforcement steps involves the notification to the PEA that their allowed time has expired and that they must complete all corrective action within 30 days or risk interruption of IDEA funds. For those PEAs that cannot demonstrate compliance within that timeframe, the ESS interrupts payments (Step 2) for all payment cycles until the ESS specialist verifies the completion of corrective actions. Once that occurs, all payments that were on hold are released to the PEA. Step 3 of the ESS enforcement process involves giving PEAs a choice between contracting with a “special monitor” and permanent withholding of IDEA funds for a given year. The special monitor option requires that the PEA select an individual from a set of resumes provided by ESS and arrange for that person to provide the on-going and rapid technical assistance that the PEA needs to resolve their compliance issues. The special monitor reports the PEAs progress (or lack of progress) to the ESS on a regular basis. The purpose of the special monitor option is to ensure that PEAs have the intensive assistance needed without using an extraordinary amount of their assigned ESS specialist’s time. The ESS specialist makes frequent visits with the special monitor to verify progress. Insufficient progress results in further enforcement action. Most PEAs in this circumstance have elected the special monitor option instead of the permanent withholding of IDEA funds. In addition to the option listed above, PEAs in Step 3 have 10% of State aid put on hold until ESS verifies compliance is achieved. ESS monitored five charter schools that closed their doors during the fiscal year. Three of the schools had closed out their ESS monitoring prior to closing and two had not. One of these two schools voluntarily surrendered their charter in the face of multiple compliance issues—most unrelated to special education. One charter had its charter revoked because of multiple and widespread non-compliance issues, including special education issues. Complaints Only one district was unable to complete corrective action within one year of the notification of findings. Funds were interrupted, a special monitor was assigned, and the ADE is now moving forward to permanently withhold all IDEA funds from the district for the current year. In addition, the district has been scheduled for a full special education monitoring during FFY 2006 year to identify specific areas beyond the complaint findings that must be addressed. Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority___15_________ – Page 27__ Improvement Activities for Monitoring 1. Notify all agencies of the OSEP requirement that all CAPs be cleared within one year. Status: Notice to all special education directors; January 24, 2005. 2. Emphasize at all monitoring exit conferences the one-year closeout requirement. Status: SFY 2006 Monitoring Handbook was revised to reflect one-year closeout requirement and enforcement after expiration of one year. 3. Modify the ESS monitoring system to accurately capture the closeout status of all monitorings on an ongoing basis. Status: Computer-based CAP Progression report linked to web monitoring system to capture up-to-theminute CAP status by PEA. 4. Add a “monitoring close-out due” notification letter to be sent to all PEAs 45–60 days prior to the expiration of their one-year timeline. Status: Close-out alert form letter developed and sent to PEAs 60 days prior to one-year due date beginning with the SFY 2006. 5. Continue to require intensive TA to all PEAs unable to closeout within one year. Status: ESS specialists provide ongoing TA to PEAs struggling with compliance. PEAs with monitorings that are open 60 days after the one-year anniversary are given the option of a PEA-paid special monitor/TA provider or withholding of IDEA funds. 6. Continue to implement progressive enforcement activities for failure to complete corrective action items. Status: See Table 1 for current-year enforcement activities. Improvement Activities for Complaint Investigation 1. Continue established tracking system to monitor submission of required corrective actions. Status: Tracking system continues to be an effective measure to ensure corrective actions are received in a timely manner. 2. Modify procedures so that corrective actions that allow the school greater than one year to complete will no longer be issued. Status: Procedures were modified to disallow any corrective actions that exceeded one year. 3. Train a backup CACM coordinator so that no interruption of oversight could occur. Status: A second ESS complaint investigator is trained on the tracking system and would be utilized if the CACM coordinator were unavailable. Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources for FFY 2005 No revisions are necessary at this time. Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority___15_________ – Page 28__ 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. Complaint Investigation Statistics Baseline FFY 2004 (2004-2005) Target FFY 2005 (2005–2006) Results FFY 2005 (2005–2006) 73.9% of state complaints findings were issued within 60 days of receipt 100% of state complaints findings issued within 60 days of receipt 99.4% of state complaints findings were issued within 60 days of receipt [N = 160 / 161] Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that occurred for FFY 2005 Arizona has made substantial progress in meeting the timelines for the timely completion of state complaints. Only one letter of findings was not issued within 60 days of receipt and that letter was completed on the 61st day. 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. Status: The following paragraph has been added to each Letter of Acknowledgement: “Upon receipt of this letter, I strongly encourage you to begin compiling all potentially pertinent documentation and determining the availability of relevant staff for interviews. This information should be provided to the complaint investigator as soon as possible, but not later than 30 days following the receipt of this letter. Failure to comply with the investigator’s request for information in a timely manner may result in findings being made without your input.” 2. 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. Status: The director of Dispute Resolution notifies each complaint investigator ten days prior to a complaint Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority___16_________ – Page 29__ Improvement Activities due date that the timeline is about to expire. Each complaint is closely monitored to ensure the timeline is met. 3. Analyze work flow quarterly and adjust assignments as necessary between offices and investigators. Status: Work flow is monitored on a continuous basis to ensure assignments are equitably distributed. Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement / Activities / Timelines / Resources for FFY 2006 No revisions are necessary at this time. Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority___16_________ – Page 30__ Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B / General Supervision Indicator 17: Due Process Hearing Timelines Percent of fully adjudicated due process hearing requests that were fully adjudicated within the 45–day timeline or a timeline that is properly extended by the hearing officer at the request of either party. (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B)) Measurement Percent = (3.2(a) + 3.2(b)) divided by (3.2) times 100. Overview of Issue / Description of System or Process Beginning August 12, 2005, Arizona moved from its previous two-tiered due process system to a one-tier 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 laws and rules and are trained yearly through ESS. Due Process Timeline Statistics Baseline FFY 2004 (2004-2005) Target FFY 2005 (2005–2006) Results FFY 2005 (2005–2006) 86% of due process decisions were issued within 45 days of filing 100% of due process decisions issued within 45 days of filing 100% of due process decisions were issued within 45 days of filing [N = 1/1] Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage Arizona had 46 requests for a due process hearing filed during FFY 2005. All but one of the requests was resolved without a hearing—20 as a result of a mediation or resolution session. The balance was resolved independently of the ADE. The one request that was fully adjudicated was the result of two requests by the same parent within a fairly short time period. The two requests were consolidated into one by the parties and the consolidated hearing was held within the timelines with an extension of the second request. Improvement Activities 1. Implement new legislation that changed Arizona to a one-tier due process system. Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority___17_________ – Page 31__ Status: The statutory change went into effect on August 12, 2005. 2. Propose changes to Arizona Administrative Code rules relating to due process. Status: Proposed changes to the Arizona Administrative Code are in process. Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement / Activities / Timelines / Resources for FFY 2006 No revisions are necessary at this time. Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority___17_________ – Page 32__ 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. Mediation Statistics Baseline FFY 2004 (2004-2005) Target FFY 2005 (2005–2006) Results FFY 2005 (2005–2006) 82.0% of mediation requests resulted in a mediation agreement 82.5% of mediation requests result in a mediation agreement 88.9% of mediation requests resulted in a mediation agreement [N = 24 / 27] Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage: Arizona completed all of the planned activities during FFY 2005. Improvement Activities 1. Provide mediation training. Status: The annual training session for mediators was held on December 2, 2005. 2. Utilize PINS specialists to discuss value of mediation with parents. Status: The Dispute Resolution Unit and the PINS have continuous contact to discuss providing accurate information regarding mediation to parents. PINS discuss mediation with parents during phone, email, and on-site consultation. 3. Analyze feedback from mediation survey sent to parties following mediation to determine what ADE can do to improve the mediation system. Status: Feedback from mediations is analyzed to determine possible ways to improve the system. 4. Present training sessions at annual Directors’ Institute on mediation. Status: The Director of Dispute Resolution, along with the mediation coordinator and the complaint investigators, held a roundtable discussion with attendees at the Directors’ Institute. The discussion covered all aspects of dispute resolution with an emphasis on mediation. Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority___19_________ – Page 33__ ARIZONA Revisions to Proposed Targets / Improvement / Activities / Timelines / Resources for FFY 2006 No revisions are necessary at this time. Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority___19_________ – Page 34__ ARIZONA Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B / General Supervision Indicator 20: Reporting Accuracy and Timeliness State reported data (618 and State Performance Plan and Annual Performance Report) are timely and accurate. (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B)) Measurement State reported data, including 618 data and annual performance reports, are: A. Submitted on or before due dates (February 1 for child count, including race and ethnicity, placement; November 1 for exiting, discipline, personnel; and February 1 for Annual Performance Reports); and B. Accurate (describe mechanisms for ensuring accuracy). Accurate and Timely Reporting Statistics Baseline FFY 2004 (2004-2005) Target FFY 2005 (2005–2006) Results FFY 2005 (2005–2006) 100% of data was reported by the deadline 100% of data will be reported accurately and by the deadline 85% of data was reported accurately and by the deadline Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage Arizona has consistently met the reporting deadlines to OSEP for the last several years. However, difficulties in verifying a final child count has resulted in the state submitting surrogate data by the deadline. The state also has an unresolved audit issue in this area that will require politically difficult statutory change before it can be resolved. In the 1990’s, the state legislature agreed to the creation of a student accountability information system (SAIS) with the provision that education agencies be permitted to amend SAIS information for up to three years following the original submission of data. This element of the law makes it difficult to replicate special education child count information from one data pull to the next. The solution to the timely submission of federal child counts and to the verification of child counts after the submission will require statutory change. In the interim, ESS has used a paper verification system to ensure the federal child count matches PEA records. This laborious method results in the submission of surrogate data by the deadline. The issue of PEAs being able to amend SAIS data for three years may impact the accuracy of the reported graduation and dropout statistics as those numbers are also extracted from SAIS. ESS and SAIS staff are working together to craft potential solutions in these two areas. These three elements cause ESS to report that our results for this indicator are only at 85% performance. Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority___20_________ – Page 35__ ARIZONA Arizona has in place multiple validity and reliability checks to ensure that the best possible data is available for federal and state use. ESS is using the Critical Elements draft provided at the National Accountability Conference to evaluate the current system and to make improvements. Current status and improvement efforts are reported below by principle (as articulated in the guidance document). Principle 1: Data Collection—Data collection plan, including policies and procedures, for collecting and reporting accurate data. Arizona has in place five of the critical elements identified in the guidance document. The sixth element—consultation with data providers—occurs on a regular basis when elements are being added or revised but is not in an on-going, formal system. Principal 2: Data Editing and Validation—Procedures are in place for editing and validating data submitted by providers. Arizona meets two of the critical elements in that electronic submission has multiple validity checks and allows data providers to compare current submissions with prior years to identify any substantial anomalies. The modifications to the ESS monitoring system with its heavy reliance on child outcome data moves the state forward in meeting the third critical element under this principle. Work needs to continue in this area and in resolving data editing issues within SAIS as a result of state statutory allowances. Principle 3: Data Reporting—Data is available to the public and data quality problems are identified and reported. Data, including SPP/APR data, will be reported to the public on the ADE/ESS website by March 2007. Multiple indicators were available on that site during FFY 2005. The ADE/ESS is in the process of developing a more user-friendly viewing method than the Excel spreadsheets that will be used for FFY 2005 data, but that system will not be implemented until FFY 2006. Principal 4: System Management and Documentation—Policies and procedures are in place for maintaining the integrity of collection and reporting systems. The agency addresses all five of the critical elements within this principle and continues to work with all data users and reporters to improve the validity and reliability of information. There are intrinsic difficulties in some of the requirements that continue to present challenges and these are visited repeatedly to move toward resolution. Data Accuracy and Timeliness Improvement Activities 1. Improve data integrity checks in Student Accountability Information System (SAIS). Status: The SAIS improvement activities continue within the ADE with collaboration among the various divisions that extract data. Improvements during FFY 2005 included extractions regarding dropout, graduation, exit status, and LRE reporting. 2. Collaborate with Safe and Drug Free Schools (SDFS) staff to build data set for suspension/expulsion. Status: SDFS received a USDOE grant to build a Web-based data collection system. A systems analyst is currently working on identifying all of the data elements necessary to meet all disciplinary reports for the agency. 3. Extract exit data from SAIS. Status: Exit data were extracted from SAIS for the first time during FFY 2005. 4. Maintain the timeliness of data submission at 100% and review annually, at a minimum, to update/improve accuracy and timeliness. Status: Timeliness was maintained. The ESS is using the Critical Elements document provided by OSEP to review and amend agency procedures to ensure continued improvement in the accuracy of the data. Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority___20_________ – Page 36__ ARIZONA Revisions to Proposed Targets / Improvement / Activities / Timelines / Resources for FFY 2006 One additional improvement activity has been added (See State Performance Report). Activity 7 will address the need for statutory changes to limit the amount of time PEAs have to correct and modify data. Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) Monitoring Priority___20_________ – Page 37__ Part B – SPP / APR Attachment 1 ____Arizona___ Attachment 1: Table 6—Participation and Performance of Students with Disabilities U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS TABLE 6 REPORT OF THE PARTICIPATION AND PERFORMANCE OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES ON STATE ASSESSMENTS BY CONTENT AREA, GRADE, AND TYPE OF ASSESSMENT PAGE 1 OF 18 OMB NO.: 1820-0659 FORM EXPIRES: 09/30/2007 2005-06 STATE: ______ARIZONA_________________ SECTION A. ENROLLMENT DATA FOR THE MATH ASSESSMENT1 GRADE LEVEL STUDENTS WITH IEPs (1) ALL STUDENTS (2) 3 11169 80805 4 11515 81152 5 11646 80382 6 10928 80791 7 10171 80518 8 10077 80581 HIGH SCHOOL (SPECIFY GRADE: __10_________) 8522 75036 1 At a date as close as possible to the testing date. Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) – Page 38__ Part B – SPP / APR Attachment 1 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS ____Arizona___ TABLE 6 REPORT OF THE PARTICIPATION AND PERFORMANCE OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES ON STATE ASSESSMENTS BY CONTENT AREA, GRADE, AND TYPE OF ASSESSMENT PAGE 2 OF 18 OMB NO.: 1820-0659 FORM EXPIRES: 09/30/2007 2005-06 STATE: _______ARIZONA________________ SECTION B. PARTICIPATION OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES ON MATH ASSESSMENT STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES WHO TOOK REGULAR ASSESSMENT ON GRADE LEVEL ACHIEVEMENT STANDARDS GRADE LEVEL TOTAL (3) SUBSET WHO TOOK THE ASSESSMENT WITH ACCOMODATIONS (3A) SUBSET WITH CHANGES TO THE ASSESSMENT THAT INVALIDATED THEIR SCORE1 (3B) SUBSET WHOSE ASSESSMENT RESULTS WERE INVALID2 (3C) 3 10330 4966 688 91 4 10778 5913 892 102 5 10806 6297 1044 69 6 10100 6014 1243 107 7 9202 5526 1648 134 8 9083 5578 1789 124 HIGH SCHOOL (SPECIFY GRADE: ______10_____) 7312 4770 1945 65 1 Changes to the assessment that invalidate a score are changes in testing materials or procedures that enable a student to participate in the assessment, but result in a score that is not deemed by the State to be comparable to scores received by students without these changes. In some States these changes are called modifications or nonstandard administrations. 2 Invalid results are assessment results that cannot be used for reporting and or aggregation due to problems in the testing process (e.g. students do not take all portions of the assessment or students do not fill out the answer sheet correctly). Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) – Page 39__ Part B – SPP / APR Attachment 1 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS ____Arizona___ TABLE 6 REPORT OF THE PARTICIPATION AND PERFORMANCE OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES ON STATE ASSESSMENTS BY CONTENT AREA, GRADE, AND TYPE OF ASSESSMENT PAGE 3 OF 18 OMB NO.: 1820-0659 FORM EXPIRES: 09/30/2007 2005-06 STATE: _______________________ SECTION B. PARTICIPATION OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES ON MATH ASSESSMENT STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES WHO TOOK OUT OF GRADE LEVEL ASSESSMENT GRADE LEVEL TOTAL (4) SUBSET WITH CHANGES TO THE ASSESSMENT THAT INVALIDATED THEIR SCORE1 (4A) SUBSET WHOSE ASSESSMENT RESULTS WERE INVALID2 (4B) 3 4 5 6 7 8 HIGH SCHOOL (SPECIFY GRADE: ___________) 1 Changes to the assessment that invalidate a score are changes in testing materials or procedures that enable a student to participate in the assessment, but result in a score that is not deemed by the State to be comparable to scores received by students without these changes. In some States these changes are called modifications or nonstandard administrations. 2 Invalid results are assessment results that cannot be used for reporting and or aggregation due to problems in the testing process (e.g. students do not take all portions of the assessment or students do not fill out the answer sheet correctly). Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) – Page 40__ Part B – SPP / APR Attachment 1 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS ____Arizona___ TABLE 6 REPORT OF THE PARTICIPATION AND PERFORMANCE OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES ON STATE ASSESSMENTS BY CONTENT AREA, GRADE, AND TYPE OF ASSESSMENT PAGE 4 OF 18 OMB NO.: 1820-0659 FORM EXPIRES: 09/30/2007 2005-06 STATE: _________ARIZONA______________ SECTION B. PARTICIPATION OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES ON MATH ASSESSMENT (CONTINUED) STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES WHO TOOK ALTERNATE ASSESSMENT GRADE LEVEL SUBSET WHOSE ALTERNATE WAS SCORED AGAINST GRADE LEVEL STANDARDS (5A) TOTAL (5) SUBSET WHOSE ALTERNATE WAS SCORED AGAINST ALTERNATE ACHIEVEMENT STANDARDS (5B) SUBSET COUNTED AT THE LOWEST ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL BECAUSE OF THE NCLB CAP 3 (5C) SUBSET WHOSE ASSESSMENT RESULTS WERE INVALID4 (5D) 3 707 NA 707 0 0 4 629 NA 629 0 0 5 683 NA 683 0 0 6 705 NA 705 0 0 7 790 NA 790 0 0 8 761 NA 761 0 0 HIGH SCHOOL (SPECIFY GRADE: ____10_______) 772 NA 772 0 0 3 NCLB cap is the limit on the percent of students whose scores can be held to alternate achievement standards in AYP calculations. 4 Invalid results are assessment results that cannot be used for reporting and or aggregation due to problems in the testing process (e.g. students do not take all portions of the assessment or students do not fill out the answer sheet correctly). Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) – Page 41__ Part B – SPP / APR Attachment 1 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS ____Arizona___ TABLE 6 REPORT OF THE PARTICIPATION AND PERFORMANCE OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES ON STATE ASSESSMENTS BY CONTENT AREA, GRADE, AND TYPE OF ASSESSMENT PAGE 5 OF 18 OMB NO.: 1820-0659 FORM EXPIRES: 09/30/2007 2005-06 STATE: ________ARIZONA_______________ SECTION B. PARTICIPATION OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES ON MATH ASSESSMENT (CONTINUED) STUDENTS WHO DID NOT TAKE ANY ASSESSMENT GRADE LEVEL PARENTAL EXEMPTIONS (6) ABSENT (7) 3 132 4 108 5 157 6 123 7 179 8 233 HIGH SCHOOL (SPECIFY GRADE: _____10______) 438 5 Provide list of other reasons for exemption with the number of students exempted by each grade and reason for exemption. Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) – Page 42__ EXEMPT FOR OTHER REASONS5 (8) Part B – SPP / APR Attachment 1 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS ____Arizona___ TABLE 6 REPORT OF THE PARTICIPATION AND PERFORMANCE OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES ON STATE ASSESSMENTS BY CONTENT AREA, GRADE, AND TYPE OF ASSESSMENT PAGE 6 OF 18 OMB NO.: 1820-0659 FORM EXPIRES: 09/30/2007 2005-06 STATE: ________ARIZONA_______________ SECTION C. PERFORMANCE OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES ON MATH ASSESSMENT REGULAR ASSESSMENT ON GRADE LEVEL (9A) GRADE LEVEL TEST NAME 1 2 3 4 Achievement Level1 Achievement Level Achievement Level Achievement Level Achievement Level Achievement Level Achievement Level Achievement Level 9A ROW TOTAL2 Achievement Level 3 AIMS 3383 2608 3405 843 10239 4 AIMS 4162 2524 3142 848 10676 5 AIMS 5067 2622 2531 517 10737 6 AIMS 6170 1839 1683 301 9993 7 AIMS 5630 1680 1598 160 9068 8 AIMS 6395 1201 1254 109 8959 HIGH SCHOOL (SPECIFY GRADE: ____10____) AIMS 5657 668 863 59 7247 LOWEST ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL CONSIDERED PROFICIENT: _________3_____________ 1 Include all students whose regular assessment score was in the lowest achievement level plus all students who received a score but changes to the assessment invalidated their score (column 3B). 2 The total number of students reported by achievement level in 9A is to equal the number reported in column 3 minus the number reported in columns 3C. Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) – Page 43__ Part B – SPP / APR Attachment 1 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS ____Arizona___ TABLE 6 REPORT OF THE PARTICIPATION AND PERFORMANCE OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES ON STATE ASSESSMENTS BY CONTENT AREA, GRADE, AND TYPE OF ASSESSMENT PAGE 7 OF 18 OMB NO.: 1820-0659 FORM EXPIRES: 09/30/2007 2005-06 STATE: _______ARIZONA________________ SECTION C. PERFORMANCE OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES ON MATH ASSESSMENT (CONTINUED) ALTERNATE ASSESSMENT ON GRADE LEVEL STANDARDS (9B) GRADE LEVEL TEST NAME Achievement Level3 Achievement Level Achievement Level Achievement Level Achievement Level Achievement Level Achievement Level Achievement Level Achievement Level 9B ROW TOTAL4 3 4 5 6 7 8 HIGH SCHOOL (SPECIFY GRADE: ________) LOWEST ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL CONSIDERED PROFICIENT: ___________________ 3 Include all students whose score on the alternate assessment on grade level standards was in the lowest achievement level plus all students who received a score but changes to the assessment invalidated their score. 4 The total number of students reported by achievement level in 9B is to equal the number reported in column 5A minus that portion of 5D that includes students whose assessment scored on grade level standards was invalid. Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) – Page 44__ Part B – SPP / APR Attachment 1 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS ____Arizona___ TABLE 6 REPORT OF THE PARTICIPATION AND PERFORMANCE OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES ON STATE ASSESSMENTS BY CONTENT AREA, GRADE, AND TYPE OF ASSESSMENT PAGE 8 OF 18 OMB NO.: 1820-0659 FORM EXPIRES: 09/30/2007 2005-06 STATE: __________ARIZONA_____________ SECTION C. PERFORMANCE OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES ON MATH ASSESSMENT (CONTINUED) ALTERNATE ASSESSMENT SCORED AGAINST ALTERNATE STANDARDS (9C) GRADE LEVEL TEST NAME F A M, E Achievement Level5 Achievement Level Achievement Level Achievement Level Achievement Level Achievement Level Achievement Level Achievement Level 9C ROW TOTAL6 Achievement Level 3 AIMS-A 249 237 220 1 707 4 AIMS-A 208 187 231 3 629 5 AIMS-A 219 205 250 9 683 6 AIMS-A 189 229 278 9 705 7 AIMS-A 187 294 291 18 790 8 AIMS-A 185 243 297 36 761 HIGH SCHOOL (SPECIFY GRADE: ___10_____) AIMS-A 169 228 338 37 772 LOWEST ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL CONSIDERED PROFICIENT: __________M____________ 5 Include all students whose assessment counted in the lowest achievement level because of the NCLB cap plus all students who received a score but changes to the assessment invalidated their score. 6 The total number of students reported by achievement level in 9C is to equal the number reported in column 4 plus the number reported in column 5B minus the number reported in columns 4B and that portion of 5D that includes students whose alternate assessment scored on alternate standards was invalid. Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) – Page 45__ Part B – SPP / APR Attachment 1 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS ____Arizona___ TABLE 6 REPORT OF THE PARTICIPATION AND PERFORMANCE OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES ON STATE ASSESSMENTS BY CONTENT AREA, GRADE, AND TYPE OF ASSESSMENT PAGE 9 OF 18 OMB NO.: 1820-0659 FORM EXPIRES: 09/30/2007 2005-06 STATE: ______ARIZONA_________________ SECTION C. PERFORMANCE OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES ON MATH ASSESSMENT (CONTINUED)* GRADE LEVEL TOTAL FOR COLUMN 9A (ON PAGE 6) TOTAL FOR COLUMN 9B (ON PAGE 7) TOTAL FOR COLUMN 9C (ON PAGE 8) 3 10239 707 223 11169 4 10676 629 210 11515 5 10737 683 226 11646 6 9993 705 230 10928 7 9068 790 313 10171 8 8959 761 357 10077 HIGH SCHOOL (SPECIFY GRADE: ___10_____) 7247 772 503 8522 NO VALID SCORE7 (10) TOTAL8 (11) 7 The number of students reported in column 10 is to equal the number reported in column 3C plus column 4B plus column 5D plus column 6 plus column 7 plus column 8. 8 The number of students reported in column 11, the row total, should equal the number of students with IEPs reported in Section A. If the number of students is not the same, provide and explanation. Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) – Page 46__ Part B – SPP / APR Attachment 1 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS ____Arizona___ TABLE 6 REPORT OF THE PARTICIPATION AND PERFORMANCE OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES ON STATE ASSESSMENTS BY CONTENT AREA, GRADE, AND TYPE OF ASSESSMENT PAGE 10 OF 18 OMB NO.: 1820-0659 FORM EXPIRES: 09/30/2007 2005-06 STATE: _____ARIZONA__________________ SECTION D. ENROLLMENT DATA FOR THE READING ASSESSMENT1 GRADE LEVEL STUDENTS WITH IEPs (1) ALL STUDENTS (2) 3 11170 80805 4 11520 81152 5 11614 80832 6 10931 80791 7 10185 80581 8 10080 80581 HIGH SCHOOL (SPECIFY GRADE: _____10______) 8670 75820 1 At a date as close as possible to the testing date. Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) – Page 47__ Part B – SPP / APR Attachment 1 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS ____Arizona___ TABLE 6 REPORT OF THE PARTICIPATION AND PERFORMANCE OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES ON STATE ASSESSMENTS BY CONTENT AREA, GRADE, AND TYPE OF ASSESSMENT PAGE 11 OF 18 OMB NO.: 1820-0659 FORM EXPIRES: 09/30/2007 2005-06 STATE: _____ARIZONA__________________ SECTION E. PARTICIPATION OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES ON READING ASSESSMENT STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES WHO TOOK REGULAR ASSESSMENT ON GRADE LEVEL ACHIEVEMENT STANDARDS GRADE LEVEL TOTAL (3) SUBSET WHO TOOK THE ASSESSMENT WITH ACCOMODATIONS (3A) SUBSET WITH CHANGES TO THE ASSESSMENT THAT INVALIDATED THEIR SCORE1 (3B) SUBSET WHOSE ASSESSMENT RESULTS WERE INVALID2 (3C) 3 10330 4995 1278 75 4 10778 5939 1391 93 5 10806 6265 1348 63 6 10100 5944 1171 96 7 9202 5310 1190 129 8 9083 5276 1066 122 HIGH SCHOOL (SPECIFY GRADE: ___10________) 7662 4852 657 257 1 Changes to the assessment that invalidate a score are changes in testing materials or procedures that enable a student to participate in the assessment, but result in a score that is not deemed by the State to be comparable to scores received by students without these changes. In some States these changes are called modifications or nonstandard administrations. 2 Invalid results are assessment results that cannot be used for reporting and or aggregation due to problems in the testing process (e.g. students do not take all portions of the assessment or students do not fill out the answer sheet correctly). Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) – Page 48__ Part B – SPP / APR Attachment 1 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS ____Arizona___ TABLE 6 REPORT OF THE PARTICIPATION AND PERFORMANCE OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES ON STATE ASSESSMENTS BY CONTENT AREA, GRADE, AND TYPE OF ASSESSMENT PAGE 12 OF 18 OMB NO.: 1820-0659 FORM EXPIRES: 09/30/2007 2005-06 STATE: _______________________ SECTION E. PARTICIPATION OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES ON READING ASSESSMENT STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES WHO TOOK OUT OF GRADE LEVEL ASSESSMENT GRADE LEVEL TOTAL (4) SUBSET WITH CHANGES TO THE ASSESSMENT THAT INVALIDATED THEIR SCORE1 (4A) SUBSET WHOSE ASSESSMENT RESULTS WERE INVALID2 (4B) 3 4 5 6 7 8 HIGH SCHOOL (SPECIFY GRADE: ___________) 1 Changes to the assessment that invalidate a score are changes in testing materials or procedures that enable a student to participate in the assessment, but result in a score that is not deemed by the State to be comparable to scores received by students without these changes. In some States these changes are called modifications or nonstandard administrations. 2 Invalid results are assessment results that cannot be used for reporting and or aggregation due to problems in the testing process (e.g. students do not take all portions of the assessment or students do not fill out the answer sheet correctly). Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) – Page 49__ Part B – SPP / APR Attachment 1 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS ____Arizona___ TABLE 6 REPORT OF THE PARTICIPATION AND PERFORMANCE OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES ON STATE ASSESSMENTS BY CONTENT AREA, GRADE, AND TYPE OF ASSESSMENT PAGE 13 OF 18 OMB NO.: 1820-0659 FORM EXPIRES: 09/30/2007 2005-06 STATE: _______ARIZONA________________ SECTION E. PARTICIPATION OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES ON READING ASSESSMENT (CONTINUED) STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES WHO TOOK ALTERNATE ASSESSMENT GRADE LEVEL SUBSET WHOSE ALTERNATE WAS SCORED AGAINST GRADE LEVEL STANDARDS (5A) TOTAL (5) SUBSET WHOSE ALTERNATE WAS SCORED AGAINST ALTERNATE ACHIEVEMENT STANDARDS (5B) SUBSET COUNTED AT THE LOWEST ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL BECAUSE OF THE NCLB CAP 3 (5C) SUBSET WHOSE ASSESSMENT RESULTS WERE INVALID4 (5D) 3 707 NA 707 0 0 4 629 NA 629 0 0 5 683 NA 683 0 0 6 705 NA 705 0 7 790 NA 790 0 0 8 761 NA 761 0 0 HIGH SCHOOL (SPECIFY GRADE: ___10________) 772 NA 772 0 0 3 NCLB cap is the limit on the percent of students whose scores can be held to alternate achievement standards in AYP calculations. 4 Invalid results are assessment results that cannot be used for reporting and or aggregation due to problems in the testing process (e.g. students do not take all portions of the assessment or students do not fill out the answer sheet correctly). Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) – Page 50__ Part B – SPP / APR Attachment 1 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS ____Arizona___ TABLE 6 REPORT OF THE PARTICIPATION AND PERFORMANCE OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES ON STATE ASSESSMENTS BY CONTENT AREA, GRADE, AND TYPE OF ASSESSMENT PAGE 14 OF 18 OMB NO.: 1820-0659 FORM EXPIRES: 09/30/2007 2005-06 STATE: _______ARIZONA________________ SECTION E. PARTICIPATION OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES ON READING ASSESSMENT (CONTINUED) STUDENTS WHO DID NOT TAKE ANY ASSESSMENT GRADE LEVEL PARENTAL EXEMPTIONS (6) ABSENT (7) 3 133 4 113 5 125 6 126 7 194 8 236 HIGH SCHOOL (SPECIFY GRADE: ______10_____) 237 5 Provide list of other reasons for exemption with the number of students exempted by each grade and reason for exemption. Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) – Page 51__ EXEMPT FOR OTHER REASONS5 (8) Part B – SPP / APR Attachment 1 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS ____Arizona___ TABLE 6 REPORT OF THE PARTICIPATION AND PERFORMANCE OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES ON STATE ASSESSMENTS BY CONTENT AREA, GRADE, AND TYPE OF ASSESSMENT PAGE 15 OF 18 OMB NO.: 1820-0659 FORM EXPIRES: 09/30/2007 2005-06 STATE: _____ARIZONA__________________ SECTION F. PERFORMANCE OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES ON READING ASSESSMENT REGULAR ASSESSMENT ON GRADE LEVEL (9A) GRADE LEVEL TEST NAME 1 2 3 4 Achievement Level1 Achievement Level Achievement Level Achievement Level Achievement Level Achievement Level Achievement Level Achievement Level 9A ROW TOTAL2 Achievement Level 3 AIMS 4003 2902 2913 437 10255 4 AIMS 4713 2993 2691 288 10685 5 AIMS 4522 3401 2606 214 10743 6 AIMS 4499 3271 2161 73 10004 7 AIMS 4111 3205 1682 75 9073 8 AIMS 4334 3001 1587 39 8961 HIGH SCHOOL (SPECIFY GRADE: ____10____) AIMS 2264 3358 1756 27 7405 LOWEST ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL CONSIDERED PROFICIENT: _________3_____________ 1 Include all students whose regular assessment score was in the lowest achievement level plus all students who received a score but changes to the assessment invalidated their score (column 3B). 2 The total number of students reported by achievement level in 9A is to equal the number reported in column 3 minus the number reported in columns 3C. Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) – Page 52__ Part B – SPP / APR Attachment 1 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS ____Arizona___ TABLE 6 REPORT OF THE PARTICIPATION AND PERFORMANCE OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES ON STATE ASSESSMENTS BY CONTENT AREA, GRADE, AND TYPE OF ASSESSMENT PAGE 16 OF 18 OMB NO.: 1820-0659 FORM EXPIRES: 09/30/2007 2005-06 STATE: _______________________ SECTION F. PERFORMANCE OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES ON READING ASSESSMENT (CONTINUED) ALTERNATE ASSESSMENT ON GRADE LEVEL STANDARDS (9B) GRADE LEVEL TEST NAME Achievement Level3 Achievement Level Achievement Level Achievement Level Achievement Level Achievement Level Achievement Level Achievement Level Achievement Level 9B ROW TOTAL4 3 4 5 6 7 8 HIGH SCHOOL (SPECIFY GRADE: ________) LOWEST ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL CONSIDERED PROFICIENT: ______________________ 3 Include all students whose score on the alternate assessment on grade level standards was in the lowest achievement level plus all students who received a score but changes to the assessment invalidated their score. 4 The total number of students reported by achievement level in 9B is to equal the number reported in column 5A minus that portion of 5D that includes students whose assessment scored on grade level standards was invalid. Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) – Page 53__ Part B – SPP / APR Attachment 1 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS ____Arizona___ TABLE 6 REPORT OF THE PARTICIPATION AND PERFORMANCE OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES ON STATE ASSESSMENTS BY CONTENT AREA, GRADE, AND TYPE OF ASSESSMENT PAGE 17 OF 18 OMB NO.: 1820-0659 FORM EXPIRES: 09/30/2007 2005-06 STATE: _______ARIZONA________________ SECTION F. PERFORMANCE OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES ON READING ASSESSMENT (CONTINUED) ALTERNATE ASSESSMENT SCORED AGAINST ALTERNATE STANDARDS (9C) GRADE LEVEL TEST NAME F A M E Achievement Level5 Achievement Level Achievement Level Achievement Level Achievement Level Achievement Level Achievement Level Achievement Level 9C ROW TOTAL6 Achievement Level 3 AIMSA 174 197 314 22 707 4 AIMSA 149 158 297 25 629 5 AIMSA 146 180 326 31 683 6 AIMSA 159 189 319 38 705 7 AIMSA 176 264 315 35 790 8 AIMSA 151 256 309 45 761 HIGH SCHOOL (SPECIFY GRADE: ___10_____) AIMSA 134 230 368 40 772 LOWEST ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL CONSIDERED PROFICIENT: _______M_______________ 5 Include all students whose assessment counted in the lowest achievement level because of the NCLB cap plus all students who received a score but changes to the assessment invalidated their score. 6 The total number of students reported by achievement level in 9C is to equal the number reported in column 4 plus the number reported in column 5B minus the number reported in columns 4B and that portion of 5D that includes students whose alternate assessment scored on alternate standards was invalid. Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) – Page 54__ Part B – SPP / APR Attachment 1 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS ____Arizona___ TABLE 6 REPORT OF THE PARTICIPATION AND PERFORMANCE OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES ON STATE ASSESSMENTS BY CONTENT AREA, GRADE, AND TYPE OF ASSESSMENT PAGE 18 OF 18 OMB NO.: 1820-0659 FORM EXPIRES: 09/30/2007 2005-06 STATE: _______ARIZONA________________ SECTION F. PERFORMANCE OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES ON READING ASSESSMENT (CONTINUED) GRADE LEVEL TOTAL FOR COLUMN 9A (ON PAGE 15) TOTAL FOR COLUMN 9B (ON PAGE 16) TOTAL FOR COLUMN 9C (ON PAGE 17) 3 10255 707 208 11170 4 10685 629 206 11520 5 10743 683 188 11614 6 10004 705 222 10931 7 9073 790 322 10185 8 8961 761 358 10080 HIGH SCHOOL (SPECIFY GRADE: __10______) 7405 772 493 8670 NO VALID SCORE7 (10) TOTAL8 (11) 7 The number of students reported in column 10 is to equal the number reported in column 3C plus column 4B plus column 5D plus column 6 plus column 7 plus column 8. 8 The number of students reported in column 11, the row total, should equal the number of students with IEPs reported in Section A. If the number of students is not the same, provide and explanation. Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) – Page 55__ Part B – SPP /APR Attachment 2 ____Arizona___ Attachment 2: Dispute Resolution Data SECTION A: Signed, written complaints (1) Signed, written complaints total (1.1) Complaints with reports issued 170 161 (a) Reports with findings 105 (b) Reports within timeline 133 (c) Reports within extended timelines 27 (1.2) Complaints withdrawn or dismissed 9 (1.3) Complaints pending 0 (a) Complaint pending a due process hearing 0 SECTION B: Mediation requests (2) Mediation requests total 40 (2.1) Mediations (a) Mediations related to due process (i) Mediation agreements (b) Mediations not related to due process (i) Mediation agreements (2.2) Mediations not held (including pending) 11 9 16 15 13 SECTION C: Hearing requests (3) Hearing requests total (3.1) Resolution sessions (a) Settlement agreements (3.2) Hearings (fully adjudicated) 46 19 11 1 (a) Decisions within timeline 0 (b) Decisions within extended timeline 1 (3.3) Resolved without a hearing 45 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) 0 0 0 0 0 – Page 56__ 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 CACM Corrective Action Compliance Monitor CAP Corrective Action Plan CSPD Comprehensive System of Personnel Development CTE Career and Technical Education DEC Division of Early Childhood ECE Early Childhood Education ESS Exceptional Student Services FAPE Free appropriate public education FFY Federal Fiscal Year Group B Arizona Funding Category for Significant Disabilities IDEA The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act IDEAL Integrated Data to Enhance Arizona’s Learning IEP Individualized Education Program IT Information Technology LRE Least restrictive environment MPRRC Mountain Plains Regional Resource Center NASDSE National Association of State Directors of Special Education Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2010 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 01/31/2006) – Page 57__ Part B – SPP / APR Attachment 3 ____Arizona___ NCCRESt APBSI participants National Center for Culturally Responsive Education Systems NCLB No Child Left Behind Act NCSEAM National Center for Special Education Accountability and Monitoring NIMAC National Instructional Materials Accessibility Standard NIMAS National Instructional Materials Accessibility Center OAH Office of Administrative Hearings OSEP Office of Special Education Programs/U.S. Department of Education PEA Public Education Agency PINS Parent Information Network Specialist PSO Post School Outcome RTI Response to Intervention SAIS Student Accountability Information System SEAP Special Education Advisory Panel SFY State Fiscal Year SIG State Improvement Grant SSPD School Safety and Prevention Division 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) – Page 58__ The Arizona Department of Education of the State of Arizona does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, disability, religion, sexual orientation or age in its programs, activities or in its hiring and employment practices The following division has been designated to handle inquiries regarding the non-discrimination policies: Administrative Services 1535 W. Jefferson Phoenix, AZ 85007 Phone: (602) 542-3186 Fax: (602) 542-3073