Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 State of Arizona Department of Education Office of John Huppenthal Superintendent of Public Instruction Arizona FFY 2005–2012 State Performance Plan for Special Education FFY 2011 Revision Highly Effective Schools Division Exceptional Student Services 1535 West Jefferson, Phoenix, AZ 85007 http://www.azed.gov/ February 15, 2013 Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 1 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 Arizona FFY 2005–2012 State Performance Plan For Special Education FFY 2011 Revision Submitted To The Office of Special Education Programs United States Department of Education Highly Effective Schools Division Exceptional Student Services Angela Denning Deputy Associate Superintendent 602-542-4013 essdesk@azed.gov http://www.azed.gov/special-education/ February 15, 2013 Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 2 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 Table of Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 4 Indicator 1: Graduation Rates................................................................................................................. 6 Indicator 2: Dropout Rates .................................................................................................................... 12 Indicator 3: Assessments ..................................................................................................................... 17 Indicator 4A: Suspension and Expulsion .............................................................................................. 36 Indicator 4B: Suspension and Expulsion by Race or Ethnicity ............................................................. 47 Indicator 5: School Age LRE ................................................................................................................ 52 Indicator 6: Preschool LRE ................................................................................................................... 60 Indicator 7: Preschool Outcomes ......................................................................................................... 63 Indicator 8: Parent Involvement ............................................................................................................ 73 Indicator 9: Racial / Ethnic Disproportionality ....................................................................................... 80 Indicator 10: Racial / Ethnic Disproportionality by Disability................................................................. 88 Indicator 11: Evaluation Timelines........................................................................................................ 95 Indicator 12: Early Childhood Transition ............................................................................................ 101 Indicator 13: Secondary Transition ..................................................................................................... 107 Indicator 14: Post School Outcomes .................................................................................................. 123 Indicator 15: Effective General Supervision ....................................................................................... 143 Indicator 18: Resolution Session Effectiveness ................................................................................. 155 Indicator 19: Mediation Agreements ................................................................................................... 159 Indicator 20: State Reported Data ...................................................................................................... 163 Attachment 1: Sample Parent Involvement Survey ............................................................................ 169 Attachment 2: Dispute Resolution Baseline Data............................................................................... 173 Attachment 3: List of Acronyms and Terms ....................................................................................... 174 Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 3 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 The Arizona Part B State Performance Plan for Special Education FFY 2011 Revision Introduction The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 2004 established a requirement that all States develop and submit to the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), a performance plan designed to advance the State from its current level of compliance with the statutory and regulatory requirements of the law and to improve the educational and functional outcomes for children with disabilities. The State plan must encompass baseline data, projected targets, and activities to achieve those targets. The State is required to submit an annual report in the years following the submission of the performance plan to inform OSEP and the public on the progress toward meeting those goals. This document fulfils the first step of that process—the State Performance Plan (SPP). FFY 2011 Update to the State Performance Plan The Arizona Department of Education/Exceptional Student Services (ADE/ESS) revised the State Performance Plan (SPP) in conjunction with the submission of the FFY 2011 Annual Performance Report (APR) due February 15, 2013. The revised SPP has, for each Indicator, annual targets and improvement activities for each year through FFY 2012. Included in the FFY 2011 Revision are baseline data, target data, and new improvement activities for Indicator 6, and baseline data and target data for Indicator 7 and Indicator 14. Targets, improvement activities, timelines, and resources were reviewed. The ADE/ESS sought input from the Special Education Advisory Panel (SEAP) and from education personnel in the field regarding the new SPP indicators and changes to the SPP. Various individuals and groups offered suggestions about indicators related to their fields of interest. The revised State Performance Plan (SPP) will be available on the ADE/ESS Web site at http://www.azed.gov/special-education/resources/spp-apr/ under the menu labeled State Performance Plan, beginning on February 15, 2013. The title of the SPP is Arizona State Performance Plan FFY 2005-2012 Revised FFY 2011. The annual public reports list the performance of each school district and charter school in Arizona on the SPP targets. These reports will be available on the ADE/ESS Web site at http://www.azed.gov/special-education/resources/ under the menu labeled School Year 2011–12 Public Reports, within 120 days of the February 15, 2013 submission of the APR. Overview of the State Performance Plan (SPP) Development The Arizona State Performance Plan was drafted internally by staff within the Arizona Department of Education, Exceptional Student Services (ADE/ESS), and presented to the Special Education Advisory Panel (SEAP) for consideration and input. The specific tasks requested of the SEAP by the ADE/ESS were:  To consider baseline and trend data for each indicator when such information was available;  To assist in determining appropriate targets for each indicator in which a target was required for the SPP;  To review the planned activities, timelines, and resources and provide input into the likely efficacy of the strategies proposed; Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 4 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012  To suggest additional approaches for the ADE/ESS to consider including in the planned activities. Arizona maintains accountability systems for all public education agencies in the State including state-supported institutions, charter schools, school districts, and secure care facilities. Therefore, throughout this document, the term public education agency (PEA) will be used to reflect all of these iterations of educational institutions. Stakeholder Involvement In addition to the input process undertaken with the SEAP, ADE/ESS discussed and sought input to the SPP process, indicators, and activities at regional meetings of special education administrators and statewide conferences. Special focus groups provided input on some unique indicators related to their areas of interest, and their participation is noted in this report as part of the specific indicator(s). Mountain Plains Regional Resource Center (MPRRC) and the Data Accountability Center (DAC) assisted the agency in the development of appropriate baselines, targets, and improvement planning. Dissemination Following the submission of the State Performance Plan to the U.S. Department of Education, ADE/ESS will post the final version on the agency Web site and will alert constituency groups of its availability via existing electronic mailing lists. Hard copies will be provided to all SEAP members and any individual making a request for one. Hard copies also will be made available for public review at each of the ADE/ESS offices—Phoenix, Tucson, and Flagstaff. Public notice about the availability of the SPP will be made on the ADE/ESS listserv and in a press release to major Arizona newspapers. Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 5 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE Indicator 1: Graduation Rates Percent of youth with IEPs graduating from high school with a regular diploma. (20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A)) Measurement: States must report using the graduation rate calculation and timeline established by the Department under the ESEA. Overview of Issue / Description of System or Process Arizona uses a four-year cohort. Any student who receives a traditional high school diploma within the first four years of starting high school is considered a four-year graduate. A four-year rate is calculated by dividing the sum of all four-year graduates in a cohort by the sum of those who should have graduated and did not transfer to another qualified educational facility or die. Students who receive a diploma in the summer after their fourth year are included as part of the graduation cohort. This calculation of the graduation rate does not include dropouts as transfer students or those who obtain a Graduate Equivalent Diploma (GED). The graduation data are reported by the public education agencies (PEAs) through the Student Accountability Information System (SAIS), a Web-based system for reporting all student-level details to the Arizona Department of Education. The graduation data are analyzed by the Arizona Department of Education’s Accountability Division/Research and Evaluation Section (ADE/R & E) and the Information Technology Division (IT). The same graduation rate calculation is used and it is the same data as reported to the U.S. Department of Education under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Act (ESEA). Baseline Data for FFY 2004 (2004–2005) 2004 Graduates Graduation Rate of All Students Graduation Rate of Students with Disabilities 68.5% [N = 55,798 / 81,475] 60.2% [N = 4,592 / 7,634] Discussion of Baseline Data FFY 2005 is the first year that the ADE can compare the graduation rates of students with and without disabilities. However, the graduation rate of students with disabilities as reflected in the OSEP § 618 data tables has been relatively stable over the last five years and is quite close to the rate calculated for students with disabilities using SAIS data. Arizona offers only one graduation/diploma option and that option is available to all students. Beginning in January 2006, a requirement to “pass” the statewide assessment—known as Arizona’s Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 6 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 Instrument to Measure Standards or AIMS—went into effect. During the 2005 session of the Arizona legislature, advocates successfully lobbied for a statutory change that allows students with disabilities to graduate without passing the AIMS unless their IEP teams have determined they must pass. A second bill was enacted that establishes a system whereby all students can improve their AIMS status by attaining good grades and completing appropriate high school courses. Therefore, beginning with the graduating class of 2006, students with disabilities are able to graduate and obtain a regular high school diploma after completing the required course work in one of the following ways: 1. Taking and passing all portions of the high school AIMS with or without accommodations; 2. Taking and passing some or all portions of the AIMS under the “extra credit” for course grades; 3. Taking, but being exempt from passing, some or all portions of the AIMS through an IEP team decision. It is anticipated that the requirement to pass the AIMS for all students except those with disabilities will temporarily reduce the graduation rate for students without disabilities and may improve the rate for students with disabilities. The long-term impact of the legislative decision will be studied by the Arizona Department of Education and reported through the State’s Annual Performance Report. FFY Measurable and Rigorous Targets 2005 (2005–2006) 2006 (2006–2007) 2007 (2007–2008) 2008 (2008–2009) 2009 (2009–2010) 2010 (2010–2011) 2011 (2011–2012) 2012 (2012–2013) 61% 62.5% 63% 64.5% 80% 80% 80% 80% Beginning in FFY 2009, Arizona’s single, statewide graduation rate is 80%. When the 80% target is not achieved, then the target the following year is an improvement of two percentage points. Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 7 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources Progress on improvement activities is reported in the Arizona Annual Performance Report. Improvement Activities Timelines Resources 1. Change of statute to allow students with disabilities (SWD) to graduate without passing AIMS if the IEP team determines it is appropriate to do so. Spring 2005 Arizona Legislature 2. Creation and implementation of guidance re: AIMS requirements for SWD. Fall 2005–winter 2006 ADE Administration ESS leadership SEAP 3. Continuation of the grade-level instruction and assessment initiative. Fall 2005 and continuing ADE Assessment Section ESS specialists SIG Reading specialists 4. Implementation of an Assistive Technology (AT) Initiative. Summer 2005 and continuing ADE/ESS AT specialist Outreach Trainings AT Training and Support Contract 5. Passage of the Arizona Textbook Accessibility statute and development of regulatory requirements. Spring 2005–fall 2006 Arizona Legislature AZ Board of Education ESS leadership and AT specialist 6. Training and implementation for Improvement Activity # 5. Spring 2006 and continuing ESS specialists 7. Collaboration with Arizona State University (ASU) for Web-based support for students and teachers—Integrated Data to Enhance Arizona’s Learning (IDEAL) portal for K–12 learning. Fall 2006 and continuing ADE leadership 8. Increased training and monitoring for effective transition plans and progress reporting. Fall 2006 and continuing ESS staff ESS AT specialist ASU Instructional Technology Project ESS transition specialists Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 8 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 Improvement Activities 9. Initiation of support for high schools with low graduation rates to offer expanded work study programs and community placements. Timelines Fall 2007 continuing Resources ADE Dropout Prevention Unit Career and Technical Education Section (CTE) ESS transition specialists Vocational Rehabilitation 10. Modification of statewide calculation of graduation rates for students with/without disabilities via SAIS cohort approach. Fall 2007–winter 2008 Research and Policy staff 11. Investigation of strategies to allow students who were dropped from rolls to reenroll during the same semester. Summer 2008– winter 2009 ADE Legislative Team Information Technology (IT) / Student Accountability Information System (SAIS) staff State Board of Education ADE Dropout Prevention Unit ESS leadership 12. Revision of the SPP/APR baseline, targets, and activities to reflect revised graduation calculations. Spring 2008 ESS staff 13. Investigate “carve out” programs with Career and Technical Education (CTE) to provide specialized training opportunities for students with more significant disabilities. Fall 2008 ESS leadership 14. Coordinate with the SAIS staff to modify the reporting of SWD to eliminate the double 1 reporting requirement for year-end status. Winter 2007 for implementation in fall 2008 CTE leadership ESS leadership SAIS staff The following is a new improvement activity for FFY 2007. Primary Activity (GOAL) 1) Provide training to PEAs on effective transition services to increase graduation rate of students with disabilities 1 Sub-Activities (Objectives or Action Steps) a) Develop a strategic plan to provide training and follow-up technical assistance to PEAs b) Implement statewide plan for training and technical assistance to PEAs Timeline Complete Projected Resources (Planned) 10/1/08 – 2/1/09 ADE/ESS Transition Specialists 2/1/09 – 6/30/11 ADE/ESS Transition Specialists New activity added FFY 2005. Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 9 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 The following are revised and new improvement activities for FFY 2010, and for FFY 2011 and FFY 2012 for the revised SPP. Primary Activity (GOAL) 1) Revise, implement, and evaluate a comprehensive plan for training PEAs to increase compliance with postsecondary requirements related to Indicator 13 2) Provide a twoyear capacity building grant to participate in the Sub-Activities (Objectives or Action Steps) a) On an annual basis, identify PEAs in Years 2 and 3 of the monitoring cycle through collaboration with ESS specialists b) On an annual basis, review, revise (if necessary), and implement the comprehensive training plan, emphasizing the eight required components of Indicator 13 c) On an annual basis, create and disseminate information through a variety of sources: annual statewide conference, monitoring alerts, Web site, and listserv announcements d) On an annual basis, analyze preand post-training data collected through the Annual Site Visit Log (ASVL) for each PEA to determine level of compliance on all eight required components of Indicator 13 a) On an annual basis, identify PEAs who met grant eligibility Timeline Complete Projected Resources (Planned) 7/1/106/30/13 ADE/ESS Transition Specialists ADE/ESS Program Specialists 7/1/106/30/13 ADE/ESS Transition Specialists 7/1/106/30/13 ADE/ESS Transition Specialists 7/1/106/30/13 ADE/ESS Transition Specialists ADE/ESS Program Specialists 7/1/106/30/13 ADE/ESS Transition Specialists ADE/ESS Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 10 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 Secondary Transition Mentoring Project (STMP) Team Training requirements and extend invitations to participate in STMP trainings b) On an annual basis, provide indepth and ongoing professional development on transition requirements and best practices c) On an annual basis, analyze preand post-training data collected during STMP trainings for each PEA that participated to determine level of compliance on all eight required components of Indicator 13 Program Specialists 7/1/106/30/13 ADE/ESS Transition Specialists 7/1/106/30/13 ADE/ESS Transition Specialists Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 11 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE Indicator 2: Dropout Rates Percent of youth with IEPs dropping out of high school. (20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A)) Measurement: States must report using the dropout data used in the ESEA graduation rate calculation and follow the timeline established by the Department under the ESEA. Overview of Issue / Description of System or Process For purposes of calculating and reporting a dropout rate, Arizona uses the annual event school dropout rate for students leaving a school in a single year determined in accordance with the National Center for Education Statistics’ (NCES) Common Core of Data. Consistent with this requirement, Arizona uses NCES’ definition of high school dropout, defined as an individual who: 1) was enrolled in school at some time during the previous school year; and 2) was not enrolled at the beginning of the current school year; and 3) has not graduated from high school or completed a state- or district-approved educational program; and 4) does not meet any of the following exclusionary conditions: a) transfer to another public school district, private school, or stateor district-approved educational program (including correctional or health facility programs); b) temporary absence due to suspension or school-excused illness; or c) death. Dropout rates are calculated for grades 9 through 12. The same definition and methodology for dropout rates apply to all students in Arizona. The dropout data are reported by the public education agencies (PEAs) through the Student Accountability Information System (SAIS), a Web-based system for reporting all student-level details to the Arizona Department of Education. The dropout data are analyzed by the Arizona Department of Education’s Accountability Division/Research and Evaluation Section (ADE/R & E). FFY 2005 Update to Baseline Data The need to adjust the FFY 2004 baseline data is predicated on an adjustment to the formula used by the ADE to calculate the dropout rate for all youth. End of summer status, i.e., students who do not return to school after the summer break, is captured in the new baseline thereby increasing the dropout rate. Adjusted Baseline Data for FFY 2005 (2005–2006) Youth Status All Youth Youth in Special Education FFY 2005 (Adjusted Baseline) 6.32% [N = 22,765 / 360,420] 5.44% Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 12 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 [N = 659 / 12,123] Discussion of Baseline Data A grade-by-grade comparison of dropout rates in FFY 2004 for students with disabilities compared to all students reveals that, while there is some variability between the rates at all grades, the largest differences occur during the 11th and 12th grade years. The dropout rate for students with disabilities is significantly higher during the junior year and the dropout rate for all students is significantly higher during the senior year. Table 1 indicates the dropout rates during FFY 2004 for students with and without disabilities in the grades with significant differences between groups. Table 2.1: Junior / Senior Percent Dropout Rates FFY 2004 Year Students with Disabilities All Students Junior 7.16% 5.35% Senior 5.77% 7.94% The comparison of dropout rates by ethnicity shows that, for the most part, the dropout rate of students with disabilities does not differ substantially from that of all students within their ethnic group, as only white students with disabilities drop out at a rate greater than 1% higher than all white students. FFY Measurable and Rigorous Targets 2005 5.59% (2005–2006) Baseline and subsequent targets adjust due to changes in calculation method 2006 (2006–2007) 2007 (2007–2008) 2008 (2008–2009) 2009 (2009–2010) 2010 (2010–2011) 2011 (2011–2012) ≤ 5.50% ≤ 5.40% ≤ 5.30% ≤ 5.20% ≤ 5.10% ≤ 5.00% Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 13 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 2012 (2012–2013) ≤ 4.90% Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources Progress on improvement activities is reported in the Arizona Annual Performance Report. Improvement Activities Timelines Resources 1. See Improvement Activities under Indicator #1, Activities 1–12. 2. Identify agencies with notably high dropout rates for SWD compared to rates for all students and require 2 PEA analysis of causes. Fall 2006 ESS Data and Program staff 3. Identify agencies with high dropout rates for junior 3 SWD and develop support programs. Winter 2007 ESS Data and Program staff 4. Support the development of improvement plans for agencies identified with high dropout rates. Fall 2007 and continuing ESS specialists 5. Include inquiry on the post-school outcomes study on 4 why a student dropped out of school. Fall 2007 and continuing ESS transition specialists ADE Dropout Prevention staff ESS programmers 6. Collaborate with ADE Dropout Prevention Unit, Arizona Technology Access Program (AzTAP), and Vocational Rehabilitation for dissemination of dropout prevention information. Spring 2008 and continuing ESS transition specialists 7. Increase student awareness of post-school support services during their sophomore year of school. Fall 2008 and continuing ESS transition specialists 8. Examine the impact of the change in IDEA moving the required transition planning from age 14 to age 16. Fall 2009 ESS transition specialists ADE Research and Evaluation The following is a new improvement activity for FFY 2007. 2 This activity has been eliminated as of FFY 2006 because comparison with all students is no longer required. This activity has been eliminated as of FFY 2006 as the longitudinal data do not support the original premise that juniors dropout at a higher rate than do seniors. 4 This activity has been discontinued as of FFY 2007 as the dropout reasons were not included in the original survey; baseline data has already been collected. 3 Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 14 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 Primary Activity (GOAL) 1) Provide training to PEAs on effective transition services to increase graduation rate of students with disabilities Sub-Activities (Objectives or Action Steps) a) Develop a strategic plan to provide training and follow-up technical assistance to PEAs b) Implement statewide plan for training and technical assistance to PEAs Timeline Complete Projected Resources (Planned) 10/1/08 – 2/1/09 ADE/ESS Transition Specialists 2/1/09 – 6/30/11 ADE/ESS Transition Specialists The following are revised and new improvement activities for FFY 2010, and for FFY 2011 and FFY 2012 for the revised SPP. Primary Activity (GOAL) 1) Revise, implement, and evaluate a comprehensive plan for training PEAs to increase compliance with postsecondary requirements related to Indicator 13 Sub-Activities (Objectives or Action Steps) a) On an annual basis, identify PEAs in Years 2 and 3 of the monitoring cycle through collaboration with ESS specialists b) On an annual basis, review, revise (if necessary), and implement the comprehensive training plan, emphasizing the eight required components of Indicator 13 c) On an annual basis, create and disseminate information through a variety of sources: annual statewide conference, monitoring alerts, Web site, and listserv announcements d) On an annual basis, analyze preand post-training data collected through the Annual Timeline Complete Projected Resources (Planned) 7/1/106/30/13 ADE/ESS Transition Specialists ADE/ESS Program Specialists 7/1/106/30/13 ADE/ESS Transition Specialists 7/1/106/30/13 ADE/ESS Transition Specialists 7/1/106/30/13 ADE/ESS Transition Specialists ADE/ESS Program Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 15 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 2) Provide a twoyear capacity building grant to participate in the Secondary Transition Mentoring Project (STMP) Team Training Site Visit Log (ASVL) for each PEA to determine level of compliance on all eight required components of Indicator 13 a) On an annual basis, identify PEAs who met grant eligibility requirements and extend invitations to participate in STMP trainings b) On an annual basis, provide indepth and ongoing professional development on transition requirements and best practices c) On an annual basis, analyze preand post-training data collected during STMP trainings for each PEA that participated to determine level of compliance on all eight required components of Indicator 13 Specialists 7/1/106/30/13 ADE/ESS Transition Specialists ADE/ESS Program Specialists 7/1/106/30/13 ADE/ESS Transition Specialists 7/1/106/30/13 ADE/ESS Transition Specialists Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 16 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE Indicator 3: Assessments Participation and performance of children with IEPs on statewide assessments: A. Percent of the districts with a disability subgroup that meets the State’s minimum “n” size that meet the State’s AYP/AMO targets for the disability subgroup. B. Participation rate for children with IEPs. C. Proficiency rate for children with IEPs against grade level, modified and alternate academic achievement standards. (20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A)) Measurement A. (choose either A.1 or A.2) A.1 AYP percent = [(# of districts with a disability subgroup that meets the State’s minimum “n” size that meet the State’s AYP targets for the disability subgroup) divided by the (total # of districts that have a disability subgroup that meets the State’s minimum “n” size)] times 100. A.2 AMO percent = [(# of districts with a disability subgroup that meets the State’s minimum “n” size that meet the State’s AMO targets for the disability subgroup) divided by the (total # of districts that have a disability subgroup that meets the State’s minimum “n” size)] times 100. B. Participation rate percent = [(# of children with IEPs participating in an assessment) divided by the (total # of children with IEPs enrolled during the testing window, calculated separately for reading and math)]. The participation rate is based on all children with IEPs, including both children with IEPs enrolled for a full academic year and those not enrolled for a full academic year. C. Proficiency rate percent = ([(# of children with IEPs scoring at or above proficient against grade level, modified and alternate academic achievement standards) divided by the (total # of children with IEPs who received a valid score and for whom a proficiency level was assigned, and, calculated separately for reading and math)]. The proficiency rate includes both children with IEPs enrolled for a full academic year and those not enrolled for a full academic year. Overview of Issue / Description of System or Process Arizona’s statewide assessment system is called Arizona’s Instrument to Measure Standards (AIMS). AIMS is a standards based assessment and measures student proficiency of the Arizona academic content standards in mathematics, reading, writing, and science. Science is not included in the graduation requirement. The alternate assessment is called Arizona’s Instrument to Measure Standards Alternate (AIMS A). It is a standards based measurement and measures student proficiency of the Arizona alternate academic standards in mathematics, reading, and science. AIMS A is designed for students with significant cognitive disabilities. Students in grades 3 through 8 and high school participate in all statewide assessments. The AIMS and AIMS A data are used to determine AMO and to report participation and performance. The State uses four categories to classify the proficiency status of students (the FAME scale): Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 17 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012  Falls Far Below the Standard (F) (considered failing)  Approaches the Standard (A) (considered failing)  Meets the Standard (M) (considered passing)  Exceeds the Standard (E) (considered passing) Students who met the standard (M) or exceeded the standard (E) are counted as proficient. The ADE/R & E Section and the IT Division analyze the assessment data. It is the same data as reported to the U.S. Department of Education under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Act (ESEA). FFY 2004 (2004–2005) The grades tested for FFY 2004 were 3rd through 8th, and 10th. The AIMS assessments were changed significantly for FFY 2004 when the State moved to a dual-purpose assessment for grades 3–8 (AIMS DPA). By incorporating selected items from the Terra Nova achievement test into the AIMS for these grades, nationally-normed information can be provided to parents and schools and the time devoted to testing during the school year can be reduced. With the advent of the new test, new cut scores were determined and, in some cases, lowered. For FFY 2004, passing scores for students with disabilities were the same as for all other students. The number of PEAs meeting the State’s AYP objectives for progress for disability subgroup was calculated on the number of PEAs having a total count of students with disabilities of >40, which is the same number used for the determination of AYP for all other students. The baseline data reported for participation and performance on the State assessment (Table 2) includes all students with disabilities who took either the AIMS (with or without standard accommodations) or the AIMS-A. Baseline Data for FFY 2004 (2004–2005) AYP Rates for PEAs with SWD: 22.7% [N = 15 / 66] Adjusted Baseline Data for FFY 2005 (2005–2006) Arizona did not calculate and report FFY 2004 AYP rates for the special education subgroup by curriculum area in the State Performance Plan submitted in March 2006. These data were calculated for FFY 2005 and are reported in the amended State Performance Plan submitted in February 2007. AYP Rate for PEAs with SWD—Math AYP Rate for PEAs with SWD—Reading AYP Rate for PEAs with SWD—Overall 18.92% [N = 14 / 74] 16.22% [N = 12 / 74] 12.16% [N = 9 / 74] Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 18 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 Table 3.1: Participation and Performance Rates by Test Condition for FFY 2004 (2004–2005) Grade level a) Enrolled b) No Accommodations c) Accommodated Administration Totals d) e) Alternate Assessment 0 # % # % # # % # % Math Participation 73,649 24,179 32.8 41,175 55.9 4,521 6.1 69,875 94.9 Reading Participation 74,281 22,459 30.2 43,228 58.2 4,521 6.1 70,208 94.5 Math Performance 73,649 10,353 14.1 6,767 9.2 1,606 2.2 18,726 25.4 Reading Performance 74,281 9,857 13.3 8,166 11.0 2,094 2.8 20,117 27.1 Discussion of Baseline Data With the exception of 3rd grade reading, all grades showed substantial improvement over the FFY 2003 scores on the AIMS test for students with disabilities. The rate of the increase is believed to be unusual and difficult to repeat (Figures 3.1 and 3.2). Possible explanations for the increases lie in the rapidly changing face of assessment for students with disabilities in light of the testing and reporting requirement of the No Child Left Behind Act. The development of the new AIMS DPA and new cut scores is most likely responsible for a substantial portion of the year-to-year increase. However, in FFY 2003, Arizona eliminated out-of-grade-level testing and limited the use of nonstandard accommodations for students with disabilities. Therefore, during that year many students were assessed on materials on which they had not previously received instruction and in a manner unfamiliar to them. The improvement of scores in FFY 2004 may be an artifact of changing the tests and requiring instructional approaches and accommodations to catch up to the dictates of the federal statute. Figures 3.1 and 3.2 illustrate the change over time in the reading and math scores of children with disabilities in selected grades on the general statewide assessment. Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 19 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 Figure 3.1: Math Proficiency by Grade and Year for FFY 2003–2005 Percent Proficient Math Proficiency 100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 FFY 03 FFY 04 FFY 05 FFY 03 FFY 04 FFY 05 3rd 29.0 39.6 43.0 5th 14.0 28.2 30.0 8th 3.0 15.8 16.0 10th 6.0 25.4 16.0 Figure 3.2: Reading Proficiency by Grade and Year for FFY 2003–2005 Percent Proficient Reading Proficiency 100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 FFY 03 FFY 04 FFY 05 FFY 03 FFY 04 FFY 05 3rd 34.0 34.2 36.0 5th 17.0 30.1 29.0 8th 10.0 20.0 20.0 10th 17.0 27.1 25.0 Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 20 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 FFY Measurable and Rigorous Targets—Amended 3A - AYP Attainment Percentage Overall Baseline 2004 2005 (2005–2006) 2006 (2006–2007) 2007 (2007–2008) 2008 (2008–2009) 2009 (2009–2010) 2010 (2010–2011) 2011 (2011–2012) 2012 (2012–2013) Math 3B - Math Participation Percentage 3B - Reading Participation Percentage 3C - Math Proficiency Percentage 3C Reading Proficiency Percentage 94.9 94.5 25.4 27.1 Reading 22.7 23.0 18.92 16.22 95 5 95 26.0 35.0 23.5 19.0 16.5 95 95 35.0 40.0 24.0 19.2 16.75 95 95 40.0 45.0 24.5 19.5 17.0 95 95 45.0 50.0 25.0 20.0 17.5 95 95 refer to chart below refer to chart below 25.5 20.5 18.0 95 95 refer to chart below refer to chart below 26 95 95 refer to chart below refer to chart below 26.5 95 95 refer to chart below refer to chart below The targets for Indicator 3C (below) for FFY 2009 and FFY 2010 are the same as the State’s ESEA targets, as reported in Arizona’s Accountability Workbook, revised July 6, 2010. Measurable and Rigorous Targets for Indicator 3C - Mathematics Proficiency Grades 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 FFY 2009 53% 50% 44% 43% 44% 44% 48% 5 Targets adjusted to 95% to align with NCLB requirements. Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 21 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 FFY 2010 65% 63% 58% 57% 58% 58% 61% Measurable and Rigorous Targets for Indicator 3C - Reading Proficiency Grades 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 FFY 2009 62.6% 56% 54.6% 56% 59.2% 54% 48.6% FFY 2010 71.9% 67% 65.9% 67% 69.4% 65.5% 61.4% The following are proposed targets for Indicator 3C for FFY 2011 and FFY 2012 for the revised SPP. The targets are the same as the State’s ESEA targets, as reported in Arizona’s Accountability Workbook, revised July 6, 2010. Measurable and Rigorous Targets for Indicator 3C - Mathematics Proficiency Grades 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 FFY 2011 77% 75% 72% 72% 72% 72% 74% FFY 2012 88% 88% 86% 86% 86% 86% 87% Measurable and Rigorous Targets for Indicator 3C - Reading Proficiency Grades 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 FFY 2011 81.2% 78% 77.2% 78% 79.6% 77% 74.2% FFY 2012 90.5% 89% 88.5% 89% 89.8% 88.5% 87% FFY 2011 Revision The following are the mathematics and reading Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs) as given in the State of Arizona ESEA Flexibility Request, dated July 13, 2012, which is the current Arizona Accountability Workbook. The mathematics and reading AMOs are the new AMOs established by the ADE that increase in annual equal increments and result in 100% proficiency no later than the end of school year 2019-2020. Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs) by Grade and Subject Grades Mathematics Reading 3 4 5 69% 66% 64% 77% 76% 80% 6 7 61% 63% 82% 83% Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 22 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 8 10 56% 63% 73% 79% Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources Progress on improvement activities is reported in the Arizona Annual Performance Report. Improvement Activities Timelines Resources 1. Expand ESS Reading Initiative through Reading First and the Arizona State Improvement Grant (SIG) Goal 3. Summer 2005 SIG reading specialists 2. Provide school-wide improvement assistance for agencies under NCLB sanctions. Fall 2005 and continuing ADE School Improvement staff 3. Revise monitoring procedures to require agencies with below average reading achievement scores for SWD to complete a root cause analysis and improvement plan. Fall 2005 and continuing ESS Monitoring Team 4. Develop and validate the Arizona alternate assessment against grade level standards and curriculum. Winter 2006– winter 2008 ADE Reading First section ADE-sponsored intervention teams ESS specialists MPRRC ADE leadership ADE assessment staff ESS specialists 5. Create a response to intervention (RTI) specialist position to assist agencies in building capacity for early intervention. Winter 2006 ESS leadership 6. Establish a statewide procedure for agencies electing to use RTI as an identification strategy for special education. Winter 2006– summer 2006 ESS leadership RTI specialist Comprehensive System of Personnel Development (CSPD) Director MPRRC 7. Investigate critical components of the Arizona State Standards and AIMS assessment structure and provide guidance to the field on those elements. Spring 2006 8. Disseminate information about AT and accessible textbooks available for general class use and test participation. Spring 2006 and continuing ESS leadership International Center for Leadership in Education ESS AT specialist ESS specialists Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 23 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 Improvement Activities Timelines Resources 9. Conduct trainings on modifications/accommodations in grade level curriculum content areas. Fall 2006 and continuing ESS specialists 10. Promote the use of the Web-based AIMS practice/formative assessment to identify areas of student weakness and guide 6 instruction. Fall 2006 and continuing ESS specialists 11. Research service delivery models for ensuring highly qualified teachers for children with disabilities in the areas of math and reading. Summer 2006 ESS CSPD 12. Conduct training on research-based instructional strategies for diverse learners. Fall 2007 ESS specialists 13. Notify PEAs of federal changes related to the authority of IEP teams to permit non7 standard accommodations on State tests. Fall 2007 14. Develop a special education information source similar to the current “School Report Cards” that will provide parents of students with disabilities access to performance information. Summer 2008 15. Revise monitoring procedures to require agencies with below average math achievement scores for SWD to complete a root cause analysis and improvement plan. Summer 2008 16. Investigate the provision of grants to PEAs to equip classrooms for universal design for learning to improve performance on assessments for all students. Summer 2008 ESS leadership 17. Investigate the provision of incentives to teachers who are responsible for and who 8 produce improved results in students. Summer 2009 ESS leadership CSPD specialists ADE IDEAL Web portal CSPD specialists ADE Assessment unit ESS staff ADE research staff ESS programming staff ADE IT staff ESS Monitoring Team ESS specialists ADE procurement 6 This activity is eliminated as of FFY 2007 as ESS is working with other ADE divisions to enhance the IDEAL portal. New for FFY 2006. 8 This activity is discontinued as of FFY 2007 as PEAs institute policies regarding incentives for teachers. 7 Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 24 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 Improvement Activities 18. Develop and implement math initiative to provide professional development in the strategies of teaching mathematics and implement the RTI model for mathematics 9 in the identified schools. Timelines Summer 2007 and continuing Resources ESS CSPD staff ADE Math team The following are new improvement activities targeting mathematics proficiency for FFY 2007. Primary Activity (GOAL) 1) Year 1 – 100% of Arizona Students Achieving Mathematics Academy (ASAMA) Year 1 and 2 teams will increase mathematics proficiency rate to 50% in the number strand for students with IEPs as determined by AIMS third grade data 2) Year 2 – 100% of ASAMA Year 1 and 2 teams will increase mathematics proficiency rate to 50% in the data analysis/probability/di screte math, algebra/patterns/funct ions, geometry/measurem ent, and structure/logic strands for students with IEPs as determined by AIMS third grade data 9 Sub-Activities (Objectives or Action Steps) a) 100% of ASAMA teachers will implement number and number operation strategies for all students including students with disabilities as determined by student work b) 100% of ASAMA teams will demonstrate the ability to develop a lesson outline utilizing Arizona Mathematics Standard objectives with the Star framework as determined by Star Model entry points a) 100% of ASAMA teachers will implement data analysis/probability/discr ete math, algebra/patterns/function s, geometry/measurement, and structure/logic strategies for all students including students with disabilities as determined by student work b) 100% of ASAMA teams will demonstrate the ability to develop a lesson outline utilizing Arizona Mathematics Timeline Complete Projected 9/1/08 – 6/30/11 9/1/08 – 6/30/10 Resources (Planned) Comprehe nsive System of Personnel Developme nt Staff Cognitively Guided Instruction Comprehe nsive System of Personnel Developme nt Staff 9/1/08 – 6/30/11 Comprehe nsive System of Personnel Developme nt Staff Cognitively Guided Instruction 9/1/08 – 6/30/10 Comprehe nsive System of Personnel Developme New for FFY 2007. Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 25 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 3) Year 1 and 2 100% of ASAMA Year 1 and 2 teams will increase or maintain Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) as indicated by third grade AIMS data for the disability subgroup Standard objectives with the Star framework as determined by Star Model entry points c) 100% of ASAMA teams will develop a professional learning community plan to maintain sustainability of mathematics instruction as determined by professional learning community criteria a) 100% of ASAMA teachers will implement number and number operation strategies for all students including students with disabilities as determined by student work b) 100% of ASAMA teachers will implement data analysis/probability/discr ete math, algebra/patterns/function s, geometry/measurement, and structure/logic strategies for all students including students with disabilities as determined by student work c) 100% of ASAMA teachers will use fact automaticity assessment data to determine mathematical strategy instruction of basic facts for all students including students with IEPs as determined by screening and progress monitoring graph data d) 100% of ASAMA teachers will demonstrate ability to develop a classroom learning station plan based on screening data as determined by nt Staff 9/1/08 – 6/30/11 Comprehe nsive System of Personnel Developme nt Staff 9/1/08 – 6/30/11 Comprehe nsive System of Personnel Developme nt Staff Cognitively Guided Instruction Comprehe nsive System of Personnel Developme nt Staff Cognitively Guided Instruction 9/1/08 – 6/30/11 9/1/08 – 6/30/11 Comprehe nsive System of Personnel Developme nt Staff 9/1/08 – 6/30/10 Comprehe nsive System of Personnel Developme nt Staff Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 26 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 learning station criteria e) 100% of ASAMA teachers will demonstrate ability to develop a Student, Environment, Task, Technology (SETT) plan for one student as determined by the SETT framework criteria f) 100% of ASAMA teams will demonstrate ability to develop an action plan to improve mathematics instruction for all students including students with IEPs as determined by action plan criteria 9/1/08 – 6/30/10 Comprehe nsive System of Personnel Developme nt Staff 9/1/08 – 6/30/11 Comprehe nsive System of Personnel Developme nt Staff The following are new improvement activities targeting reading proficiency for FFY 2007. Primary Activity (GOAL) 1) Year 1 and 2 – Systemic Change in Reading (SCR) teams will increase proficiency rate to 50% 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 as determined by AIMS 2) Year 1 – 100% of Systemic Change in Reading Year 1 teams will increase reading proficiency rate to 50% in phonics, phonemic Sub-Activities (Objectives or Action Steps) a) 100% of Systemic Change in Reading Year 2 will increase reading proficiency rate to 50% in comprehension and vocabulary for students with IEPs as determined by AIMS third grade data b) 100% of Systemic Change in Reading teachers will analyze classroom data to determine instructional needs for all students including students with IEPs as determined by curriculum-based measurement data a) 100% of Systemic Change in Reading teachers will implement phonics, phonemic awareness, and fluency strategies for all students including Timeline Complete Projected Resources (Planned) 6/1/08 – 6/30/11 Comprehe nsive System of Personnel Developme nt Staff 6/1/08 – 6/30/11 Comprehe nsive System of Personnel Developme nt Staff 6/1/08 – 6/30/10 Comprehe nsive System of Personnel Developme nt Staff Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 27 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 awareness, and fluency for students with IEPs as determined by AIMS third grade data 3) Year 2 - 100% of Systemic Change in Reading Year 2 teams will increase reading proficiency rate to 50% in comprehension and vocabulary for students with IEPs as determined by AIMS third grade data students with IEPs as determined by student work b) 100% of Systemic Change in Reading teachers will implement phonics, phonemic awareness, and fluency strategies of differentiated instructional practices for all students and accommodations and modifications for students with IEPs as determined by student work a) 100% of Systemic Change in Reading teachers will implement comprehension and vocabulary strategies for all students including students with IEPs as determined by student work b) 100% of Systemic Change in Reading teachers will implement comprehension and vocabulary strategies of differentiated instructional practices for all students and accommodations and modifications for students with IEPs as determined by student work 6/1/08 – 6/30/10 Comprehe nsive System of Personnel Developme nt Staff 6/1/08 – 6/30/10 Comprehe nsive System of Personnel Developme nt Staff 6/1/08 – 6/30/10 Comprehe nsive System of Personnel Developme nt Staff The following are revised improvement activities for mathematics for FFY 2008. Mathematics: The following are revised improvement activities for the Arizona Students Achieving Mathematics Academy (ASAMA) project. As ESS reviewed the current improvement activities, it was determined that revised activities (below) would better measure the ASAMA teams’ progress toward helping students reach higher levels of mathematics achievement. Primary Activity (GOAL) 1) By the end of Year 1, teams will increase mathematics Sub-Activities (Objectives or Action Steps) a) Provide mathematics training in number, operations, structure, Timeline Complete Projected 9/1/09 – 6/30/11 Resources (Planned) CSPD Staff Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 28 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 proficiency rate for students with IEPs, as determined by third grade AIMS data. 2) By the end of Year 2, teams will increase mathematics proficiency rate for students with IEPs, as determined by third grade AIMS data. 3) By the end of Year 1 and 2, teams will increase mathematics proficiency rate for students with IEPs, as determined by third grade AIMS data. and logic through the Arizona Students Achieving Mathematics Academy (ASAMA). b) Collect and analyze third grade AIMS data by strand. a) Provide mathematics training in connecting number and operations to data analysis/ probability/discrete math strand, algebra/patterns/function s strand, geometry/measurement strand, and structure/logic strand through the Arizona Students Achieving Mathematics Academy. b) Collect and analyze third grade AIMS data by strand. a) Provide training in the use of SETT (Student, Environment, Task, Tools) Process and the Star Model (ASAMA’s model that demonstrates five strategies to differentiate math lessons) to improve accessibility of mathematics and enhance mathematics instruction. b) Provide training in creating a professional learning community that will help teams collaborate, analyze data, make instructional decisions, continue learning and/ or create a school-wide professional development plan. 9/1/09 – 6/30/11 CSPD Staff 9/1/09 – 6/30/11 CSPD Staff 9/1/09 – 6/30/11 CSPD Staff 9/1/09 – 6/30/11 CSPD Staff 9/1/09 – 6/30/11 CSPD Staff The following are revised improvement activities for reading for FFY 2008. Reading: The following are revised improvement activities for the Systemic Change in Reading (SCR) project. After ESS reviewed the report and data from FFY 2008 for SCR, it was determined that the same data was collected at several points due to repetition of the sub-activities within the Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 29 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 improvement activities. The activities were revised (below) to condense the sub-activities and analyze the data by strands within the Arizona Academic Standards. This will allow the SCR team to analyze the outcomes of specific training sessions. Primary Activity (GOAL) Sub-Activities (Objectives or Action Steps) Timeline Complete Projected 1) By the end of Year 2, the Systemic Change in Reading (SCR) teams will increase proficiency rate to 50% for children with IEPs as determined by third grade AIMS data. 2) By the end of Year 2, the Systemic Change in Reading Teams will increase reading proficiency rate in phonemic awareness, and fluency (Strand 1) for students with IEPs as determined by third grade AIMS data. a) Provide reading training through the Systemic Change in Reading. b) Collect and analyze third grade AIMS reading data. 9/1/09 – 6/30/11 a) Provide reading training in phonemic awareness, phonics, and fluency through the Systemic Change in Reading team trainings. b) Collect and analyze third grade phonics and fluency strand data on the AIMS. 9/1/09 – 6/30/11 3) By the end of year 2 Systemic Change in Reading teams will increase proficiency rate in comprehension and vocabulary (Strands 2 and 3) for students with IEPs as determined by third grade AIMS data. a) Provide reading training comprehension and vocabulary strand through Systemic Change in Reading. b) Collect and analyze third grade Comprehension and Vocabulary data on the AIMS. 9/1/09 – 6/30/11 Results (Complete d) Or Resources (Planned) CSPD Staff 95% Group 9/1/09 – 6/30/11 CSPD Staff 95% Group CSPD Staff 95% Group 9/1/09 – 6/30/11 CSPD Staff 95% Group CSPD Staff 95% Group 9/1/09 – 6/30/11 CSPD Staff 95% Group The following are improvement activities for FFY 2010, and for FFY 2011 and 2012 for the revised SPP. Primary Activity (GOAL) Sub-Activities (Objectives or Action Steps) Timeline Complete Projected Resources (Planned) Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 30 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 1) Increase opportunities for training in mathematics strategies to public education agency (PEA) special education personnel and distribute resource information in reading 2) Increase opportunities for training in reading strategies to public education agency (PEA) special education personnel and distribute resource information in reading a) Conduct mathematics strategy trainings annually at the Directors Institute for special education personnel from school districts and charter schools b) Compile mathematics strategy and resource information c) Disseminate mathematics strategy and resource information through the Arizona Promising Practices Web site at www.azpromisingpractice s.com, the ESS listserv, and ESS/CSPD trainings a) Represent ESS at the RTI meetings with other ADE divisions b) Conduct reading strategy trainings annually at the Directors Institute for special education personnel from school districts and charter schools c) Compile reading strategy and resource information d) Disseminate reading strategy and resource information through the Arizona Promising Practices Web site at www.azpromisingpractice s.com, the ESS listserv, and ESS/CSPD trainings 7/1/116/30/13 CSPD Staff 7/1/116/30/13 CSPD Staff 7/1/116/30/13 CSPD Staff 7/1/106/30/13 CSPD Staff 7/1/116/30/13 CSPD Staff 7/1/116/30/13 CSPD Staff 7/1/116/30/13 The following are new improvement activities for FFY 2011. Primary Activity (Goal) 1) By the end of FFY 2012, teams will increase their content knowledge of scientific-based research strategies for mathematics Sub-Activities (Objectives or Action Steps) a) Teams will learn and use a cyclical process of screening, content strategies, data analysis, collaboration of student need, and will implement student specific strategies. Timeline Complete Projected 9/1/11– 6/30/13 Resources (Planned) CSPD Staff Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 31 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 instruction for grades K-2 students with IEPs through Special Education Using Mathematics for School Improvement Project (SUMS) 2) By the end of FFY 2012, teams will increase their content knowledge of scientific-based research strategies for mathematics instruction for grades 3-5 students with IEPs through Special Education: Achieving Success in Mathematics (SEAS-Math) Each team will have a coach during the training sessions to assist with the team processes. Measurement will be team effectiveness data. b) Apply the 2010 Arizona mathematics standards using the Mathematics Processes that enable students with IEPs to become fluent in mathematics as reflected in classroom observation protocol visits and various assessments c) Track and analyze data of students with IEPs over time using AIMS data and other assessment data provided by the schools d) Analyze teacher pre- and post-assessment data to determine continuity of learning and instruction a) Teams will learn and use a cyclical process of screening, content strategies, data analysis, collaboration of student need, and will implement student specific strategies. Each team will have a coach during the training sessions to assist with the team processes. Measurement will be team effectiveness data. b) Apply the 2008 Arizona mathematics standards and make connections to the 2010 Arizona mathematics standards using the Mathematics Processes that enable students with IEPs to become more fluent in mathematics as reflected in classroom observation protocol visits and various assessments 9/1/11– 6/30/13 CSPD Staff 9/1/11– 6/30/13 CSPD Staff 9/1/11– 6/30/13 CSPD Staff 9/1/11– 6/30/13 CSPD Staff 9/1/11– 6/30/13 CSPD Staff Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 32 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 3) By the end of FFY 2012, teams will increase their content knowledge of scientific-based research strategies for mathematics instruction for grades 7-12 students with IEPs through Dimensions of Algebra 4) Middle school teams participating in Passages: Achieving Success in Reading training will receive training that when implemented will result in an increased proficiency rate of th 8 grade students c) Track and analyze data of students with IEPs over time using AIMS data and other assessment data provided by the schools d) Analyze teacher pre- and post-assessment data to determine continuity of learning and instruction a) Provide training in algebraic strategies for students with IEPs that will enable them to access mathematics from a concrete model to abstract model 9/1/11– 6/30/13 CSPD Staff 9/1/11– 6/30/13 CSPD Staff 9/1/11– 6/30/13 CSPD Staff b) Apply data analysis processes from various types of assessments to differentiate instruction for students with IEPs c) Provide a networking format for middle school and high school teachers to meet the transitional needs of students with IEPs as they move from middle school to high school d) Track and analyze data of students with IEPs over time using AIMS data and other assessment data provided by the schools e) Analyze teacher pre- and post-assessment data to determine continuity of learning and instruction a) Conduct Passages training for special education teachers and reading specialists 9/1/11– 6/30/13 CSPD Staff 9/1/11– 6/30/13 CSPD Staff 9/1/11– 6/30/13 CSPD Staff 9/1/11– 6/30/13 CSPD Staff 10/1/11– 6/30/13 Comprehensive System of Personnel Development capacity building grants for qualifying schools and CSPD staff CSPD reading specialist Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 33 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 with IEPs Presenter for “Passages” Research on improving reading for students with IEPs in middle school 5) High school teams participating in Passages: Achieving Success in Reading training will receive training that when implemented will result in an increased proficiency rate of th 10 grade students with IEPs b) Provide training on assessing and diagnosing student needs to guide instruction/intervention c) Provide instructional strategy training in the areas of word study, vocabulary, and comprehension d) Provide site-based technical assistance to participating schools to offer feedback and support in implementation of new strategies e) Collect progress monitoring student data throughout training to determine effectiveness of strategies f) Provide capacity building coaching support to each team to increase team effectiveness during training sessions a) Conduct Passages training for special education teachers and reading specialists 10/1/11– 6/30/13 CSPD capacity building coaches Same 10/1/11– 6/30/13 Same 10/1/11– 6/30/13 Same 10/1/11– 6/30/13 Same 10/1/11– 6/30/13 Same 10/1/11– 6/30/13 Comprehensive System of Personnel Development capacity building grants for qualifying schools and CSPD staff CSPD reading specialist Presenter for “Passages” Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 34 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 Research on improving reading for students with IEPs high school b) Provide training on assessing and diagnosing student needs to guide instruction/intervention c) Provide instructional strategy training in the areas of word study, vocabulary, and comprehension d) Provide site-based technical assistance to participating schools to offer feedback and support in implementation of new strategies e) Collect progress monitoring student data throughout training to determine effectiveness of strategies f) Provide capacity building coaching support to each team to increase team effectiveness during training sessions 10/1/11– 6/30/13 CSPD capacity building coaches Same 10/1/11– 6/30/13 Same 10/1/11– 6/30/13 Same 10/1/11– 6/30/13 Same 10/1/11– 6/30/13 Same Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 35 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE Indicator 4A: Suspension and Expulsion Percent of districts that have a significant discrepancy in the rate of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year for children with IEPs. (20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A); 1412 (a)22)) Measurement Percent = [(# of districts that have a significant discrepancy in the rates of suspensions and expulsions for greater than 10 days in a school year of children with IEPs) divided by the (# of districts in the State)] times 100. Include State’s definition of “significant discrepancy.” If the State used a minimum “n” size requirement, the State must report the number of districts excluded from the calculation as a result of this requirement. Overview of Issue / Description of System or Process The data are reported by the PEAs through the Arizona Safety Accountability for Education (AZ SAFE) application. The data are the same as the data reported under section 618, Table 5 (Report of Children with Disabilities Subject to Disciplinary Removal). The Child Count data are the same as the State’s data reported under section 618, Table 1, Report of Children with Disabilities Receiving Special Education Under Part B of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. The ADE/ESS assures the validity and reliability of the AZ SAFE data through the Annual Special Education Data Collection, which uses internal edit checks. The State requires an assurance from the PEAs through the submission of a signed verification form attesting to the validity of the data. Definition of Significant Discrepancy and Methodology Arizona uses Statistical Analysis Software (SAS) to calculate rates of suspension and expulsion for children with IEPs. Arizona uses the state bar method to determine significant discrepancy. The State rate of suspensions/expulsions greater than 10 days for all students with IEPs is 0.65%. The State bar, 5.65%, is five percentage points greater than the State rate. A district or charter school has significant discrepancy when its suspension/expulsion rate greater than 10 days for students with IEPs is 5.65% or greater. There must be at least 50 students in the denominator of a suspension/expulsion rate for that district or charter school to be flagged as having significant discrepancy. The denominator represents the overall special education enrollment at the district or charter school. Previously, Arizona used a minimum “n” size of 10 students in the numerator. In other words, at least 10 students with IEPs had to be suspended/expelled for greater than 10 days for a PEA to be identified as having significant discrepancy. However, due to new guidance from the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) and the Data Accountability Center (DAC) in the September 2011 technical assistance guide, Arizona decided to use a minimum “n” size in the denominator and, as a result, exclude fewer PEAs from the calculation. Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 36 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 Arizona compares the rates of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year for students with IEPs among PEAs in the State. Baseline Data for FFY 2004 (2004–2005) A) 1.64% of the PEAs in Arizona had suspension rates of greater than 5% of their population of special education students [N = 9 / 549] B) New Indicator—No baseline established Additional Baseline Data for FFY 2005 (2005–2006) 10 B) 1.86% of the PEAs in Arizona had suspension rates of greater than 5% of their population of special education students in any racial/ethnic group [N = 10 / 549] Discussion of Baseline Data The change in Arizona’s definition of significant discrepancy makes longitudinal analysis unfeasible for FFY 2004; however, a review of the change over time in suspension/expulsion rates sheds light on the reason for the change in definition. Figure 3 illustrates the rapid decline in the number of education agencies with rates over 10% of their special education population from FFY 2000 through FFY 2004. Figure 4.1: Suspension Rate Decline over Time Number of PEAs Numbers of PEAs with Suspension Rates >10% 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Rate >10% Rate >10% Log. (Rate >10%) FFY 2000 FFY 2001 FFY 2002 FFY 2003 FFY 2004 FFY 2005 FFY 2006 39 32 15 10 8 5 1 Arizona had nine education agencies that met the FFY 2004 definition of significant discrepancy. The range for the percent of these suspensions > 5% was from 5.14% to 27.27% of the special education population. It should be noted that out of the 549 reporting agencies, 439 reported no suspensions of 10 This indicator component has been suspended by OSEP as of the FFY 2006 submission. Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 37 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 students with disabilities for more than 10 days. The statewide average was 2.4%. A total of 907 students with disabilities were suspended for more than 10 days during FFY 2004. FFY 2005 Revision to Indicator 4 Arizona used the same definition of significant discrepancy when analyzing suspension data by race/ethnicity. Ten PEAs had at least one cell that met the > 5% of the SWD population and more than two students suspended. FFY 2006 (2006–2007) 2007 (2007–2008) 2008 (2008–2009) 2009 (2009–2010) 2010 (2010–2011) 2011 (2011–2012) 2012 (2012–2013) Measurable and Rigorous Targets Measurable and Rigorous Targets 4A 4B 1.55% 1.50% 1.40% 1.35% 0% 1.30% 0% 1.25% 0% 1.20% 0% FFY 2007 Update to the State Performance Plan Arizona revised the definition of significant discrepancy for suspensions/expulsions for FFY 2007. The revised definition is a rate above 5% of the special education population with 10 or more students suspended, with an annual review of the data to determine if there is a significant discrepancy for each PEA. Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources Progress on improvement activities is reported in the Arizona Annual Performance Report. Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 38 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 Improvement Activities Timelines Resources 1. Identify agencies with suspension rates of SWD > 5% and require these agencies to analyze data reporting procedures and comparison rates with nondisabled students and to identify proactive initiatives to reduce suspension rates. Fall 2005 and continuing ESS Data staff 2. Increase Arizona Positive Behavior Support Initiative (APBSI) participation among schools in Arizona. Fall 2005 and continuing ESS CSPD staff 3. Refer PEAs with high suspension rates for SWD to the technical assistance opportunities sponsored by ESS and School Safety and Prevention. Winter 2006 and continuing ESS specialists 4. Collaborate with the leadership of the School Safety and Prevention Division (SSPD) to expand the data analysis capabilities of the APBSI to schools beyond those currently enrolled. Winter 2006– winter 2008 ADE SSPD staff 5. Approach the Arizona School Boards Association and Arizona School Administrators Association to collaborate on the training of school administrators on IDEA requirements. Fall 2006 and continuing ESS leadership 6. Promote the review of IEPs for functional behavioral assessments and behavior intervention plans beginning with any suspension that brings a student’s total days to 1112 five or more in a school year. Fall 2007 ESS leadership 7. Cross train School Safety and Prevention, CSPD, and ESS specialists on common discipline initiatives. Winter 2007 ESS specialists APBSI participating universities APBSI ESS leadership ADE IT Programmers ESS Monitoring Team and specialists ADE SSPD staff APBSI participants ESS leadership 8. Continue the development and implementation of uniform data gathering procedures for all reporting agencies. Fall 2007 and continuing ADE SSPD staff 9. Develop and distribute to PEAs a model disciplinary process that includes the requirements for students with disabilities and guidelines for all students. Summer 2007 ADE SSPD staff 11 12 ESS Data staff ESS leadership ESS CSPD staff Revised language for FFY 2007. This activity is discontinued as of FFY 2007 because IEPs are reviewed by ESS specialists on a regular basis. Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 39 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 Improvement Activities 10. Collaborate with universities to increase the exposure to classroom management strategies for preservice teachers. Timelines Fall 2008 Resources ESS CSPD leadership ADE SSPD leadership ADE Discipline Initiative University Teacher Preparation Programs 11. Train PEA staff on disability specific behaviors and appropriate interventions. Fall 2008 ESS specialists ESS CSPD staff APBSI participants 12. Provide additional training for middle and high school principals on positive behavior supports and the APBSI option. Fall 2008 ESS CSPD staff Arizona School Administrators Association APBSI participating universities 13. Require PEAs with high suspension rates to develop alternatives to suspension. Summer 2009 ESS leadership 14. In conjunction with SSPD staff, train security officers for PEAs in positive behavior supports 13 and the APBSI project. Fall 2009 ESS CSPD staff 15. Study the appropriateness of amending the criteria for significance from an N count of > 2 to 14 an N count of > 4. Fall 2007 ESS leadership 16. Identify agencies with suspension rates of SWD by race/ethnicity > 5% and require these agencies to analyze data reporting procedures and comparison rates with nondisabled students and to identify proactive initiatives to reduce suspension rates within the discrepant 15 group(s). Fall 2007 and continuing ESS Data staff ADE SSPD staff ESS specialists The following are new improvement activities for FFY 2007. Primary Activity (GOAL) Sub-Activities (Objectives or Action Steps) Timeline Complete Projected Resources (Planned) 13 This activity is discontinued as of FFY 2007 because it is the PEAs that would send security officers to trainings. New activities 15 and 16 in FFY 2005. 15 This activity is discontinued as of FYY 2007 because the suspension/expulsion data is used within the monitoring system to identify PEAs and to require an analysis. 14 Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 40 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 1) By the end of two years of training with Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports of Arizona (PBISAz), at least 70% of PBISAz teams will implement School-wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (SW-PBIS) with fidelity as measured by a score of 80% on the Arizona Implementation Checklist 2) Arizona High Achievement for All (AHAA) Year 1 schools will complete all tasks to establish the solid basis for the decrease of suspension/expulsion rates to less than 5% a) Year 2 - Between baseline data collection and the end of the second year of PBISAz training, PBISAz teams will decrease office discipline referrals by 10% for all students and 5% for students with IEPs as measured by the final PBISAz Quarterly Report data b) Year 2 - Between baseline data collection and the end of the second year of PBISAz training, PBISAz teams will decrease suspensions/expulsions by 15% for all students and 5% for students with IEPs as measured by end-of-year data submitted to ADE c) Year 2 - Between baseline data collection and the end of the second year of PBISAz training, PBISAz teams will decrease suspensions/expulsions over 10 days by 15% for all students and 5% for students with IEPs as measured by end-ofyear data submitted to ADE a) Collection of baseline data on suspensions/expulsions for all students and students with disabilities b) Collection of baseline data on office referrals for all students and students with disabilities 8/1/09 – 6/30/10 PBISAz Coordinato rs AZ Implement ation Checklist Quarterly Reports 8/1/09 – 6/30/10 PBISAz Coordinato rs AZ Implement ation Checklist ADE data 8/1/09 – 6/30/10 PBISAz Coordinato rs AZ Implement ation Checklist ADE data 9/1/08 – 6/30/10 c) Collection of ending data on suspensions/expulsions for all students and students with 9/1/08 – 6/30/10 Comprehe nsive System of Personnel Developme nt Staff Comprehe nsive System of Personnel Developme nt Staff Comprehe nsive System of Personnel Developme 9/1/08 – 6/30/10 Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 41 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 disabilities 3) AHAA Year 2 schools will decrease the suspension/expulsion rate greater than 10 days for students with disabilities to less than 5% nt Staff d) Collection of ending data on office referrals for all students and students with disabilities 9/1/08 – 6/30/10 e) Aggregation and disaggregation of data collected for all students and students with disabilities on impact of the AHAA project on suspensions/expulsions , office referrals, and academic performance a) Collection of baseline data on suspensions/expulsions for all students and students with disabilities b) Collection of baseline data on office referrals for all students and students with disabilities 9/1/08 – 6/30/11 c) Collection of ending data on suspensions/expulsions for all students and students with disabilities d) Collection of ending data on office referrals for all students and students with disabilities 9/1/08 – 6/30/10 e) Aggregation and disaggregation of data collected for all students and students with disabilities on impact of the AHAA project on suspensions/expulsions , office referrals, and academic performance 9/1/08 – 6/30/11 9/1/08 – 6/30/10 9/1/08 – 6/30/10 9/1/08 – 6/30/10 Comprehe nsive System of Personnel Developme nt Staff Comprehe nsive System of Personnel Developme nt Staff Comprehe nsive System of Personnel Developme nt Staff Comprehe nsive System of Personnel Developme nt Staff Comprehe nsive System of Personnel Developme nt Staff Comprehe nsive System of Personnel Developme nt Staff Comprehe nsive System of Personnel Developme nt Staff Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 42 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 The following are revised improvement activities for FFY 2008. The following are revised improvement activities for #2 and #3. Revisions to the improvement activities are necessary because the AHAA program no longer collects academic performance data; targeted Year 1 and Year 2 teams are specified; and an activity regarding Team Implementation Portfolio is added. Primary Activity (GOAL) 2) Arizona High Achievement for All (AHAA) Year 1 Siete schools will complete all tasks to establish the solid basis for the decrease of suspension/expulsion rates to less than 5%. Sub-Activities (Objectives or Action Steps) a) Collection of ending data on suspensions/expulsions for all students and students with disabilities for Siete Year 1 teams by 6/30/10. b) Collection of ending data on office referrals for all students and students with disabilities for Siete Year 1 teams by 6/30/10. c) Aggregation and disaggregation of data collected for all students and students with disabilities on the impact of the AHAA project on suspensions/expulsions and office referrals will be analyzed and reported on by 6/30/2011 for Siete Year 1 teams. d) Team Implementation Portfolios will be completed by all Siete Year 1 school teams to demonstrate continuous team activities on site to implement training of staff with AHAA materials, differential reinforcement (check in/check out), and accommodation planning for diverse Timeline Complete Projected 9/1/09 – 6/30/10 Resources (Planned) CSPD Staff School Principals 9/1/08 – 6/30/10 CSPD Staff School Principals 9/1/08 – 6/30/11 CSPD Staff School Teams 10/7/09 – 6/30/11 CSPD Staff School Teams AHAA Director Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 43 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 3) AHAA Year 2 Seis schools will decrease the suspension/ expulsion rate greater than 10 days for students with disabilities to less than 5 %. learners, including students with IEPs. Reporting will be 6/30/2011. a) Collection of ending data on suspensions/expulsions for all students and students with disabilities for Seis Year 2 teams by 6/30/10. b) Collection of ending data on office referrals for all students and students with disabilities for Seis Year 2 teams by 6/30/10. c) Aggregation and disaggregation of data collected for all students and students with disabilities on the impact of the AHAA project on suspensions/expulsions and office referrals will be analyzed and reported on by 6/30/11. d) Team Implementation Portfolios will be completed by all school teams to demonstrate continuous team activities on site to implement training of staff with AHAA materials, differential reinforcement (check in/check out), and accommodation planning for diverse learners, including students with IEPs. Reporting will be 6/30/2011. 9/1/08 – 6/30/10 CSPD Staff School Principals 9/1/08 – 6/30/10 CSPD Staff School Principals 9/1/08 – 6/30/11 CSPD Staff School Teams 10/7/09 – 6/30/11 CSPD Staff School Teams AHAA Director The following are new improvement activities for FFY 2010, and for FFY 2011 and FFY 2012 for the revised SPP. Primary Activity Sub-Activities Timeline Resources Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 44 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 (GOAL) 1) Conduct trainings related to the discipline process for students with disabilities 2) Provide support for PEAs that are flagged as at risk for significant discrepancy, defined as those PEAs that suspend or expel five or more students with IEPs for more than 10 days and those suspended or expelled students were greater than 3% of its special education population 3) Provide support for PEAs that are flagged for significant discrepancy, defined as those PEAs that suspend or expel 10 or more students with IEPs for more than 10 days and those suspended or expelled students were greater than 5% of its special education population (Objectives or Action Steps) a) Conduct semi-annual Principal Institutes in the three main geographical regions of the State b) Disseminate “Special Education Handbook for Principals, A Quick Reference for Law Related Issues” to participants at the Principals Institutes a) Analyze data on an annual basis to flag PEAs that are at risk for significant discrepancy Complete Projected (Planned) 7/1/116/30/13 CSPD Staff 7/1/116/30/13 CSPD Staff 7/1/106/30/13 ADE/ESS Directors ADE/ESS Program Specialists ADE/ESS Data Manageme nt Specialist ADE/ESS Directors ADE/ESS Program Specialists ADE/ESS Directors ADE/ESS Program Specialists ADE/ESS Directors ADE/ESS Program Specialists ADE/ESS Directors ADE/ESS Program Specialists b) Notify PEAs on an annual basis that are flagged as at risk for significant discrepancy 7/1/106/30/13 c) Provide assessment tools and resources to conduct a root cause analysis to PEAs that are flagged as at risk a) Notify PEAs on an annual basis that are flagged for significant discrepancy 7/1/106/30/13 b) Provide technical assistance to PEA staff during their review of policies, procedures, and practices 7/1/106/30/13 7/1/106/30/13 The following are revised improvement activities for FFY 2011 due to the new definition of significant discrepancy. Primary Activity (GOAL) Sub-Activities (Objectives or Action Steps) Timeline Complete Projected Resources (Planned) Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 45 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 1) Provide support for PEAs that are flagged as at risk for significant discrepancy 2) Provide support for PEAs that are flagged for significant discrepancy a) On an annual basis, analyze data to flag PEAs that are at risk for significant discrepancy 7/1/11– 6/30/13 b) On an annual basis, notify PEAs that are flagged as at risk for significant discrepancy 7/1/11– 6/30/13 c) Provide assessment tools and resources to PEAs that are flagged as at risk to conduct root cause analyses 7/1/11– 6/30/13 a) On an annual basis, notify PEAs that are flagged for significant discrepancy 7/1/11– 6/30/13 b) Provide technical assistance to PEA staff during their review of policies, procedures, and practices 7/1/11– 6/30/13 Suspensio n/expulsion Data ADE/ESS Directors and Program Specialists ADE/ESS Directors and Program Specialists ADE/ESS Directors and Program Specialists Resource Tools and Lists ADE/ESS Directors and Program Specialists ADE/ESS Directors and Program Specialists Resource Tools and Lists Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 46 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE Indicator 4B: Suspension and Expulsion by Race or Ethnicity Percent of districts that have: (a) a significant discrepancy, by race or ethnicity, in the rate of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year for children with IEPs; and (b) policies, procedures or practices that contribute to the significant discrepancy and do not comply with requirements relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards. (20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A); 1412 (a)(22)) Measurement Percent = [(# of districts that have: (a) a significant discrepancy, by race or ethnicity, in the rates of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year of children with IEPs; and (b) policies, procedures or practices that contribute to the significant discrepancy and do not comply with requirements relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards) divided by the (# of districts in the State)] times 100. Overview of Issue / Description of System or Process The data are reported by the PEAs through the Arizona Safety Accountability for Education (AZ SAFE) application. The data are the same as the data reported under section 618, Table 5 (Report of Children with Disabilities Subject to Disciplinary Removal). The Child Count data are the same as the State’s data reported under section 618, Table 1, Report of Children with Disabilities Receiving Special Education Under Part B of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. The ADE/ESS assures the validity and reliability of the AZ SAFE data through the Annual Special Education Data Collection, which uses internal edit checks. The State requires an assurance from the PEAs through the submission of a signed verification form attesting to the validity of the data. Definition of Significant Discrepancy and Methodology Arizona uses Statistical Analysis Software (SAS) to calculate rates of suspension and expulsion by race or ethnicity for children with IEPs. Arizona uses the state bar method to determine significant discrepancy. The State rate of suspensions/expulsions greater than 10 days for all students with IEPs is 0.65%. The State bar, 5.65%, is five percentage points greater than the State rate. Any district or charter school that suspends or expels 5.65% or more of its students with IEPs of a given race/ethnicity for more than 10 days is flagged for significant discrepancy. There must be at least 50 students in the denominator of a suspension/expulsion rate for that district or charter school to be flagged as having significant discrepancy. The denominator represents the special education enrollment at the district or charter school for a given race/ethnicity. Previously, Arizona used a minimum “n” size of 10 students in the numerator. In other words, at least 10 students with IEPs of a particular racial/ethnic group had to be suspended/expelled for greater than 10 days for a PEA to be identified as having significant discrepancy. However, due to new guidance from the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) and the Data Accountability Center Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 47 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 (DAC) in the September 2011 technical assistance guide, Arizona decided to use a minimum “n” size in the denominator and, as a result, exclude fewer PEAs from the calculation. Arizona compares the rates of suspension and expulsion of greater than 10 days in a school year for students with IEPs among PEAs in the State. FFY Measurable and Rigorous Targets 2009 (using 20082009 data) 2010 (using 20092010 data) 2011 (using 20102011 data) 2012 (using 20112012 data) 0% 0% 0% 0% Baseline Data for FFY 2009 (using 2008-2009 data) 0.0% Discussion of Baseline Data for FFY 2009 (using 2008-2009 data) Baseline data was calculated using the total number of PEAs in Arizona in FFY 2009 in the denominator (590). Arizona examined the PEAs’ data for each racial and ethnic category for suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days, and excluded PEAs with less than 10 students suspended or expelled for greater than 10 days. Using this minimum “n” size of 10, Arizona excluded 115 PEAs from the list of identified PEAs with significant discrepancy. The results of the calculation identified three PEAs with significant discrepancy by race or ethnicity. 4B (a). PEAs with Significant Discrepancy, by Race or Ethnicity, in Rates of Suspension and Expulsion Year Total Number of PEAs* Number of PEAs that have Significant Discrepancies by Race or Ethnicity Percent of PEAs FFY 2009 (using 2008-2009 data) 590 3 0.51% *Arizona included the total number of PEAs in the State in the denominator Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 48 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 4B (b). PEAs with Significant Discrepancy, by Race or Ethnicity, in Rates of Suspensions and Expulsions; and policies, procedures or practices that contribute to the significant discrepancy and do not comply with requirements relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards. Year Total Number of PEAs* Number of PEAs that have Significant Discrepancies, by Race or Ethnicity, and policies, procedures or practices that contribute to the significant discrepancy and do not comply with requirements relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards. FFY 2009 (using 2008-2009 data) 590 0 Percent of PEAs 0.00% *Arizona included the total number of PEAs in the State in the denominator Review of Policies, Procedures, and Practices for FFY 2009 (using 2008-2009 data) The State reviewed the policies, procedures, and practices of the PEAs related to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards by June 30, 2010, in accordance with 34 CFR § 300.170(b). Arizona identified three PEAs with significant discrepancy for race or ethnicity using 2008-2009 data. Arizona required the PEAs to have special education policies and procedures in compliance with all regulatory requirements prior to having Part B-IDEA Basic Entitlement Grant funds approved by the ADE/ESS. The PEAs were required to resubmit the discipline policies and procedures for review by ESS program specialists to determine if they were in alignment with the requirements of 34 CFR § 300.530 through § 300.536. The practices of the PEAs were reviewed by means of a self assessment. The PEAs conducted an assessment of their discipline practices, which consisted of a series of questions requiring narrative responses and a review of student files using the State’s monitoring forms. ADE/ESS specialists conducted on-site visits and/or desk audits during the self assessment to validate the decisions made by the PEAs during the file reviews. Upon completion of the self assessment, the PEAs had the option to begin immediately revising their policies, procedures, and practices related to the discipline process and to correct all self-identified noncompliance. The ESS specialists then interviewed the special education administrators and reviewed student files via on-site visits and/or desk audits to verify correction of instances of the selfidentified noncompliance, including child specific, and to ensure that regulatory requirements were being implemented based on subsequent file reviews of updated data. Arizona did not make any findings of noncompliance with Part B requirements as a result of the review required by 34 CFR § 300.170(b). Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 49 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 Based upon the results of the self assessment completed by the PEAs with support from the ADE/ESS specialists, Arizona required each PEA to revise its policies, procedures, and practices related to the maintenance, collection, and reporting of data; development and implementation of IEPs; the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports; and, procedural safeguards. The ADE/ESS specialists assigned to each PEA conducted follow-up on-site visits and/or desk audits after the revisions to ensure that the policies, procedures, and practices complied with IDEA. Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources The following are new improvement activities for FFY 2010, and for FFY 2011 and FFY 2012 for the revised SPP, to improve compliance with Indicator 4B. Primary Activity (GOAL) 1) Conduct trainings related to the discipline process for students with disabilities 2) Provide support for PEAs that are flagged as at risk for significant discrepancy for race or ethnicity, defined as those PEAs that suspend or expel five or more students with IEPs for more than 10 days and those suspended or expelled students were greater than 3% of its special education population 3) Provide support for PEAs that are flagged for significant discrepancy for race or ethnicity, defined as Sub-Activities (Objectives or Action Steps) a) Conduct semi-annual Principal Institutes in the three main geographical regions of the State b) Disseminate “Special Education Handbook for Principals, A Quick Reference for Law Related Issues” to participants at the Principals Institutes a) Analyze data on an annual basis to flag PEAs that are at risk for significant discrepancy for race or ethnicity b) Notify PEAs on an annual basis that are flagged as at risk for significant discrepancy for race or ethnicity c) Provide assessment tools and resources to conduct a root cause analysis to PEAs that are flagged as at risk a) Notify PEAs on an annual basis that are flagged for significant discrepancy for race or ethnicity Timeline Complete Projected Resources (Planned) 7/1/116/30/13 CSPD Staff 7/1/116/30/13 CSPD Staff 7/1/10 – 6/30/13 ADE/ESS Directors ADE/ESS Program Specialists ADE/ESS Data Manageme nt Specialist ADE/ESS Directors ADE/ESS Program Specialists ADE/ESS Directors ADE/ESS Program Specialists ADE/ESS Directors ADE/ESS Program Specialists 7/1/10 – 6/30/13 7/1/10 – 6/30/13 7/1/10 – 6/30/13 Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 50 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 those PEAs that suspend or expel 10 or more students with IEPs for more than 10 days and those suspended or expelled students were greater than 5% of its special education population 7/1/10 – 6/30/13 b) Provide technical assistance to PEA staff during their review of policies, procedures, and practices ADE/ESS Directors ADE/ESS Program Specialists The following are revised improvement activities for FFY 2011 due to the new definition of significant discrepancy. Primary Activity (GOAL) 1) Provide support for PEAs that are flagged as at risk for significant discrepancy by race or ethnicity 2) Provide support for PEAs that are flagged for significant discrepancy by race or ethnicity Sub-Activities (Objectives or Action Steps) a) On an annual basis, analyze data to flag PEAs that are at risk for significant discrepancy by race or ethnicity Timeline Complete Projected 7/1/11– 6/30/13 b) On an annual basis, notify PEAs that are flagged as at risk for significant discrepancy by race or ethnicity c) Provide assessment tools and resources to PEAs that are flagged as at risk by race or ethnicity to conduct root cause analyses 7/1/11– 6/30/13 a) On an annual basis, notify PEAs that are flagged for significant discrepancy by race or ethnicity b) Provide technical assistance to PEA staff during their review of policies, procedures, and practices 7/1/11– 6/30/13 7/1/11– 6/30/13 7/1/11– 6/30/13 Resources (Planned) Suspensio n/expulsion Data ADE/ESS Directors and Program Specialists ADE/ESS Directors and Program Specialists ADE/ESS Directors and Program Specialists Resource Tools and Lists ADE/ESS Directors and Program Specialists ADE/ESS Directors and Program Specialists Resource Tools and Lists Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 51 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE Indicator 5: School Age LRE Percent of children with IEPs aged 6 through 21 served: A. Inside the regular class 80% or more of the day; B. Inside the regular class less than 40% of the day; and C. In separate schools, residential facilities, or homebound/hospital placements. (20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A)) Measurement A. Percent = [(# of children with IEPs served inside the regular class 80% or more of the day) divided by the (total # of students aged 6 through 21 with IEPs)] times 100. B. Percent = [(# of children with IEPs served inside the regular class less than 40% 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 separate schools, residential facilities, or homebound/hospital placements) divided by the (total # of students aged 6 through 21 with IEPs)] times 100. Overview of Issue / Description of System or Process The Special Education participation data are reported by the public education agencies (PEAs) through the Student Accountability Information System (SAIS), a Web-based system for reporting all student-level details to the Arizona Department of Education. The data are extracted from SAIS for the October 1 Child Count report and are the same as the State’s data reported in the Educational Environments, Table 3, under section 618. Baseline Data for FFY 2004 (2004–2005) A. Removed less than 21% of the day 48.0% B. Removed greater than 60% of the day 17.8% C. Served in separate schools, residential placement, or home/hospital 2.7% Discussion of Baseline Data Arizona’s placement options for students with disabilities aged 6–21 years are adequate to meet the diverse needs of individual students throughout the State. While the largest percentage of students is served in the regular classroom for most of their day, other options are clearly available and utilized by the public education agencies (PEAs) as appropriate. Table 3 compares Arizona rates for the most common placements to national rates as reported on the U.S. Department of Education Web site. Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 52 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 Table 5.1: Comparison of Arizona LRE with National LRE Placement outside the regular classroom % of AZ population % of US population* A. < 21% 48.0% 50.0% B. > 60% 17.8% 19.0% C. Separate facilities 2.7% 3.1% *Data taken from the USDOE/OSERS Web site FFY Measurable and Rigorous Targets Measurement 5A ≥ 80% Measurement 5B < 40% Measurement 5C Separate 2005 (2005–2006) 49% 17% 2.7% 2006 (2006–2007) 50% 16.5% 2.5% 2007 (2007–2008) 51% 16% 2.3% 2008 (2008–2009) 52% 15.5% 2.1% 2009 (2009–2010) 53% 15% 1.9% 2010 (2010–2011) 54% 14.5% 1.7% 2011 (2011–2012) 55% 14% 1.5% 2012 (2012–2013) 56% 13.5% 1.3% Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources Progress on improvement activities is reported in the Arizona Annual Performance Report. Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 53 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 Improvement Activities 1. Initiate Autism Training Project. Timelines Resources Spring 2005 and continuing ESS leadership 2. Increase training and supervision of least restrictive environment (LRE) reporting. Spring 2006 ESS data staff 3. Train ESS specialists in overseeing and providing assistance to agencies in the area of data reporting. Summer 2006 ESS data staff 4. Revise ADE census reporting to reflect differences between voucher placements unrelated to a free, appropriate public education (FAPE) and those necessary for FAPE. Fall 2006 5. Identify agencies with excessive numbers of restrictive placements and require analysis of causes and improvement planning. Summer 2007 and continuing ESS data staff 6. Incorporate assistive technology (AT) into the appropriate root cause analyses for 16 monitoring. Summer 2007 ESS Monitoring Team 7. Revise the monitoring system to require agencies with high numbers of restrictive placements to investigate placement procedures and additional options. Fall 2008 CSPD staff ESS Monitoring Team ESS data staff ADE School Finance staff ADE IT staff ESS specialists ESS AT specialists ESS Monitoring Team The following are new improvement activities for FFY 2007. Primary Activity (GOAL) 1) Arizona High Achievement for All (AHAA) Year 1 schools will complete all tasks to improve decision making for placing students with disabilities in the least restrictive environment 16 Sub-Activities (Objectives or Action Steps) a) Collection of baseline data on suspension/expulsions for all students and students with disabilities b) Collection of baseline data on office referrals for all students and students with disabilities Timeline Complete Projected 9/1/08 – 6/30/10 9/1/08 – 6/30/10 Resources (Planned) Comprehe nsive System of Personnel Developme nt Staff Comprehe nsive System of Personnel Developme nt Staff New activity in FFY 2005. Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 54 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 2) AHAA Year 2 schools will improve decision making for placing students with disabilities in the least restrictive environment c) Collection of ending data on suspensions/expulsions for all students and students with disabilities 9/1/08 – 6/30/10 d) Collection of ending data on office referrals for all students and students with disabilities 9/1/08 – 6/30/10 e) Aggregation and disaggregation of data collected for all students and students with disabilities on impact of the AHAA project on suspension, expulsion, office referrals, academic performance, and placement in the least restrictive environment a) Collection of baseline data on suspension/expulsions for all students and students with disabilities 9/1/08 – 6/30/11 b) Collection of baseline data on office referrals for all students and students with disabilities 9/1/08 – 6/30/10 c) Collection of ending data on suspensions/expulsions for all students and students with disabilities 9/1/08 – 6/30/10 d) Collection of ending data on office referrals for all students and students with disabilities 9/1/08 – 6/30/10 e) Aggregation and disaggregation of data collected for all students and students with disabilities on impact of the AHAA project on 9/1/08 – 6/30/11 9/1/08 – 6/30/10 Comprehe nsive System of Personnel Developme nt Staff Comprehe nsive System of Personnel Developme nt Staff Comprehe nsive System of Personnel Developme nt Staff Comprehe nsive System of Personnel Developme nt Staff Comprehe nsive System of Personnel Developme nt Staff Comprehe nsive System of Personnel Developme nt Staff Comprehe nsive System of Personnel Developme nt Staff Comprehe nsive System of Personnel Developme nt Staff Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 55 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 suspension, expulsion, office referrals, academic performance, and placement in the least restrictive environment The following are revised improvement activities for FFY 2008 for activities #2 and #3. Revisions to the improvement activities are necessary because the AHAA program no longer collects academic performance data; targeted Year 1 and Year 2 teams are specified; and an activity regarding Team Implementation Portfolio is added. Primary Activity (GOAL) 1) Arizona High Achievement for All (AHAA) Year 1 Siete schools will complete all tasks to improve decision making for placing students with disabilities in the least restrictive environment. Sub-Activities (Objectives or Action Steps) a) Collection of ending data on suspensions/expulsions for all students and students with disabilities for Siete Year 1 teams by 6/30/10. b) Collection of ending data on office referrals for all students and students with disabilities for Siete Year 1 teams. c) Aggregation and disaggregation of data collected for all students and students with disabilities on the impact of the AHAA project on suspensions/expulsions, office referrals, and placement in the least restrictive environment will be analyzed and reported on by 6/30/11 for Siete Year 1 teams. d) Team Implementation Portfolios will be completed by all Siete Year 1 school teams to demonstrate continuous team activities on site to implement training of staff with AHAA materials, differential reinforcement (check in/check out), and accommodation planning for diverse Timeline Complete Projected 9/1/08 – 6/30/10 Resources (Planned) CSPD Staff School Principals 9/1/08 – 6/30/10 CSPD Staff School Principals 9/1/08 – 6/30/11 CSPD Staff School Teams 10/7/09 – 6/30/11 CSPD Staff School Teams AHAA Director Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 56 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 2) Arizona High Achievement for All (AHAA) Year 2 Seis schools will complete all tasks to improve decision making for placing students with disabilities in the least restrictive environment. learners, including students with IEPs. Reporting will be 6/30/2011. a) Collection of ending data on suspensions/expulsions for all students and students with disabilities for Seis Year 2 teams by 6/30/10. b) Collection of ending data on office referrals for all students and students with disabilities for Seis Year 2 teams by 6/30/10. c) Aggregation and disaggregation of data collected for all students and students with disabilities on the impact of the AHAA project on suspensions/expulsions, office referrals, and placing students with disabilities in the least restrictive environment will be analyzed and reported on by 6/30/11. d) Team Implementation Portfolios will be completed by all school teams to demonstrate continuous team activities on site to implement training of staff with AHAA materials, differential reinforcement (check in/check out), and accommodation planning for diverse learners, including students with IEPs. Reporting will be 6/30/2011. 9/1/08 – 6/30/10 CSPD Staff School Principals 9/1/08 – 6/30/10 CSPD Staff School Principals 9/1/08 – 6/30/11 CSPD Staff School Teams 10/7/09 – 6/30/11 CSPD Staff School Teams AHAA Director The following are improvement activities for FFY 2010, and for FFY 2011 and 2012 for the revised SPP. Primary Activity (GOAL) Sub-Activities (Objectives or Action Timeline Complete Projected Resources (Planned) Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 57 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 1) Conduct interviews with special education directors and site administrators about available service delivery models and LRE data as a component of all onsite monitorings. Documentation to show individualized decision-making process for placement is required. Steps) a) Gather data from interview responses and supporting documentation of placement decisions and service delivery models for students with IEPs b) Revise interview questions and documentation requirements based on results related to LRE targets c) Conduct revised interviews and gather supporting documentation. 10/1/106/30/11 ESS Directors and ESS Specialists 7/1/116/30/12 ESS Directors and ESS Specialists 7/1/126/30/13 ESS Directors and ESS Specialists The following are new improvement activities for FFY 2011. Primary Activity (GOAL) 1) Provide autism training to school teams designed to improve teams’ ability to make LRE decisions that will maintain or increase the amount of time students with autism are served in a general education setting Sub-Activities (Objectives or Action Steps) a) Collect baseline data (FFY 2009 service codes) for students with autism enrolled in schools that participate in autism training b) Provide training that, if implemented, can increase teams’ decision-making abilities to maintain or increase the amount of time students with autism are served in a general education settings by giving teams the:  knowledge of traits and characteristics of students with autism  ability to apply instructional supports and practices consistent with the needs of students with autism  skills to decrease ineffective behaviors of students with autism Timeline Complete Projected Resources (Planned) 7/1/11– 6/30/13 PEAs’ FFY 2009 service code data 7/1/11– 6/30/13 CSPD Staff Team Training Materials School Administrator General Education Teacher(s) Special Education Teacher(s) Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 58 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 c) Provide capacity building coaching support to each team to increase team effectiveness during training 7/1/11– 6/30/13 d) Provide training that, if implemented, would give teams the necessary processes to plan, execute, and evaluate the effectiveness of their activities e) Collect FFY 2010 and FFY 2011 census data for students with autism enrolled in schools that participate in autism training f) Aggregate and disaggregate service code data for students with autism enrolled in schools that participate in autism training 7/1/11– 6/30/13 CSPD Coaching Coordinator Coaching Refresher Training Coaching Presenter Coaching Materials CSPD Staff Implementati on Portfolios 7/1/11– 6/30/13 CSPD staff PEAs’ FFY 2010 and FFY 2011 census data 7/1/11– 6/30/13 CSPD Staff PEA Staff Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 59 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE Indicator 6: Preschool LRE Percent of children aged 3 through 5 with IEPs attending a: A. Regular early childhood program and receiving the majority of special education and related services in the regular early childhood program; and B. Separate special education class, separate school or residential facility. (20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A)) Measurement A. Percent = [(# of children aged 3 through 5 with IEPs attending a regular early childhood program and receiving the majority of special education and related services in the regular early childhood program) divided by the (total # of children aged 3 through 5 with IEPs)] times 100. B. Percent = [(# of children aged 3 through 5 with IEPs attending a separate special education class, separate school or residential facility) divided by the (total # of children aged 3 through 5 with IEPs)] times 100. Overview of Issue / Description of System or Process The Arizona Department of Education/Early Childhood Education (ADE/ECE) is responsible for the administration of the early childhood special education program (Part B, Section 619) for children aged 3–5 who are not yet eligible for kindergarten. The ADE/ECE collects preschool least restrictive environment (LRE) data for children aged 3–5 receiving special education services through the Student Accountability Information System (SAIS) based on each year’s October 1 public education agency (PEA) child count. Partnerships with other early childhood programs, such as First Things First, Head Start, Career and Technical Education, Title I, and Community Child Care, are promoted through the Early Childhood Quality Improvement Process (ECQUIP), a continuous improvement process to increase quality among PEAs’ early childhood programs that receive early childhood State funds. Data Data Source The data were collected through the October 1, 2011, Child Count report and are the same as the State’s data reported under section 618, Table 3, Part B, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Implementation of FAPE Requirements. Valid and Reliable Data The ADE/ESS assures the validity and reliability of the data because ESS collected, maintained, and reported the October 1, 2011, child count data and the placement data using internal edit checks. The State requires PEAs to assure their data is accurate and reliable by having them submit signed verification letters. Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 60 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 Baseline Data for FFY 2011 The table below displays the baseline data for Indicators 6A and 6B and the total number of children aged 3–5 (including five year olds in kindergarten) reported on the October 1, 2011, child count. FFY 2011 (2011–2012) Indicator 6 Baseline Data 6A 6B Number of children aged 3–5 reported for 10/1/11 Child Count 15,235 15,235 Number of children 7,315 7,029 48.01% 46.14% Percentage of children Discussion of Baseline Data for FFY 2011 The baseline data show that 48.01% of children aged 3–5 were attending a regular early childhood program and receiving the majority of their special education and related services in the regular early childhood or kindergarten program. The baseline data also show that 46.14% of children aged 3–5 were attending a separate special education class, separate school, or residential facility. Proposed Targets for FFY 2012 Targets were set based on the FFY 2011 baseline data and input from the stakeholder groups. Measurable and Rigorous Targets FFY Indicator 6A Indicator 6B 48.5% 45.5% 2012 Proposed Improvement Activities for FFY 2012 The following are improvement activities for FFY 2012 to improve results for Indicator 6, Preschool LRE. Primary Activity (GOAL) 1) Provide statewide baseline data to school districts Sub-Activities (Objectives or Action Steps) a) Provide school districts access to individual baseline data for Early Childhood Quality Improvement Process (ECQUIP) teams b) Provide school districts baseline data with 5-yearold kindergarten student data extrapolated to view preschool LRE data Timeline Complete Projected Resources (Planned) 7/1/12– 6/30/13 ADE/Early Childhood Special Education (ECSE) 7/1/12– 6/30/13 ADE/ECSE Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 61 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 2) Continue to promote Head Start programs as least restrictive environment options 3) Promote First Things First (FTF)– funded programs as a least restrictive environment option 4) Provide professional development opportunities that promote the least restrictive environment for preschool students with IEPs 5) Provide information to PEAs about preschool least restrictive environment data collection and reporting a) Provide resources through newsletters to continue the collaboration with Head Start and Arizona Early Intervention Program (AzEIP) to promote LRE and highlight Head Start’s mandate for 10% enrollment of children with disabilities a) Provide information to school district programs that receive FTF scholarship grants through FTF/Early Childhood Education Quality Mentors a) Continue collaboration with Arizona Council of Exceptional Children/Division of Early Childhood (CEC/DEC) for spring conference and presentations at the Exceptional Student Services (ESS) Director’s Institute a) Post OSEP letter regarding preschool LRE on Web site (previously sent to all early childhood special education programs) b) Conduct Webinars and professional development regarding preschool LRE data c) Include LRE information in new Help for Early Learning Professionals (HELP) manual and on Web site 7/01/12– 6/30/13 ADE/ECSE Head Start State Collaboration Office Arizona Head Start Association 7/01/12– 6/30/13 7/1/12– 6/30/13 ADE/ECSE FTF/Early Childhood Education Quality Mentors ADE/ECSE CEC/DEC 7/1/12– 6/30/13 ADE/ECSE 7/1/12– 6/30/13 ADE/ECSE, ESS Data Management Specialist ADE/ECSE 7/1/12– 6/30/13 Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 62 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE Indicator 7: Preschool Outcomes Percent of preschool children with IEPs who demonstrate improved: A. Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships); B. Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/communication and early literacy); and C. Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs. (20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A)) Measurement Outcomes A. Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships); B. Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/communication and early literacy); and C. Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs. Progress categories for A, B, and C a. Percent of preschool children who did not improve functioning = [(# of preschool children who did not improve functioning) divided by (# of preschool children with IEPs assessed)] times 100. b. Percent of preschool children who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-aged peers = [(# of preschool children who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-aged peers) divided by (# of preschool children with IEPs assessed)] times 100. c. Percent of preschool children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it = [(# of preschool children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it) divided by (# of preschool children with IEPs assessed)] times 100. d. Percent of preschool children who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to sameaged peers = [(# of preschool children who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers) divided by (# of preschool children with IEPs assessed)] times 100. e. Percent of preschool children who maintained functioning at a level comparable to sameaged peers = [(# of preschool children who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers) divided by (# of preschool children with IEPs assessed)] times 100. Summary Statements for Each of the Three Outcomes Summary Statement 1: Of those preschool children who entered or exited the preschool program below age expectations in each Outcome, the percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program. Measurement for Summary Statement 1: Percent = # of preschool children reported in progress category (c) plus # of preschool children reported in category (d) divided by [# of preschool children reported in progress category (a) plus # of preschool children reported in progress category (b) plus # of preschool children reported in progress category (c) plus # of preschool children reported in Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 63 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 progress category (d)] times 100. Summary Statement 2: The percent of preschool children who were functioning within age expectations in each Outcome by the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program. Measurement for Summary Statement 2: Percent = # of preschool children reported in progress category (d) plus [# of preschool children reported in progress category (e) divided by the total # of preschool children reported in progress categories (a) + (b) + (c) + (d) + (e)] times 100. Overview of Issue / Description of System or Process The Arizona State Board of Education approved the use of a single, Web-based assessment, Teaching Strategies GOLD, in August 2010. All public education agencies (PEAs) serving preschool children with IEPs are required to use this assessment. GOLD was implemented statewide during school year 2011–2012 and replaced the four assessments previously used to report preschool outcomes. Use of a single, Web-based assessment that is designed for children birth through kindergarten has enabled Arizona to:  capture the progress of preschool children at all developmental stages;  provide programs/districts with real-time access to meaningful data that will guide instructional and programmatic decisions;  easily communicate progress to parents, related service providers, and other school staff;  retain data on children as they transfer to other programs and districts in the State;  consolidate professional development and technical assistance;  increase collaboration between Head Start, private child care, general education preschool, and special education preschool programs. Primary responsibility for data collection and submission belongs to the professional with the greatest degree of interaction with the child. Families and all relevant professionals supporting each child contribute to the body of information used to determine progress ratings within GOLD. Public education agencies are required to submit data 3 times per school year using a secure Web-based system hosted by Teaching Strategies, which is accessible by the Arizona Department of Education Early Childhood Education staff. GOLD provides the ECSE unit with full, real-time access to district-level data, allowing targeted technical assistance to schools. An Early Childhood Data Collaborative (ECDC) stakeholders group meets regularly to address issues and to help the ECSE unit develop appropriate technical assistance. The change to Teaching Strategies GOLD as the single assessment instrument in Arizona is expected to result in an improvement in data reliability as well as improved outcomes for preschool children. As a result of this change to GOLD, new baseline data has been established and is reported in the FFY 2011 APR. Data Data Source PEAs reported FFY 2011 preschool assessment data using Teaching Strategies GOLD, a Webbased data collection system. Sampling was not used for this Indicator as all preschool children with disabilities have their entry status and exit status assessed. Additionally, this assessment system is Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 64 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 statewide and inclusive of all children in state-funded preschool programs, as well as all Head Start programs and one Tribal Head Start program. Instruments All early childhood programs must administer the one assessment tool approved by the Arizona State Board of Education for ongoing progress monitoring assessment. Teaching Strategies is the publisher of the GOLD assessment. Trainings were provided to Arizona educators and administrators by Teaching Strategies staff in 2011 and 2012. These trainings continue to take place throughout the State for new users. Online training modules, including interrater reliability certification courses, are available through the GOLD subscriptions. Ongoing technical assistance has been provided by the Arizona Department of Education/Early Childhood Education (ADE/ECE) staff. ADE/ECE staff also train PEAs on a continual basis regarding the use of progress monitoring tools to drive instruction and program improvement. Further guidance is provided through Arizona’s Early Childhood Assessment System for Ongoing Progress Monitoring (http://www.azed.gov/early-childhood/files/2012/02/arizonas-early-childhood-assessment-system-foron-going-progress-monitoring-2012-13.pdf) and monthly GOLD Nugget publications (http://www.azed.gov/early-childhood/2011/11/14/teaching-strategies-gold/). Data Analysis The preschool outcome data was analyzed by Teaching Strategies. Valid and Reliable Data The Arizona Department of Education/Early Childhood Special Education (ADE/ECSE) assures the validity and reliability of the early childhood outcomes (ECO) data by offering professional development on recording quality observations of children. PEAs have online access to an interrater reliability certification course provided by Teaching Strategies. Training is provided to administrators on accessing the Documentation Status Report that provides information on the number of observations used to assess the child and assign ratings. The Early Childhood Quality Improvement Process (ECQUIP) also incorporates the early childhood outcomes assessment process in the districts’ self-assessment rubric. The ECQUIP Manual is available at http://www.azed.gov/early-childhood/files/2011/11/ecquip-binder-revision-8.29.pdf. Baseline Data for FFY 2011 The table below displays the number and percentage of preschool children who exited in FFY 2011 in each progress category and the results of the summary statement calculations. FFY 2011 Positive SocialEmotional Skills # of children % of children Acquiring and Using Knowledge and Skills # of children % of children Taking Appropriate Action to Meet Needs # of children % of children a. Children who did not improve functioning 205 5.8 174 4.9 272 7.7 b. Children who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same age peers 528 15.0 522 14.8 433 12.3 Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 65 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 c. Children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it d. Children who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers e. Children who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers Total 738 20.9 805 22.8 610 17.3 1,121 31.8 1,227 34.8 1,148 32.6 933 26.5 797 22.6 1,062 30.1 3,525 100.0% 3,525 100.0% 3,525 100.0% Summary Statements 1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations, the percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they exited. 71.7 74.5 71.4 2. Percent of children who were functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers by the time they exited. 58.3 57.4 62.7 Discussion of Baseline Data for FFY 2011 Baseline data indicate that 71.7%, 74.5% and 71.4% of children who entered the program below age expectations substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they exited the program in positive social-emotional skills, acquiring and using knowledge and skills, and taking appropriate action to meet their needs, respectively. Data also indicate that, by the time they exited, 58.3%, 57.4% and 62.7% of children were functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers in positive social-emotional skills, acquiring and using knowledge and skills and taking appropriate action to meet their needs, respectively. Proposed Targets for FFY 2012 Targets were set based on the FFY 2011 baseline data and input from the stakeholder groups. Measurable and Rigorous Targets Positive SocialEmotional Skills Acquiring and Using Knowledge and Skills Taking Appropriate Action to Meet Needs 1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations, the percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they exited. 72.2 75.0 71.9 2. Percent of children who were functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers by the time they exited. 58.8 57.9 63.2 FFY 2012 Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed for FFY 2011 Primary Activity (GOAL) 1) Implement new preschool assessment Sub-Activities (Objectives or Action Steps) a) Identify and implement ADE infrastructure Timeline Complete Activity completed from 7/1/11 to 6/30/12. Projected 7/1/10– 6/30/12 Resources (Planned) ADE/ECSE Director and Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 66 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 (Teaching Strategies GOLD) statewide modifications b) Provide regional trainings on the use of Teaching Strategies GOLD 2) Provide professional development activities around quality assessment practices 3) Increase the percentage of PEAs that collect and report timely preschool assessment data a) Provide professional development “How to Improve the Quality of your Ongoing Progress Monitoring Data” within areas of need as identified through the Early Childhood Quality Improvement Practices (ECQUIP) process and upon request of districts a) Crosscheck child count data with PEA preschool assessment data b) Notify PEAs if preschool assessment data are not submitted on time 4) Establish an Early Childhood Data Collaborative (ECDC) a) Obtain stakeholder input at quarterly meetings during transition to Teaching Strategies GOLD b) Use stakeholder input to guide development of State- ADE Information Technology worked with Early Childhood Special Education and Teaching Strategies to determine data requirements and processes for importing State-level data to ADE Student Accountability and Information System (SAIS). Activity completed from 7/1/11 to 6/30/12. Nine two-day trainings on Teaching Strategies GOLD were held throughout Arizona and were attended by 256 educators. Activity completed from 7/1/11 to 6/30/12. Specialist ADE IT 1/1/11– 6/30/12 ADE/ECSE Teaching Strategies GOLD 7/1/10– 6/30/13 ADE/ECSE Director and Specialist Activity completed from 7/1/11 to 6/30/12. 7/1/10– 6/30/13 Child count data were crosschecked with PEA preschool assessment data. The number of PEAs not reporting on time decreased from 34 in FFY 2010 to 11 in FFY 2011. Activity completed from 7/1/11 to 6/30/12. ADE/ECSE Director and Specialist 7/1/10– 6/30/13 Eleven PEAs received notification about submitting data within timelines. Activity completed from 7/1/11 to 6/30/12. ADE/ECSE Director and Specialist 7/1/11– 6/30/13 ADE/ECSE Fifteen “How to Improve the Quality of your Ongoing Progress Monitoring Data” trainings were held throughout Arizona and were attended by 319 educators. Four meetings were held with ECDC members representing PEAs and Head Start programs. Activity completed from 7/1/11 to 6/30/12. EC Data Collaborati ve 7/1/11– 6/30/13 ADE/ECSE EC Data Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 67 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 level policies and procedures related to implementation of Teaching Strategies GOLD 5) Develop and disseminate publications statewide to serve as ongoing guidance and communication a) Develop Arizona’s Early Childhood Assessment System manual (guidance document) and disseminate statewide b) Develop monthly bulletins to alert PEAs about updates and new guidance for preschool assessment instrument Input from ECDC members created guidance in the use of GOLD. This guidance was communicated to PEAs through the Arizona’s Early Childhood Assessment System manual and a monthly electronic publication, GOLD Nuggets. Both documents were disseminated via email and Web site posting. Activity completed from 7/1/11 to 6/30/12. Collaborati ve 7/1/11– 6/30/13 ADE/ECSE The Arizona’s Early Childhood Assessment System was created, posted on the ADE Web site, and disseminated to PEAs via email. Activity completed from 7/1/11 to 6/30/12. 7/1/11– 6/30/13 ADE/ECSE Eight issues of GOLD Nuggets were disseminated to PEAs via email and Web site posting. Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources Progress on improvement activities is reported in the Arizona Annual Performance Report. Improvement Activities Timelines Resources 1. Training for all PEAs on reporting ECO data via ADE SAIS. August 2007 and continuing STaR Team staff 2. Formalize and implement systems fixes within ADE SAIS based on the prior year’s analysis of data and processes. December 2007 and continuing ECE, IT, and R & E staff 3. Based on prior year’s analysis of processes, develop, distribute, and promote the use of the Early Childhood Assessment Manual to assist PEAs efforts to link their assessment systems with SAIS. August 2007 and continuing ECE staff 4. Review and analyze data to identify strategies to continue improving its validity and utility. January 2008 and continuing ECE and R & E staff Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 68 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 5. Develop and implement statewide assessment training entitled, “Improving the Quality of Your Ongoing Progress Monitoring System”. May 2007 and continuing ECE staff 6. Incorporate Early Childhood Quality Improvement Practices (ECQUIP) into on-site monitoring procedures. September 2006 and continuing ECE staff 7. Continue participation in Part C EC Outcome Data Advisory Committee to align data collection 17 methods and reports. July 2006 and continuing ECE and AZEIP staff The following are new improvement activities for FFY 2007. Primary Activity (GOAL) 1) Develop and implement a plan to correct the reporting of data obtained from the Creative Curriculum Developmental Continuum – Expanded Forerunners to improve the validity of the data being reported 2) Develop and implement a multidimensional professional development plan to maximize the validity of the data being reported 17 Sub-Activities (Objectives or Action Steps) a) Identify systemic issues involved in making this change b) Work with the publisher to incorporate changes into on-line analysis c) Communicate changes to all PEAs utilizing this assessment system a) Develop and administer professional development surveys to align compliance-based training needs with needs expressed by the field b) Map existing training and identify additional objectives for new professional development offerings c) Identify existing ADE and community-based forums to present existing and new ECO- Timeline Complete Projected 11/1/08 – 1/31/09 1/1/09 – 3/30/09 Resources (Planned) ADE/ECSE ADE Information Technology (IT) ADE/ECSE 3/1/09 – 6/30/09 ADE/ECSE 11/1/08 – 4/30/09 ADE/ECSE 11/1/08 – 2/28/09 ADE/ECSE 11/1/08 – 1/31/09 ADE/ECSE This activity discontinued as of FFY 2007 because it does not affect the progress of the Indicator. Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 69 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 related training 3) Develop and implement a plan to redesign the Early Childhood Assessment and Reporting System to address methodological issues impacting reporting for this indicator Note: The ADE is currently in the third year of a five-year contract with the four assessment publishers. d) Adapt existing training to distance learning formats such as IDEAL, the ADE’s Internet-based professional development platform https://www.ideal.azed. gov/ e) Develop new face-toface and distance learning offerings a) Gather internal ADE stakeholders to analyze the existing methodology and system 1/1/09 – 6/30/10 ADE/ECSE ADE Educationa l Technology 7/1/09 – 6/30/11 ADE/ECSE 1/1/09 – 6/30/10 b) Consult with external stakeholders to analyze the existing methodology and system c) Identify key reporting and evaluation needs, desired assessment features, and professional development considerations d) Initiate any necessary ADE infrastructure modifications and adapt professional development materials e) Develop the scope of work for a request for proposals (RFP) and solicitation process in anticipation of the end of the current assessment contracts in June 2011 2/1/09 – 6/30/10 ADE/ECSE ADE/R&E ADE IT ADE Procureme nt ADE/ECSE 1/1/09 – 6/30/10 ADE/ECSE 7/1/09 – 12/31/10 ADE/ECSE ADE IT 2/1/09 – 6/30/10 ADE/ECSE ADE Procureme nt The following are new improvement activities for FFY 2010, and for FFY 2011 and FFY 2012 for the revised SPP. Primary Activity (GOAL) Sub-Activities (Objectives or Action Steps) Timeline Complete Projected Resources (Planned) Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 70 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 1) Implement new preschool assessment (Teaching Strategies GOLD) statewide 2) Provide professional development activities around quality assessment practices 3) Increase the percentage of PEAs that collect and report timely preschool assessment data a) Identify and implement ADE infrastructure modifications 7/1/106/30/12 b) Provide regional trainings on the use of Teaching Strategies GOLD a) Provide professional development “How to Improve the Quality of your Ongoing Progress Monitoring Data” within areas of need as identified through the ECQUIP process and upon request of districts a) Cross check child count data with district preschool assessment data b) Notify districts if preschool assessment data are not submitted on time 1/1/116/30/12 7/1/106/30/13 7/1/106/30/13 7/1/106/30/13 ADE/ECSE Director ADE/ECSE Specialist ADE IT ADE/ECSE Teaching Strategies GOLD ADE/ECSE Director ADE/ECSE Specialist ADE/ECSE Director ADE/ECSE Specialist ADE/ECSE Director ADE/ECSE Specialist The following are new improvement activities for FFY 2011. Primary Activity (GOAL) 1) Establish an Early Childhood Data Collaborative (ECDC) 2) Develop and disseminate publications statewide to serve as ongoing guidance and Sub-Activities (Objectives or Action Steps) a) Obtain stakeholder input at quarterly meetings during transition to Teaching Strategies GOLD b) Use stakeholder input to guide development of Statelevel policies and procedures related to implementation of Teaching Strategies GOLD a) Develop ADE Early Childhood Assessment Manual (guidance document) and disseminate statewide Timeline Complete Projected Resources (Planned) 7/1/11– 6/30/13 ADE/ECSE EC Data Collaborati ve 7/1/11– 6/30/13 ADE/ECSE EC Data Collaborati ve 7/1/11– 6/30/13 ADE/ECSE Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 71 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 communication b) Develop monthly bulletins to alert PEAs about updates and new guidance for preschool assessment instrument 7/1/11– 6/30/13 ADE/ECSE Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 72 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE Indicator 8: Parent Involvement Percent of parents with a child receiving special education services who report that schools facilitated parent involvement as a means of improving services and results for children with disabilities. (20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A)) Measurement Percent = # of respondent parents who report schools facilitated parent involvement as a means of improving services and results for children with disabilities divided by the total # of respondent parents of children with disabilities times 100. Overview of Issue / Description of System or Process The data for this Indicator are taken from the Arizona Parent Survey. Arizona uses a 25-question parent survey developed by the National Center for Special Education Accountability Monitoring (NCSEAM). The survey is attached to this report. The Arizona Parent Survey uses a Web-based data collection system to collect confidential demographic information and parental responses to the 25-question NCSEAM rating scale. A paper version of the survey is available in English and Spanish, and large font, if needed. Parents complete the demographic data and 25 survey items. The data are analyzed using WINSTEPS statistical software. Following NCSEAM guidelines, a threshold score of 600 has been established for a positive response to the item “The school explains what options parents have if they disagree with a decision of the school.” The instrument measure implies that agreement with this threshold item indicates high likelihood of agreement with items located “under” it on the scale. A score of 600 is required for any parent’s survey response to be considered positive. Each school year a new cohort of PEAs is selected to administer the survey. The cohort is composed of PEAs: a) in the assigned year of the ESS monitoring cycle; or b) with a student population of 50,000 or greater; or c) which had < 10% response rate in the prior survey year; or, d) which are newly opened (typically, charter schools). Every parent within these PEAs who has a child with an Individualized Education Program (IEP) is given an opportunity to complete the survey via either the Web-based data collection system or mail. ADE/ESS ensures all newly opened PEAs (typically, charter schools) are included in a cohort and administer the parent survey. Thus, within the cohort, a census of parents completes the survey. The use of these procedures will allow the State to meet the requirement to report on each PEA at least once during the SPP cycle. The ADE/ESS Parent Information Network Specialists (PINS) offer extensive ongoing technical assistance to PEAs, including guidance on how to maximize their parental response and involvement rates. The PIN specialists also provide free consultation, training, print and electronic special education resources, and toll-free assistance to families throughout Arizona. Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 73 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 Baseline Data for FFY 2005 (2005–2006) 44.9% [N = 1,375 / 3,061] of Arizona’s parents of students with disabilities reported that schools facilitated parent involvement as a means of improving services and results for children with disabilities. Discussion of Baseline Data The Web-based Parent Survey became available in May 2006; therefore, the State’s baseline is calculated on all surveys submitted by parents between that date and December 2006. ESS offers PEAs technical assistance and routine parent response updates to encourage timely and full participation. The Assessment and Research and Evaluation Sections of the ADE assisted ESS in the analysis of the surveys submitted by parents through the use of the Winsteps measurement software program. Support for the ADE analysis was also provided by the National Center for Special Education Accountability and Monitoring (NCSEAM) staff and contractors through telephone and computer consultation. The method of analysis identifies a threshold item on the survey that serves as the “cut point”—that is to say, the score at which it can be concluded that a school “facilitates parent involvement as a means of improving services and results for children with disabilities.” The threshold item was determined to have a scale score of 600 (out of 800). This means that 44.9% of the Arizona respondents strongly agreed (to very strongly agreed) with the threshold item and by assumption, other items below it. The threshold item on this survey is “The school explains what options parents have if they disagree with a decision of the school.” While the percentage of schools participating in the current survey that reached the standard was only 44.9%, it is rewarding to note that the most commonly occurring rating by parents was the maximum score of 800 (457 / 3,061). Other ratings were fairly evenly distributed across the scale. The mean for all responses for FFY 2005 was 595 with a standard deviation of 140. The short time frame between the end of the initial data collection period and the due date for the State Performance Plan made full analysis of response rates impractical. However, the ADE/ESS will conduct such analysis and adjust activities to ensure representative response rates among geographic, ethnic, and age groups for the FFY 2006 APR. FFY Measurable and Rigorous Targets 2006 (2006–2007) 45.0% 2007 (2007–2008) 46.0% 2008 (2008–2009) 47.0% 2009 (2009–2010) 48.0% 2010 (2010–2011) 50.0% Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 74 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 2011 (2011–2012) 60.0% 2012 (2012–2013) 65.0% Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources Progress on improvement activities is reported in the Arizona Annual Performance Report. Improvement Activities Timelines Resources 1. Review NCSEAM survey to select specific items and finalize content. Fall 2005 ESS leadership 2. Develop Web-based system to collect data. Fall 2005 IT programmer 3. Create alternate means to respond to survey. Fall 2005 ESS leadership 4. Translate survey into Spanish and determine how other languages will be accommodated. Winter 2006 PINS Coordinator PINS Coordinator Translators ESS leadership PINS Coordinator 5. Establish baseline and transitional targets based on initial test data. Winter 2006 6. Report to the public. Annually in late fall beginning in 2006 ESS leadership Fall 2006 and continuing IT programmer 7. Conduct survey with PEAs in year two of the ESS monitoring cycle. ESS leadership SEAP ESS leadership PINS Coordinator 8. Review and revise baseline data, targets, and improvement activities based on full implementation of the 18 parent involvement survey. 18 Summer 2007 IT programmer ESS leadership PINS Coordinator New activities 8–11 added in FFY 2005. Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 75 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 Improvement Activities Timelines Resources 9. Incorporate a Parent Participation cluster into the ESS monitoring system including compliance items and a root cause analysis for PEAs with below average parent ratings or poor response rates. Summer 2007 for implementation in fall 2007 and continuing Monitoring Team 10. In conjunction with the SEAP, analyze data at State level; compile simple, 19 user-friendly reports. Fall 2007 and continuing IT programmer ESS leadership PINS Coordinator ESS leadership PINS Coordinator 11. 12. Provide TA to PEAs re: parent involvement data in order to promote improvement strategies/activities. Annually in winter, spring, and summer PINS Coordinator Promote knowledge of parent training and counseling available through the PINS, Raising Special Kids, and 20 PEAs. Fall 2008 and continuing ESS Leadership ESS specialists PINS EAPN The following are new improvement activities for FFY 2007. Primary Activity (GOAL) 1) Increase number of survey responses from parents of all races/ethnicities and age groups to ensure survey responses are representative of the State special education population Sub-Activities (Objectives or Action Steps) a) Advise PEAs of effective communication strategies with families about the importance of survey feedback via bi-monthly phone, e-mail, and/or on-site consultation with participating PEAs b) Explain and/or demonstrate the survey process to parents and educators through survey workshops or parent events designed to encourage survey responses, and post monthly response rate tallies for PEAs to self-monitor their progress Timeline Complete Projected Resources (Planned) 9/1/08 – 6/30/11 ADE/ESS PIN Coordinator ADE/ESS PIN Specialists ADE/ESS Program Specialists 9/1/086/30/11 ADE/ESS PIN Coordinator ADE/ESS PIN Specialists Arizona Parent Survey data collection system ADE/ESS Parent Survey public awareness 19 This activity is discontinued for FFY 2007 because data analysis is done by ADE/R&E with stakeholder review and input from SEAP. 20 New activity added for FY 2007. Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 76 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 2) Increase awareness of training, consultation, and resources available statewide to facilitate parent involvement in the special education process c) Develop and distribute public awareness announcements promoting the Parent Survey to agencies and organizations who serve families 9/1/086/30/11 d) Review existing technical assistance documents and/or participate in Indicator 8 technical assistance activities to augment the Arizona Parent Survey process as a means to improve statewide response and parent involvement rates 9/1/086/30/11 a) Develop and maintain curricula to increase parent knowledge of the special education process and effective parent involvement strategies 9/1/086/30/11 b) Utilize the PIN Clearinghouse—a repository of printed and Web-based special education resources and training tools—to inform families about the special education process and opportunities for their involvement 9/1/086/30/11 Web site (www.azed.gov /ess/parentsurv ey) ADE/ESS PIN Coordinator ADE/ESS PIN Specialists (www.azed.gov /ess/pinspals) Enhancing Arizona’s Parent Networks (www.azeapn.o rg) ADE/ESS PIN Coordinator MPRRC Web site and teleconference s Technical Assistance Alliance of Parent Centers (www.taalliance .org) ADE/ESS PIN Coordinator ADE/ESS PIN Specialists Technical Assistance Alliance of Parent Centers (www.taalliance .org) National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities (www.nichcy.or g) ADE/ESS PIN Coordinator ADE/ESS PIN Specialists ADE/ESS PIN Clearinghouse (www.ade.az.g ov/ess/specialp rojects/pinspals Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 77 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 /documents/) 3) Review and enhance PEAs’ initiatives designed to facilitate parent involvement c) Collaborate with the Arizona PTI, and other agencies and parent organizations, to widely disseminate information about each group’s training and events designed to instruct and support families who have children with disabilities 9/1/086/30/11 a) Consult with PEAs to address family involvement strengths and needs by using previous Parent Survey data, if available, or other measures the district utilizes to judge parent participation 9/1/086/30/11 b) Develop and implement staff and/or parental consultation, training, and/or distribution of resources to improve PEA parent involvement initiatives 9/1/086/30/11 ADE/ESS PIN Coordinator ADE/ESS PIN Specialists Raising Special Kids Enhancing Arizona’s Parent Networks (www.azeapn.o rg) ADE/ESS PIN Coordinator ADE/ESS PIN Specialists ADE/ESS Program Specialists Arizona Parent Survey database system ADE/ESS PIN Coordinator ADE/ESS PIN Specialists The following are new improvement activities for FFY 2010, and for FFY 2011 and 2012 for the revised SPP. Primary Activity (GOAL) 1) Evaluate PEA’s feedback of the parent involvement survey process as a means of improving distribution to families and use of results to enhance parent involvement Sub-Activities (Objectives or Action Steps) a) Develop and administer a survey to PEAs that conducted the parent involvement survey during the 20052011 SPP b) Examine PEA survey results to improve the parent involvement survey process and to advise PEAs on strategies for using the parent survey results to improve family Timeline Completed Projected 7/1/106/30/13 7/1/116/30/13 Resources (Planned) ADE/ESS PIN Coordinator ADE/ESS PIN Specialists ADE/ESS Program Specialists ADE/ESS PIN Coordinator ADE/ESS PIN Specialists ADE/ESS Program Specialists Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 78 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 2) Increase opportunities for PEAs and parents to gain knowledge about the parent involvement survey and related family involvement projects involvement a) Plan and develop a new ESS parent involvement survey Web site combining current links with access to researchbased family involvement literature and effective projects b) Test, revise, and launch the new ESS parent involvement survey Web site 7/1/106/30/13 ADE/ESS PIN Coordinator ADE/ESS PIN Specialists 7/1/116/30/13 ADE/ESS PIN Coordinator ADE/ESS PIN Specialists Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 79 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 Monitoring Priority: Disproportionality Indicator 9: Racial / Ethnic Disproportionality Percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services that is the result of inappropriate identification. (20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(C)) Measurement Percent = [(# of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services that is the result of inappropriate identification) divided by the (# of districts in the State)] times 100. Include State’s definition of “disproportionate representation.” Based on its review of the 618 data for FFY 2011, describe how the State made its annual determination that the disproportionate overrepresentation it identified of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services was the result of inappropriate identification as required by §§300.600(d)(3) and 300.602(a), e.g., using monitoring data; reviewing policies, practices and procedures, etc. In determining disproportionate representation, analyze data, for each district, for all racial and ethnic groups in the district, or all racial and ethnic groups in the district that meet a minimum 'n' size set by the State. Report on the percent of districts in which disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services is the result of inappropriate identification, even if the determination of inappropriate identification was made after the end of the FFY 2011 reporting period, i.e., after June 30, 2012. If inappropriate identification is identified, report on corrective actions taken. Overview of Issue / Description of System or Process The ADE/ESS collects the data from the PEAs through the October 1 Child Count report. The data are the same as collected and reported on Table 1 (Child Count) of the Report of Children with Disabilities Receiving Special Education under Part B of the IDEA, as amended, for all children with disabilities aged 6–21 served under IDEA. The data are analyzed using Statistical Analysis Software (SAS) to produce a weighted risk ratio (WRR) that identifies all racial/ethnic groups for all PEAs in the State. The ADE/ESS also uses SAS to calculate an alternate risk ratio (ARR) for PEAs that may have low numbers of students in either a particular ethnic group or other ethnicities, or both. The formula determines an ARR for PEAs if the PEA had more than 10 students in an ethnic group of interest, but less than 10 students in the comparable group. The ARR gives meaningful information about the multitude of small-sized rural school districts and public charter schools in Arizona, whereas risk ratios are more difficult to interpret based on small numbers of students. Arizona revised the definition of disproportionate representation for FFY 2007. The revised definition of disproportionate representation is a weighted risk ratio of 3.00 or above for over representation and 0.30 or below for under representation, using a cell size of 30 for the target racial/ethnic group and 30 for the other racial/ethnic groups. The data are analyzed annually and PEAs flagged each year. When a PEA is flagged, then the policies, procedures, and practices of the PEA are reviewed annually to determine if the disproportionate representation is the result of inappropriate identification. Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 80 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 Table 9.1: Definition to Flag PEAs for Disproportionate Representation Disproportionate Representation Weighted Risk Ratio # of Students in Target Racial/Ethnic Group # of Students in Other Racial/Ethnic Groups in Special Education and Related Services Over representation ≤ 0.30 30 30 Under representation ≥ 3.00 30 30 Arizona’s Procedures to Determine if Disproportionate Representation is the Result of Inappropriate Identification Arizona revised and refined its State procedures in FFY 2008 to ensure that policies, procedures, and practices are reviewed annually for all PEAs in a consistent manner and meet the requirements of 34 CFR §§ 300.173, 300.600(d)(3), and 300.602(a). The data are analyzed annually and PEAs are flagged each year for over representation, according to the State’s definition. When a PEA is flagged, then the policies, procedures, and practices of the PEA are reviewed annually to determine if the disproportionate representation is the result of inappropriate identification. Arizona’s Review of PEA’s Policies and Procedures On an annual basis, Arizona requires all PEAs to have special education policies and procedures in compliance with the requirements of 34 CFR § 300.111, § 300.201, and § 300.301 through § 300.311 prior to having Part B-IDEA Basic Entitlement Grant funds approved by the ADE/ESS. Each year, if the PEA makes any changes to the policies and procedures, the PEA must resubmit them to the State for review and acceptance. Each year, if the PEA does not make any changes to the policies and procedures, the PEA must submit a Statement of Assurance that says: “The PEA has not altered or modified the policies and procedures implementing the State and Federal requirements for services to children with disabilities previously submitted to and accepted by the Arizona Department of Education, Exceptional Student Services. If the PEA proposes to alter or modify the policies and procedures previously submitted to the Exceptional Student Services, the PEA must re-submit the policies and procedures to the Exceptional Student Services for review and acceptance.” Arizona’s Review of PEA’s Practices On an annual basis, Arizona calculates the WRR for each PEA and uses the data as a trigger to flag PEAs with disproportionate representation. If a PEA is flagged, then an investigation of the practices is required to determine whether the disproportionate representation is a result of inappropriate identification. Review of practices when a PEA is flagged for over representation the first year:  The ESS specialist reviews current monitoring data, if applicable.  The PEA conducts a self assessment of the agency’s child find, evaluation, and eligibility practices to determine whether the disproportionate representation is a result of inappropriate identification. The self assessment consists of a series of questions requiring narrative responses and a review of student files using the State’s monitoring forms. The ADE/ESS Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 81 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012  specialists conduct on-site visits and/or desk audits during the self assessment to validate the decisions made by the PEAs during the file reviews. Upon completion of the self assessment, the PEAs have the option to begin immediately revising their policies, procedures, and practices related to child find, evaluation, and eligibility and to correct any self-identified noncompliance. No more than 60 days after completion of the self assessment, the ESS specialists then interview the special education administrators and review student files via on-site visits and/or desk audits to verify correction of instances of the self-identified noncompliance, including child specific, and to ensure that regulatory requirements are being implemented based on subsequent file reviews of updated data. Review of practices when a PEA is flagged for over representation for two or more consecutive years:  If the PEA did not have disproportionate representation as a result of inappropriate identification the first year, then the ESS program specialist: o Reviews current monitoring data, if applicable, and; o Validates the prior year’s self assessment by reviewing a sample of student files.  If the PEA had disproportionate representation as a result of inappropriate identification the first year, then the PEA is required to: o Review current monitoring data, if applicable; o Review the prior year’s self assessment, and describe the issues identified; o Describe the steps taken to resolve those issues; o Describe any current concerns regarding possible inappropriate identification; o Describe the resources and technical assistance utilized to help address the issues related to disproportionate representation within the agency; and, o Review individual student files using the State’s monitoring forms.  The ADE/ESS specialists conduct on-site visits and/or desk audits during the file reviews to validate the decisions made by the PEAs.  The ESS specialists verify correction of instances of any self-identified noncompliance, including child specific, through on-site visits and/or desk audits.  The ESS specialist ensures that regulatory requirements are being implemented based on subsequent file reviews of updated data. When Arizona makes findings of noncompliance as a result of the review of policies, practices and procedures, the PEA has one year from the date of written notification from the State to correct the noncompliance. Baseline Data for FFY 2005 (2005–2006) Revised 0.0% of Arizona PEAs had disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services that was a result of inappropriate identification. [N = 0 / 549] Discussion of Baseline Data In order to comply with the OSEP requirements, Arizona is making significant modifications to its procedures for identifying PEAs with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups that is the result of inappropriate identification. The State is submitting new baseline information for FFY 2005 based on the procedures. Arizona met its target of having no PEAs with disproportionate representation in special education that was a result of inappropriate identification practices. While it is difficult to ascertain whether or not any over/under representation is a direct result of the inappropriate practices identified through monitoring, for the purposes of this report that assumption is made. Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 82 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 Arizona has elected to use the same definition for “disproportionate representation” and for “significant disproportionality” in order to minimize confusion within the State and to maximize the efforts of the ADE/ESS staff in completing the required reviews of policies, procedures, and practices. ADE/ESS ensures that the PEAs with a WRR ≥ 3.0 reserve the maximum amount of their Part B allocation for early intervening services regardless of the appropriateness of procedures. Table 9.2: Number of PEAs with Disproportionate Representation by Ethnicity in FFY 2005 WRR standard American Indian Asian Black Hispanic White ≥ 3.0 2 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 2 0 Additional over representation within above PEAs < .33 Additional under representation within above PEAs Table 9.3: Status Report PEAs with Disproportionate Representation by Race / Ethnicity WRR standard American Indian ≥ 3.0 2 PEAs: Disproportionality not a result of inappropriate practices < .33 1 PEA: Disproportionality not a result of inappropriate practices Asian Black Hispanic 1 PEA: Disproportionality not a result of inappropriate practices White 2 PEAs: Disproportionality not a result of inappropriate practices 2 PEAs: Disproportionality not a result of inappropriate practices In summary, the status of the 8 PEAs represented in Tables 9.2 and 9.3 is:  In 8 PEAs, the disproportionate representation was not a result of inappropriate policies, procedures, or practices. These PEAs are not included in the numerator for this indicator. FFY 2005 Measurable and Rigorous Targets (2005–2006) 2006 (2006–2007) 2007 (2007–2008) 2008 (2008–2009) 2009 (2009–2010) 2010 (2010–2011) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 83 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 2011 0% (2011–2012) 2012 0% (2012–2013) Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources Progress on improvement activities is reported in the Arizona Annual Performance Report. Improvement Activities Timelines Resources 1. Calculate agency-level weighted risk ratios (WWR) for enrollment in special education by ethnicity for all PEAs. Spring 2005 and continuing ESS data staff 2. Identify agencies with the highest risk factors for inappropriate disproportionality using the formula noted above in the description of system or process. Summer 2005 ESS leadership 3. Consult with NCCRESt to enhance Arizona’s existing disproportionality analysis tool. Winter 2006 ESS leadership 4. Revise the ESS monitoring system to require agencies with 3 or more points to focus on the compliance requirements most closely related to disproportionality (as extracted from the OSEP 21 Related Requirements document). Spring 2006 5. Require agencies that are in Year 4 of the ESS monitoring cycle and have 3 or more points to complete a disproportionality analysis tool and submit it to the ESS. Spring 2006 and continuing ESS leadership 6. Identify agencies with the highest risk factors for inappropriate identification practices and advise them of their status. Summer 2006 and continuing ESS leadership 7. Identify any agency that, following an on-site review and submission of the analysis, is determined to meet the definition of “disproportionate representation that is a result of 22 inappropriate identification.” Fall 2006 and continuing ESS leadership after consultation with the SEAP 8. Establish a statewide Response to Intervention (RTI) system to facilitate effective pre-referral interventions. Spring 2006 RTI specialist 21 22 ADE research specialist NCCRESt ESS monitoring team ESS programmers Agency staff ESS leadership Activities 4–10 are either modified or added in FFY 2005. Activity 7 was deleted in FFY 2006 in response to OSEP requirements. Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 84 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 Improvement Activities Timelines Resources 9. Require identified agencies to budget 15% of their IDEA grant for early intervening services for 23 disproportionate groups. Spring 2007 and continuing ESS Grants Management Unit 10. Provide “enhancement” points to agencies with disproportionate representation in the application process for RTI participation. Spring 2007 CSPD and ESS Grants Management Unit 11. Build support for addressing disproportionality into the State’s application for the continuation of the State Improvement Grant. Spring 2007 CSPD staff 12. Revise standards for determining disproportionate representation, including revised 24 baselines for FFY 2005. Summer 2007 ESS Leadership 13. Evaluate effectiveness of early intervening 25 services on disproportionality data. Spring 2008 and continuing ESS leadership The following is a new improvement activity added for FFY 2007. Primary Activity (GOAL) 1) Develop and implement a system for PEAs that are flagged as at risk for disproportionate representation Sub-Activities (Objectives or Action Steps) a) Analyze data on an annual basis to flag PEAs that have: (i) WRR equal to 2.5 and above for over representation (ii) WRR equal to 0.40 and below for under representation b) Notify PEAs on an annual basis that are flagged as at risk for disproportionate representation c) Provide assessment tools and guidelines on an annual basis to PEAs that are flagged as at risk to conduct a root cause analysis d) Provide resources to PEAs on an annual basis Timeline Complete Projected 7/1/09 – 8/1/11 Resources (Planned) 8/1/09 – 9/1/11 ADE/ESS Directors and Program Specialists ADE Research and Evaluation MPRRC ADE/ESS Directors 9/1/09 – 12/1/11 ADE/ESS Directors 10/1/09 – 12/31/11 ADE/ESS Directors 23 Activity 9 was deleted in FFY 2006 in response to OSEP requirements. Activity 11 added in FFY 2006. 25 Activity 13 discontinued for FFY 2007 because the differences have been clarified for the ADE/ESS between requirements for EIS and the SPP/APR requirements. 24 Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 85 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 that are flagged as at risk for disproportionate representation The following are new improvement activities for FFY 2010, and for FFY 2011 and FFY 2012 for the revised SPP. Primary Activity (GOAL) 1) Provide support for PEAs that are flagged as at risk for disproportionate representation with a WRR ≤ 0.40 for under representation and ≥ 2.5 for over representation 2) Provide support for PEAs that are flagged for disproportionate representation with a WRR ≤ 0.30 for under representation and a WRR ≥ 3.0 for over representation 3) Investigate strategies to assist PEAs that are flagged with disproportionate representation Sub-Activities (Objectives or Action Steps) a) Analyze data on an annual basis to flag PEAs that are at risk for disproportionate representation b) Notify PEAs on an annual basis that are flagged as at risk for disproportionate representation c) Provide assessment tools and resources on an annual basis to PEAs that are flagged as at risk to conduct a root cause analysis a) Notify PEAs on an annual basis that are flagged for disproportionate representation b) Provide technical assistance to PEA staff during their review of policies, procedures, and practices a) Investigate resources from the regional Equity Center, NCCRESt, and ADE/OELAS (Office of English Language Acquisition Services Timeline Complete Projected 7/1/106/30/13 7/1/106/30/13 7/1/106/30/13 7/1/106/30/13 7/1/106/30/13 7/1/1112/31/11 Resources (Planned) ADE/ESS Deputy Associate Superinten dent and Directors ADE/ESS Program Specialists ADE Research and Evaluation ADE/ESS Directors ADE/ESS Program Specialists ADE/ESS Directors ADE/ESS Program Specialists ADE/ESS Directors ADE/ESS Program Specialists ADE/ESS Directors ADE/ESS Program Specialists ADE/ESS Deputy Associate Superinten dent ADE/ESS Directors Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 86 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 b) Obtain input from stakeholders via regional groups and Special Education Advisory Panel 7/1/1112/31/11 c) Develop new strategies to assist PEAs that are flagged with disproportionate representation 1/1/126/30/12 d) Implement new strategies to assist PEAs that are flagged with disproportionate representation 7/1/126/30/13 ADE/ESS Deputy Associate Superinten dent ADE/ESS Directors ADE/ESS Deputy Associate Superinten dent ADE/ESS Directors ADE/ESS Program Specialists ADE/ESS Deputy Associate Superinten dent ADE/ESS Directors ADE/ESS Program Specialists Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 87 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 Monitoring Priority: Disproportionality Indicator 10: Racial / Ethnic Disproportionality by Disability Percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories that is the result of inappropriate identification. (20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(C)) Measurement Percent = [(# of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories that is the result of inappropriate identification) divided by the (# of districts in the State)] times 100. Include State’s definition of “disproportionate representation.” Based on its review of the 618 data for FFY 2011, describe how the State made its annual determination that the disproportionate overrepresentation it identified of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories was the result of inappropriate identification as required by §§300.600(d)(3) and 300.602(a), e.g., using monitoring data; reviewing policies, practices and procedures, etc. In determining disproportionate representation, analyze data, for each district, for all racial and ethnic groups in the district, or all racial and ethnic groups in the district that meet a minimum 'n' size set by the State. Report on the percent of districts in which disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories is the result of inappropriate identification, even if the determination of inappropriate identification was made after the end of the FFY 2011, i.e., after June 30, 2012. If inappropriate identification is identified, report on corrective actions taken. Overview of Issue / Description of System or Process The ADE/ESS collects the data from the PEAs through the October 1 Child Count report. The data are the same as collected and reported on Table 1 (Child Count) of the Report of Children with Disabilities Receiving Special Education under Part B of the IDEA, as amended, for all children with disabilities aged 6–21 served under IDEA. The data are analyzed using Statistical Analysis Software (SAS) to produce a weighted risk ratio (WRR) that identifies all racial/ethnic groups for all PEAs in the State. The ADE/ESS also uses SAS to calculate an alternate risk ratio (ARR) for PEAs that may have low numbers of students in either a particular ethnic group or other ethnicities, or both. The formula determines an ARR for PEAs if the PEA had more than 10 students in an ethnic group of interest, but less than 10 students in the comparable group. The ARR gives meaningful information about the multitude of small-sized rural school districts and public charter schools in Arizona, whereas risk ratios are more difficult to interpret based on small numbers of students. Arizona revised the definition of disproportionate representation for FFY 2007. The revised definition of disproportionate representation is a weighted risk ratio of 3.00 or above for over representation and 0.30 or below for under representation, using a cell size of 30 for the target racial/ethnic group and 30 for the other racial/ethnic groups. The data are analyzed annually and PEAs flagged each year. When a PEA is flagged, then the policies, procedures, and practices of the PEA are reviewed annually to determine if the disproportionate representation is the result of inappropriate identification. Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 88 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 Table 10.1 Definition to Flag PEAs for Disproportionate Representation Disproportionate Representation Weighted Risk Ratio # of Students in Target Racial/Ethnic Group # of Students in Other Racial/Ethnic Groups in Special Education and Related Services Over representation ≤ 0.30 30 30 Under representation ≥ 3.00 30 30 Arizona’s Procedures to Determine if Disproportionate Representation is the Result of Inappropriate Identification Arizona revised and refined its State procedures in FFY 2008 to ensure that policies, procedures, and practices are reviewed annually for all PEAs in a consistent manner and meet the requirements of 34 CFR §§ 300.173, 300.600(d)(3), and 300.602(a). The data are analyzed annually and PEAs are flagged each year for over representation, according to the State’s definition. When a PEA is flagged, then the policies, procedures, and practices of the PEA are reviewed annually to determine if the disproportionate representation is the result of inappropriate identification. Arizona’s Review of PEA’s Policies and Procedures On an annual basis, Arizona requires all PEAs to have special education policies and procedures in compliance with the requirements of 34 CFR § 300.111, § 300.201, and § 300.301 through § 300.311 prior to having Part B-IDEA Basic Entitlement Grant funds approved by the ADE/ESS. Each year, if the PEA makes any changes to the policies and procedures, the PEA must resubmit them to the State for review and acceptance. Each year, if the PEA does not make any changes to the policies and procedures, the PEA must submit a Statement of Assurance that says: “The PEA has not altered or modified the policies and procedures implementing the State and Federal requirements for services to children with disabilities previously submitted to and accepted by the Arizona Department of Education, Exceptional Student Services. If the PEA proposes to alter or modify the policies and procedures previously submitted to the Exceptional Student Services, the PEA must re-submit the policies and procedures to the Exceptional Student Services for review and acceptance.” Arizona’s Review of PEA’s Practices On an annual basis, Arizona calculates the WRR for each PEA and uses the data as a trigger to flag PEAs with disproportionate representation. If a PEA is flagged, then an investigation of the practices is required to determine whether the disproportionate representation is a result of inappropriate identification. Review of practices when a PEA is flagged for over representation the first year:  The ESS specialist reviews current monitoring data, if applicable.  The PEA conducts a self assessment of the agency’s child find, evaluation, and eligibility practices to determine whether the disproportionate representation is a result of inappropriate identification. The self assessment consists of a series of questions requiring narrative responses and a review of student files using the State’s monitoring forms. The ADE/ESS Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 89 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012  specialists conduct on-site visits and/or desk audits during the self assessment to validate the decisions made by the PEAs during the file reviews. Upon completion of the self assessment, the PEAs have the option to begin immediately revising their policies, procedures, and practices related to child find, evaluation, and eligibility and to correct any self-identified noncompliance. No more than 60 days after completion of the self assessment, the ESS specialists then interview the special education administrators and review student files via on-site visits and/or desk audits to verify correction of instances of the self-identified noncompliance, including child specific, and to ensure that regulatory requirements are being implemented based on subsequent file reviews of updated data. Review of practices when a PEA is flagged for over representation for two or more consecutive years:  If the PEA did not have disproportionate representation as a result of inappropriate identification the first year, then the ESS program specialist: o Reviews current monitoring data, if applicable, and; o Validates the prior year’s self assessment by reviewing a sample of student files.  If the PEA had disproportionate representation as a result of inappropriate identification the first year, then the PEA is required to: o Review current monitoring data, if applicable; o Review the prior year’s self assessment, and describe the issues identified; o Describe the steps taken to resolve those issues; o Describe any current concerns regarding possible inappropriate identification; o Describe the resources and technical assistance utilized to help address the issues related to disproportionate representation within the agency; and, o Review individual student files using the State’s monitoring forms.  The ADE/ESS specialists conduct on-site visits and/or desk audits during the file reviews to validate the decisions made by the PEAs.  The ESS specialists verify correction of instances of any self-identified noncompliance, including child specific, through on-site visits and/or desk audits.  The ESS specialist ensures that regulatory requirements are being implemented based on subsequent file reviews of updated data. When Arizona makes findings of noncompliance as a result of the review of policies, practices and procedures, the PEA has one year from the date of written notification from the State to correct the noncompliance. Baseline Data for FFY 2005 (2005–2006) 3.8% of Arizona PEAs had disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups by disability in special education and related services that was a result of inappropriate identification. [N = 21 / 549] Discussion of Baseline Data In order to comply with the OSEP requirements, Arizona is making significant modifications to its procedures for identifying PEAs with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups that is the result of inappropriate identification. The State is submitting new baseline information for FFY 2005 based on the procedures. Arizona did not meet its target of having no PEAs with disproportionate representation in any disability category that was a result of inappropriate identification practices. While it is difficult to Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 90 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 ascertain whether or not any over/under representation is a direct result of the inappropriate practices identified through monitoring, for the purposes of this report that assumption is made. ADE/ESS ensures that the PEAs with a WRR ≥ 3.0 reserve the maximum amount of their Part B allocation for early intervening services as required by CFR § 300.646 (b)(2) regardless of the appropriateness of their policies, procedures, and practices. Table 10.2: Number of PEAs with Disproportionate Representation by Ethnicity / Disability WRR standard American Indian Asian Black Hispanic White ≥ 3.0 5 SLD 1 SLI 3 MR 0 3 MR 2 SLD 1 ED 1 SLD 2 SLI 1 MR 1 ED 2 OHI 17 ED 4 SLD 8 SLI 6A 2 MR Additional over representation within above PEAs < .33 1 ED 0 0 0 Additional under representation within above PEAs 1A 6 ED 2 SLD 2 SLD 8 ED 1 OHI 2A Table 10.3: Status Report on PEAs with Disproportionate Representation by Race / Ethnicity WRR standard ≥ 3.0 American Indian Asian Black Hispanic 6 PEAs: Disproportionality not a result of inappropriate practices 5 PEAs: Disproportionality not a result of inappropriate practices 3 PEA: Disproportionality not a result of inappropriate practices 2 PEAs: Noncompliant practices corrected 1 PEA: Noncompliant practices corrected 1 PEAs: Noncompliant practices corrected 1 PEA: Noncompliant practices but 1 year timeline for correction not yet reached < .33 1 PEA: Noncompliant practices but 1 year timeline for correction not yet reached 5 PEAs: Disproportionality not a result of inappropriate practices 26 White 28 PEAs: Disproportionality not a result of inappropriate practices 6 PEAs: Noncompliant practices corrected 5 PEAs: Noncompliant practices but 1 year timeline for correction not yet reached 1 PEA: Disproportionality not a result of inappropriate practices 1 PEA: Noncompliant practices corrected 3 PEAs: Noncompliant practices but 1 year timeline for correction not 26 PEAs in bold are included in the numerator for the baseline calculations. Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 91 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 yet reached In summary, the status of the 69 PEAs represented in Tables 10.2 and 10.3 is:  In 48 PEAs, the disproportionate representation was not a result of inappropriate policies, procedures, or practices. These PEAs are not included in the numerator for this indicator.  In 11 PEAs, disproportionate representation and inappropriate practices coexisted, however the PEA has corrected the practices; therefore any disproportionality that continues to exist is not considered to be a result of inappropriate practices. These PEAs are included in the numerator because they had inappropriate practices at the time of the monitoring and data collection for FFY 2005.  In 10 PEAs, disproportionate representation and inappropriate practices coexist and the PEAs are in the process of correcting their practices but the one-year deadline for correction has not yet been reached. These PEAs are included in the numerator. The ADE/ESS will report on the status of these PEAs in the FFY 2007 APR. FFY 2005 Measurable and Rigorous Targets (2005–2006) 2006 0% (2006–2007) 2007 0% (2007–2008) 2008 0% (2008–2009) 2009 0% (2009–2010) 2010 0% (2010–2011) 2011 0% (2011–2012) 2012 0% (2012–2013) Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources Progress on improvement activities is reported in the Arizona Annual Performance Report. Improvement Activities Timelines Resources 1. See activities outlined for Indicator # 9. The following is a new improvement activity added for FFY 2007. Primary Activity (GOAL) Sub-Activities (Objectives or Action Timeline Complete Projected Resources (Planned) Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 92 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 1) Develop and implement a system for PEAs that are flagged as at risk for disproportionate representation Steps) a) Analyze data on an annual basis to flag PEAs that have: (i) WRR equal to 2.5 and above for over representation (ii) WRR equal to 0.40 and below for under representation b) Notify PEAs on an annual basis that are flagged as at risk for disproportionate representation c) Provide assessment tools and guidelines on an annual basis to PEAs that are flagged as at risk to conduct a root cause analysis d) Provide resources to PEAs on an annual basis that are flagged as at risk for disproportionate representation 7/1/09 – 8/1/11 8/1/09 – 9/1/11 ADE/ESS Directors and Program Specialists ADE Research and Evaluation MPRRC ADE/ESS Directors 9/1/09 – 12/1/11 ADE/ESS Directors 10/1/09 – 12/31/11 ADE/ESS Directors The following are new improvement activities for FFY 2010, and FFY 2011 and FFY 2012 for the revised SPP. Primary Activity (GOAL) 1) Provide support for PEAs that are flagged as at risk for disproportionate representation with a WRR ≤ 0.40 for under representation and ≥ 2.5 for over representation Sub-Activities (Objectives or Action Steps) a) Analyze data on an annual basis to flag PEAs that are at risk for disproportionate representation b) Notify PEAs on an annual basis that are flagged as at risk for disproportionate representation Timeline Complete Projected 7/1/106/30/13 7/1/106/30/13 Resources (Planned) ADE/ESS Deputy Associate Superinten dent and Directors ADE/ESS Program Specialists ADE Research and Evaluation ADE/ESS Directors ADE/ESS Program Specialists Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 93 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 2) Provide support for PEAs that are flagged for disproportionate representation with a WRR ≤ 0.30 for under representation and a WRR ≥ 3.0 for over representation 3) Investigate strategies to assist PEAs that are flagged with disproportionate representation c) Provide assessment tools and resources on an annual basis to PEAs that are flagged as at risk to conduct a root cause analysis a) Notify PEAs on an annual basis that are flagged for disproportionate representation b) Provide technical assistance to PEA staff during their review of policies, procedures, and practices a) Investigate resources from the regional Equity Center, NCCRESt, and ADE/OELAS (Office of English Language Acquisition Services b) Obtain input from stakeholders via regional groups and Special Education Advisory Panel 7/1/106/30/13 ADE/ESS Directors ADE/ESS Program Specialists 7/1/106/30/13 ADE/ESS Directors ADE/ESS Program Specialists ADE/ESS Directors ADE/ESS Program Specialists c) Develop new strategies to assist PEAs that are flagged with disproportionate representation 1/1/126/30/12 d) Implement new strategies to assist PEAs that are flagged with disproportionate representation 7/1/126/30/13 7/1/106/30/13 7/1/1112/31/11 ADE/ESS Deputy Associate Superinten dent ADE/ESS Directors 7/1/1112/31/11 ADE/ESS Deputy Associate Superinten dent ADE/ESS Directors ADE/ESS Deputy Associate Superinten dent ADE/ESS Directors ADE/ESS Program Specialists ADE/ESS Deputy Associate Superinten dent ADE/ESS Directors ADE/ESS Program Specialists Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 94 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B / Child Find Indicator 11: Evaluation Timelines Percent of children who were evaluated within 60 days of receiving parental consent for initial evaluation or, if the State establishes a timeframe within which the evaluation must be conducted, within that timeframe. (20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(B)) Measurement a. # of children for whom parental consent to evaluate was received. b. # of children whose evaluations were completed within 60 days (or State-established timeline). Account for children included in a but not included in b. Indicate the range of days beyond the timeline when the evaluation was completed and any reasons for the delays. Percent = [(b) divided by (a)] times 100. Overview of Issue / Description of System or Process The data for this indicator are collected through the ESS monitoring system. The 60-day timeline for initial evaluations is measured from parental consent for the collection of additional data to the date of the eligibility determination on the sampled files. The monitoring system includes a sample of children who were evaluated and found to be not eligible to ensure that the reporting on this indicator addresses both groups of students. The monitoring system includes a root cause analysis when a PEA does not meet the 100% compliance status. Evaluations that exceeded the 60-day timeline are reviewed again following the monitoring to ensure that the evaluation was completed even though the timeline was exceeded. The monitoring system also requires that 100% compliance on this requirement be demonstrated either through extensive subsequent file sampling or database analysis prior to closing out a PEA’s monitoring. Information related to the number of days beyond the 60-day timeline and the specific reasons for any delays are reported. Baseline Data for FFY 2004 and FFY 2005 Year FFY 2004 FFY 2005 # of initial evaluations 618 672 # completed within 60 days of consent 505 577 Percent compliant 82% 86% Discussion of Baseline Data Of the 672 initial evaluation files reviewed during the FFY 2005 monitoring, 86% met the 60-day requirement for evaluation. While this does not reach the target of 100%, it might be considered a respectable figure given that the 60-day timeline is a new federal requirement. Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 95 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 The ESS monitoring system was modified for FFY 2005 to include a root cause analysis when a PEA did not meet the 100% compliance status. In addition, the monitoring system now requires that 100% compliance on this requirement be demonstrated either through extensive file sampling or data base analysis prior to closing out a PEA’s monitoring. Information regarding the specific reasons for delays will be available for the FFY 2006 Annual Performance Report; however, anecdotal reports indicate that delays are caused by staff availability issues, inadequate tracking systems, parentally-caused delays, and the need for medical or other highly specialized evaluations that are difficult to schedule quickly. FFY Measurable and Rigorous Targets 2006 100% (2006–2007) 2007 (2007–2008) 2008 (2008–2009) 2009 (2009–2010) 2010 (2010–2011) 2011 (2011–2012) 2012 (2012–2013) 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources Progress on improvement activities is reported in the Arizona Annual Performance Report. Improvement Activities Timelines Resources 1. Amend monitoring procedures to consider 60day timelines for initial evaluations only. Summer 2005 ESS Monitoring Team 2. Enhance corrective action plan development to require a review of student files for the reasons the 60-day requirements were not met and the implementation of actions to overcome the identified reasons. Fall 2005–spring 2006 ESS specialists Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 96 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 Improvement Activities Timelines Resources 3. Amend monitoring system to include the review of files of students who were found not eligible for special education. Spring 2006 for fall 2006 implementation ESS Monitoring Team 4. Enhance the System for Utilizing Peers in Program Organization, Review, and Technical Assistance (SUPPORT) Cadre membership to assist schools in evaluation procedures related to timelines. Fall 2007 ESS CSPD Support Cadre 5. Consider the inclusion of evaluation timeline data as part of the collection of PEA annual performance data. Summer 2008 ESS data unit 6. Monitor for PEAs’ system of tracking evaluation timelines. Fall 2009 ESS Monitoring Team The following are new improvement activities for FFY 2007. Primary Activity (GOAL) 1) Revise ADE/ESS monitoring process and system 2) Develop and disseminate a tool for PEAs to track 60-day evaluation timelines Sub-Activities (Objectives or Action Steps) a) ADE/ESS Monitoring Team will revise monitoring process and system b) Field test revised monitoring system Timeline Complete Projected 5/1/08 – 12/31/09 1/1/10 – 6/30/10 c) Revise monitoring system based on results from field test 7/1/10 – 9/30/10 d) Implementation of fully revised system and process e) Collect and analyze data from revised monitoring system a) Develop evaluation tracking system 10/1/10 b) Disseminate evaluation tracking system c) Provide technical assistance to PEAs using evaluation tracking system Resources (Planned) ADE/ESS Monitoring Team MPRRC DAC ADE/ESS Monitoring Team ADE/ESS Monitoring Team MPRRC DAC ADE/ESS Monitoring Team 10/1/10 – 6/30/11 ADE/ESS Monitoring Team 9/1/08 – 6/30/10 MPRRC ADE/ESS Directors ADE/ESS Specialists SEAP ADE/ESS Directors ADE/ESS Specialists 9/1/08 – 6/30/11 ADE/ESS Directors ADE/ESS Specialists 8/08 Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 97 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 The following are new improvement activities for FFY 2008. Primary Activity (GOAL) 1) Decrease the number of unfilled positions for speech/language pathologists in Arizona 2) Decrease the number of unfilled positions for school psychologists in Arizona Sub-Activities (Objectives or Action Steps) a) Collect and analyze data on unfilled positions in PEAs through the Annual Special Education Data Collection Timeline Complete Projected Resources (Planned) 7/1/09 – 6/30/11 ADE/ESS CSPD b) Recruit at national ASHA conference 7/1/09 – 6/30/11 ADE/ESS Data Management Specialist ADE/ESS CSPD c) Recruit at national CEC conference 7/1/09 – 6/30/11 ADE/ESS CSPD d) Conduct annual Arizona Teach-In, a statewide recruitment fair for Arizona education employers e) Sponsor the Arizona Education Employment Board, a free statewide employment board for employers and prospective employees f) Provide tuition assistance in the master’s program to school-based speechlanguage technicians via the SPDG grant and a contract with Arizona State University and Northern Arizona University a) Collect and analyze data on unfilled positions in PEAs through the Annual Special Education Data Collection 7/1/09 – 6/30/11 ADE/ESS CSPD 7/1/09 – 6/30/11 ADE/ESS CSPD 7/1/09 – 6/30/11 ADE/ESS CSPD 7/1/09 – 6/30/11 ADE/ESS CSPD b) Recruit at national CEC conference 7/1/09 – 6/30/11 ADE/ESS Data Management Specialist ADE/ESS CSPD c) Conduct annual Arizona Teach-In, a statewide recruitment fair for Arizona 7/1/09 – 6/30/11 ADE/ESS CSPD Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 98 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 education employers 3) Revise ADE/ESS AZTAS evaluation and eligibility document used for technical assistance (AZTAS is the Arizona Technical Assistance System) d) Sponsor the Arizona Education Employment Board, a free statewide employment board for employers and prospective employees a) ADE/ESS will rewrite the AZTAS Evaluation and Eligibility document Activities completed from 1/1/09 to 6/30/09. 7/1/09 – 6/30/11 ADE/ESS CSPD 1/1/09 – 6/30/09 ADE/ESS Deputy Associate Superintende nt and Directors 7/1/09 – 6/30/10 ADE/ESS Deputy Associate Superintende nt, Directors, and Specialists Evaluation document revised to reflect new requirements and procedures. Expanded with new guidance, sample forms, and definitions. b) Disseminate the AZTAS Evaluation and Eligibility document to the PEAs electronically and via ESS specialist The following are new improvement activities for FFY 2010, and for FFY 2011 and 2012 for the revised SPP. Primary Activity (GOAL) 1) Develop and disseminate flyer to PEAs that will inform about timeline for initial evaluations 2) Develop and conduct webinars pertaining to the requirements for compliant evaluations and IEPs Sub-Activities (Objectives or Action Steps) a) Create flyer with Arizona Administrative Code (AAC) information on initial evaluation timeline b) Disseminate flyer to PEAs via ESS specialists a) Develop webinar trainings for evaluation and IEP requirements b) Conduct statewide webinars for evaluation and IEP requirements c) Collect and analyze training feedback from participants d) Collect corrective action close-out (timeline) data for Timeline Complete Projected Resources (Planned) 10/1/1011/30/10 ADE/ESS Directors 12/1/106/30/11 ADE/ESS Directors and Specialists ADE/ESS Directors and Specialists ADE/ESS Directors and Specialists ADE/ESS Directors and Specialists ADE/ESS Directors and Specialists 12/1/106/30/11 7/1/1112/31/11 1/1/124/30/12 5/1/126/30/12 Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 99 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 evaluation and IEP monitoring line items 3) Review the ADE/ESS AZTAS Evaluation and Eligibility technical assistance document and revise, as necessary a) Review the AZTAS Evaluation and Eligibility document to determine if current with statute and regulations 7/1/1112/31/11 b) Revise the AZTAS Evaluation and Eligibility document, if appropriate 1/1/126/30/12 c) Disseminate revised AZTAS Evaluation and Eligibility document via ESS Web site and ESS specialists 7/1/126/30/13 ADE/ESS Deputy Associate Superintende nt and Directors ADE/ESS Deputy Associate Superintende nt, Directors, and Specialists ADE/ESS Directors and Specialists Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 100 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B / Effective Transition Indicator 12: Early Childhood 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 birthdays. (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 Part B eligibility determination. b. # of those referred determined to be NOT eligible and whose eligibility was 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 or to whom exceptions under 34 CFR § 300.301(d) applied. e. # of children who were referred to Part C less than 90 days before their third birthdays. Account for children included in a but not included in b, c, d or e. Indicate the range of days beyond the third birthday when eligibility was determined and the IEP developed and the reasons for the delays. Percent = [(c) divided by (a - b - d - e)] times 100. Overview of Issue / Description of System or Process The Arizona Department of Education Early Childhood Education division (ADE/ECE) works with the Arizona Department of Economic Security/Arizona Early Intervention Program (DES/AzEIP), the State entity responsible for Part C early intervention services, to ensure children and their families experience a timely transition from Part C early intervention services to Part B preschool special education services. The ADE/ECE collects census data for all children who are referred for DES/AzEIP services through the Annual Special Education Data Collection, an ADE Web-based system. For those children found eligible, PEAs report the number of children who have an Individualized Education Program (IEP) implemented by the third birthday. For children who are not provided FAPE or who are found noneligible by age three, data are collected for the reason and number of days beyond the timeline that FAPE was provided. The ADE/ECE has procedures to correct noncompliance within one year of written notification of noncompliance to the PEAs. If noncompliance is not corrected within one year from the date of written notification, enforcement action consists of interruption of funds until noncompliance is corrected. Baseline Data for FFY 2004 (2004–2005) ADE/ECE/ESS did not collect data isolating children referred by Part C for Part B eligibility in 2004– 2005 through any statewide data collection system. However, the ESS did monitor for compliance Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 101 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 with transition requirements, including ensuring FAPE by age three during its standard monitoring cycle. Figure 4 reports the monitoring results over the last five years on this line item. Figure 12.1: FAPE by Age 3 Monitoring Results Percent of files in compliance % FAPE by 3 from Monitoring 100 80 60 40 20 0 % FAPE by 3 % FAPE by 3 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 56 68 79 82 83 Discussion of Baseline Data See Indicator 15 for additional information on the ESS monitoring system. Prior to 2005–2006, Arizona did not collect data through SAIS on IEP development by a child’s third birthday. Beginning in 2005–2006, Arizona modified indicators in SAIS so that PEAs will indicate IEP development by a child’s third birthday. Beginning in 2006–2007, SAIS will be further modified so that PEAs will indicate whether or not a child was served in Part C before becoming eligible for Part B services. Both enhancements to SAIS will enable ADE/ECE/ESS to capture data necessary from 100% of PEAs to accurately report on this indicator. AzEIP is also enhancing their data system by adding the following indicator fields for all children referred by Part C to Part B: “transition meeting date,” “date IEP developed,” and “preschool start date.” These additional fields will provide further checks on data reported by PEAs for this indicator in the future. FFY 2005 Data Update to the State Performance Plan Prior to the 2005–2006 school year, the only data collection method that Arizona had for this indicator was monitoring statistics. The data reported in the SPP was based on a sample size of 236 files of children who were Part B eligible. With the publication of the requirements for the SPP, this method of calculation was no longer viable as it did not consider the timelines for children who were found ineligible for Part B, nor did it seem to represent sufficient sample size. To respond to this problem, the ADE/ESS instituted a year-end report (to coincide with the collection of other § 618 data) that captured the data as it was required for the SPP. The reporting requirement was extended to all elementary and unified districts in the State, and thus, the data presented in the FFY 2005 APR is no longer based on a sample but on the entire population of children exiting Part C who were referred to Part B. FFY Measurable and Rigorous Targets Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 102 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 2005 (2005–2006) 2006 (2006–2007) 2007 (2007–2008) 2008 (2008–2009) 2009 (2009–2010) 2010 (2010–2011) 2011 (2011–2012) 2012 (2012–2013) 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources Progress on improvement activities is reported in the Arizona Annual Performance Report. Improvement Activities Timelines Resources 1. Continue providing targeted TA on transition agreement compliance to PEAs as requested or identified through monitoring and data analysis. Fall 2005–spring 2011 ECE staff 2. Enhance corrective action plan development as a result of monitoring findings to require the review of student files for the reasons the FAPE by age 3 requirement was not met and the implementation of actions to overcome the identified causes. Fall 2005–spring 2011 ESS and ECE staff 3. Mine data from the enhanced AzEIP data system to validate FAPE-by-age-three 27 information required by OSEP indicators. Fall 2005–Spring 2007 AzEIP leadership and contracted service providers 4. Modify the EC transition data collection form to include the new requirement to identify Winter 2007 ESS Data Collection Manager 27 AzEIP staff PEA staff This activity has been eliminated after FFY 2006 as the AzEIP data system does not capture the data. Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 103 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 Improvement Activities Timelines Resources those children whose parents were the cause 28 of any transition delay. 5. Require demonstration of 100% compliance with transition timelines prior to closing any monitoring from the 2005–2006 school year. Fall 2006–summer 2007 ESS Regional Specialists 6. Publish the EC transition compliance status for all applicable districts through the ADE/ESS Web site. Winter 2007 ESS Leadership 7. Require districts with significant problems on this indicator to conduct a root cause analysis and develop an improvement plan. Fall 2007 and continuing EC Leadership 8. Revise the interagency agreement with AzEIP to further clarify and define the responsibilities 29 of each agency in the transition process. Fall 2007 EC Leadership ESS Leadership AzEIP Leadership The following are new improvement activities for FFY 2007. Primary Activity (GOAL) 1) Conduct joint ADE/AzEIP “Transition 101” trainings annually for new AzEIP and PEA staff 2) Implement Alert System between Part C and Part B to examine and resolve systemic issues 28 29 Sub-Activities (Objectives or Action Steps) a) Conduct “Transition 101” trainings annually at the Directors’ Institute for new AzEIP and PEA staff b) Review and revise resource materials, and disseminate to new AzEIP and PEA staff c) Post resource materials on the ADE/ECSE Web site a) Maintain database to track the number of alerts reported to both ECSE and AzEIP b) Maintain database to track the number of days for issues to be resolved between AzEIP and PEAs and intervene in a timely manner Timeline Complete Projected 7/1/08 – 6/30/11 7/1/08 – 6/30/11 Resources (Planned) ADE/ECSE Staff AzEIP Staff PEA Staff ADE/ECSE Staff AzEIP Staff 7/1/08 – 6/30/11 ADE/ECSE Staff AzEIP Staff 7/1/08 – 6/30/11 ADE/ECSE Staff 7/1/08 – 6/30/11 ADE/ECSE Staff New activities 5–8 in FFY 2005. New activity for FFY 2006. Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 104 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 3) Conduct targeted technical assistance to PEAs found to be noncompliant c) Maintain database to track the reasons an alert was issued and intervene to resolve systemic issues a) Provide phone and email consultation to PEAs found to be noncompliant b) Review noncompliant PEAs’ policies, procedures, and practices via desk audits and monthly review of data 7/1/08 – 6/30/11 ADE/ECSE Staff 7/1/08 – 6/30/11 ADE/ECSE Staff 7/1/08 – 6/30/11 ADE/ECSE Staff The following is a new improvement activity for FFY 2008 based on guidance from the OSEP Early Childhood Transition FAQs dated 12/1/09. Primary Activity (GOAL) 1) Improve data collection system to ensure reliability and validity of data Sub-Activities (Objectives or Action Steps) a) Modify the ESS Annual Special Education Data Collection b) Train PEAs about Annual Special Education Data Collection c) Add date of referral to AzEIP on the AzEIP forms used for transition meetings d) Modify the ECSE process to verify correction of noncompliance e) Train PEAs about changes to data collection, reporting, and verification Timeline Complete Projected Resources (Planned) 1/1/10 – 3/1/10 ADE/ESS/EC SE 3/1/10 – 6/1/10 ADE/ESS Data Management AzEIP Staff 1/1/10 – 6/30/10 11/1/09 – 3/1/10 ADE/ECSE 1/1/10 – 6/30/11 ADE/ECSE AzEIP The following are new improvement activities for FFY 2010, and for FFY 2011 and FFY 2012 for the revised SPP. 1) Implement new series of transition trainings regarding 2010 IGA 2) Post training materials to ADE/ECSE Web site a) Provide professional joint development activities with service coordinators and school district personnel that emphasize 100% compliance and building of relationships a) Provide access to professional development training materials for AzEIP and school district personnel on 7/1/106/30/13 ADE/ECSE Director ADE/ECSE Specialist AzEIP Staff 7/1/106/30/13 ADE/ECSE Director ADE/ECSE Specialist AzEIP Staff Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 105 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 3) Promote and support “I’m Turning 3: What’s Next for Me” parent trainings ADE/ECSE Web site a) Post “I’m Turning 3: What’s Next for Me” on ECSE Web site 7/1/106/30/13 4) Maintain Alert System between Part C and Part B to examine and resolve systemic and situational issues a) Respond to individual alerts at local level to resolve issues 7/1/106/30/13 b) Maintain database to track number of alerts reported to ADE/ECSE and AzEIP 7/1/106/30/13 5) Conduct targeted technical assistance to PEAs found to be noncompliant a) Provide phone and e-mail consultation to PEAs found to be noncompliant 7/1/106/30/13 b) Review noncompliant PEAs’ policies, procedures, and practices via desk audits and monthly review of data 7/1/106/30/13 ADE/ECSE AzEIP Staff PEA Staff Parent Information Network Specialists Raising Special Kids ADE/ECSE Director ADE/ECSE Specialist AzEIP Staff ADE/ECSE Director ADE/ECSE Specialist AzEIP Staff ADE/ECSE Director ADE/ECSE Specialist AzEIP Staff ADE/ECSE Director ADE/ECSE Specialist AzEIP Staff The following is a new improvement activity for FFY 2011 Primary Activity (GOAL) 1) Revise the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with the Arizona Early Intervention Program (AzEIP) Sub-Activities (Objectives or Action Steps) a) Review and revise the 2010 IGA with AzEIP to align with the Part C regulations Timeline Complete Projected 7/1/11– 6/30/13 Resources (Planned) ADE/ECSE Director AzEIP Staff Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 106 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B / Effective Transition Indicator 13: Secondary Transition Percent of youth with IEPs aged 16 and above with an IEP that includes appropriate measurable postsecondary goals that are annually updated and based upon an age appropriate transition assessment, transition services, including courses of study, that will reasonably enable the student to meet those postsecondary goals, and annual IEP goals related to the student’s transition services needs. There also must be evidence that the student was invited to the IEP Team meeting where transition services are to be discussed and evidence that, if appropriate, a representative of any participating agency was invited to the IEP Team meeting with the prior consent of the parent or student who has reached the age of majority. (20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(B)) Measurement Percent = [(# of youth with IEPs aged 16 and above with an IEP that includes appropriate measurable postsecondary goals that are annually updated and based upon an age appropriate transition assessment, transition services, including courses of study, that will reasonably enable the student to meet those postsecondary goals, and annual IEP goals related to the student’s transition services needs. There also must be evidence that the student was invited to the IEP Team meeting where transition services are to be discussed and evidence that, if appropriate, a representative of any participating agency was invited to the IEP Team meeting with the prior consent of the parent or student who has reached the age of majority) divided by the (# of youth with an IEP age 16 and above)] times 100. Overview of Issue / Description of System or Process The data for this indicator are extracted from the ESS monitoring system. The National Secondary Transition Technical Assistance Center (NSTTAC) Indicator 13 Checklist was used as a guide for the eight components from which data are pulled. The eight items are:         Measurable post-secondary goals Postsecondary goals updated annually Postsecondary goals based upon age appropriate transition assessment Transition services Courses of study Annual IEP goals related to transition service needs Student invited to IEP meeting Representative of participating agency invited to IEP meeting A root cause analysis is included in the monitoring when compliance is less than 100% for any component related to this indicator. The monitoring system also requires that 100% compliance on this requirement be demonstrated through extensive subsequent file sampling prior to closing out a PEA’s monitoring. Baseline Data for FFY 2009 (using 2009-2010 data) Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 107 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 a. Number of youth with an IEP age 16 and above 896 b. Number of youth with IEPs aged 16 and above with an IEP that includes all the required components of secondary transition 809 Percent of youth with IEPs aged 16 and above with an IEP that includes all the required components of secondary transition. (Percent = [(b) divided by (a)] times 100) 90% Discussion of Baseline Data for FFY 2009 (using 2009-2010 data) The data for Indicator 13 are from the Arizona monitoring system. Public education agencies (PEAs) are selected for monitoring each fiscal year based on the results of a review of the agency’s data, including that from the SPP/APR, dispute resolution, audit findings, and annual determinations. While Arizona has maintained a 6-year monitoring cycle with assigned activities always occurring in year 4, PEAs can be moved into year 4 when the data reviews indicate systemic issues. Data are collected from the PEAs during one of three types of monitorings:  Data Review - PEAs review student files with a focus on Indicator 13. The ADE/ESS specialist validates the compliance calls. The student file forms are submitted to ESS for data entry.  Self-Assessment - PEAs review student files and collect data for Indicator 13. The PEAs also focus on identified SPP/APR Indicators with agency results that have not met the State target. The ADE/ESS specialist validates the compliance calls. The student file forms are submitted to ESS for data entry.  On-Site - PEAs and the ADE/ESS team reviews student files, collects data through surveys and interviews, and collects data for Indicator 13. The ADE/ESS staff inputs data. During FFY 2009, a finding by incidence for Indicator 13 is defined as every individual source of information, and having a description of a Federal or State statute or regulation. A source of information for Indicator 13 is a student file. The finding by incidence is a written notification to the PEA by the State that the individual source of information is noncompliant. During the summer of 2009, the ESS Monitoring Team and the ESS transition specialists aligned the line items in the monitoring system to the NSTTACC Indicator 13 Checklist items so that baseline data could be captured. The baseline data include all eight components from the NSTTAC checklist. FFY 2009 Findings of Noncompliance # of findings by incidence of noncompliance # of findings by incidence corrected prior to oneyear timeline as of 1/15/11 87 65 Arizona made 87 findings of noncompliance in FFY 2009. Although the PEAs have one year to correct the noncompliance, 65 findings have been corrected as of January 15, 2011. Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 108 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 FFY Measurable and Rigorous Targets 2010 (2010-2011) 100% 2011 (2011-2012) 100% 2012 (2012-2013) 100% FFY 2008 Findings of Noncompliance Arizona did not report on Indicator 13 in the FFY 2008 APR. The correction of FFY 2008 findings of noncompliance for Indicator 13 is reported in Indicator 15. Correction of Remaining Findings of Noncompliance from FFY 2007 or Earlier Not applicable. Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources Improvement Activities Developed in FFY 2007 Completed, Discontinued, and/or Revised, with Justification, for FFY 2009 The following improvement activities that were developed in FFY 2007 have been completed, discontinued, and/or revised for FFY 2008 and FFY 2009. Activities #1 (a), (b), and (c) are completed and revised; activities #2 (a) through (h) are completed and/or discontinued. Revisions to the improvement activities related to goal #1 are necessary because of the redesign of the comprehensive training plan for secondary transition and the inclusion of all required eight components into the Indicator 13 measurement. The discontinuation of improvement activities related to goal #2 are due to integration of the activities of the pilot Transition Mentor program into the ESS capacity building grant related to secondary transition in FFY 2009. Refer to the new improvement activities in separate section below. Primary Activity (GOAL) 1) Develop and implement a comprehensive plan for training PEAs to increase compliance with postsecondary Sub-Activities (Objectives or Action Steps) a) Identify PEAs in Years 2, 3, and 4 of the monitoring cycle through collaboration with ESS program specialists Timeline Complete Activities completed 7/31/08. The PEA list for FFY 2008 completed July 2008. Projected 7/1/086/30/11 Resources (Planned) ESS Transition Specialists ESS Program Specialists This activity completed and Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 109 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 requirements related to Indicator 13 revised (see new improvement activities). b) Provide regional trainings on secondary transition IEP requirements 2) Develop and implement a pilot “Transition Mentor” program c) Analyze pre- and posttraining data collected through “Annual Site Visit Log” on 1) writing measurable postsecondary goals and 2) developing transition services/activities to support the postsecondary goals. a) Invite PEAs from southern Arizona (targeting PEAs in Year 3 of monitoring cycle) representing urban, rural, and remote geographic areas to select staff to participate in intensive training, collaboration, and ongoing support to bring all IEPs into 100% compliance for Indicator 13 b) Host 1.5-day training per semester to gather data on PEA IEPs using NSTTAC Checklist and Arizona guide steps. Provide targeted training on: writing measurable postsecondary goals for education/training, employment and, where appropriate, independent living skills; writing measurable annual IEP goals related to the postsecondary goals; developing transition services that focus on improving the academic Activities completed from 7/1/08 to 5/30/09. 8/1/086/30/11 ESS Transition Specialists 8/1/086/30/11 ESS Transition Specialists ESS Program Specialists MPRRC 1/1/092/1/09 ESS Program Specialists ESS Transition Specialists 2/1/093/31/09 ESS Transition Specialists ESS Staff MPRRC NSTTAC 31 regional trainings on Indicator 13 were provided statewide. This activity completed and revised (see new improvement activities). Activities completed 7/31/09. This activity completed and revised to reflect the OSEP requirement to report on all eight Indicator 13 components (see new improvement activities). Activities completed 1/30/09. 16 PEAs were invited and participated in the Pilot Mentoring Project. This activity completed and discontinued. Activities completed from 2/1/09 to 3/31/09. 1.5 day trainings were provided in 3 different southern Arizona locations for the 16 PEAs that participated. This activity completed and discontinued. Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 110 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 and functional achievement of the student to facilitate his/her movement from school to post-school; obtaining parent/age of majority student consent to invite outside agencies; using age-appropriate transition assessments; developing a course of study tied to student’s identified postsecondary goals c) PEAs participating in the pilot determine preand post-training proficiency levels using monitoring guide steps d) ADE hosts monthly teleconferences for mentors to discuss barriers, progress, and exchange resources e) Host Wrap-Up Workshop at end of semester, collect data using NSTTAC Checklist and AZ guide steps, and celebrate success f) Publish names of mentors in ADE publications, send letters to participating PEA superintendents recognizing staff and outcomes of project g) When monitored, publish and list on ADE Web site and in publications the PEAs attaining 100% compliance on Indicator 13 Activities completed 3/31/10. 2/1/0912/31/09 This activity completed and discontinued. Activities completed 5/29/09. 3/1/0912/31/09 Two teleconferences were conducted. ESS will integrate this activity into the secondary transition capacity building grant for FFY 2009. This activity completed and discontinued. Activities completed from 1/1/10 to 3/31/10. 12/1/0912/31/09 ESS Transition Specialists ESS Staff MPRRC NSTTAC 1/1/106/30/10 ESS Leadership ESS Transition Specialists ESS Staff 10/1/106/30/10 ESS Leadership ESS Transition Specialists ESS Program ESS specialists compiled data and shared results with Pilot Mentoring participants. This activity completed and discontinued. This activity discontinued. This activity discontinued. ESS Transition Specialists ESS Staff MPRRC ESS Transition Specialists MPRRC Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 111 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 h) Make determination on implementing mentor program statewide during 2010-2011 school year Activities completed 4/29/09. 6/1/106/3010 The Pilot Mentoring model was determined successful and will be incorporated into the secondary transition capacity building grant for FFY 2009, one year earlier than anticipated. Specialists ESS Staff ESS Leadership ESS Transition Specialists This activity completed and discontinued. Improvement Activities Developed in FFY 2008 and Completed for FFY 2009 The following are new and/or revised improvement activities developed and implemented during FFY 2008 and FFY 2009 to ensure compliance with the transition requirements. Arizona did not report on Indicator 13 in the FFY 2008 APR; thus, these activities were not reported. Revisions to the FFY 2007 improvement activities were necessary because of the redesign of the comprehensive training plan for secondary transition and the inclusion of all required eight components into the Indicator 13 measurement. A new goal and activities were written to incorporate the activities of the pilot Transition Mentor program into the ESS capacity building grant related to secondary transition in FFY 2008. Primary Activity (GOAL) 1) Revise, implement, and evaluate a comprehensive plan for training PEAs to increase compliance with postsecondary requirements related to Indicator 13 Sub-Activities (Objectives or Action Steps) a) On an annual basis, identify PEAs in Years 2 and 3 of the monitoring cycle through collaboration with ESS specialists b) On an annual basis, review, revise (if necessary), and implement the comprehensive training plan, emphasizing the eight required components of Indicator 13 Timeline Complete Projected Resources (Planned) Activities completed 8/31/09. 7/1/096/30/10 FFY 2009 PEA list completed August 2009. The Annual Site Visit Log (ASVL) from SY 2008-2009 was utilized to identify PEAs most in need of training and TA for Indicator 13. Activities completed from 7/1/09 to 6/30/10. ADE/ESS Transition Specialists ADE/ESS Program Specialists 7/1/096/30/10 ADE/ESS Transition Specialists The FFY 2009 review and revision of the Strategic Plan for Statewide Transition Planning was completed July 2009. Implementation of the Strategic Plan was completed from July 2009 Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 112 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 to June 2010. The Strategic Plan includes seven main components: 1. Provide training to targeted PEAs and in response to requests from non-targeted PEAs for Indicator 13; 2. Organize Arizona’s Ninth Annual Transition Conference focusing on improving post-school outcomes for students with disabilities by providing sessions on transition planning and dropout prevention; 3. Provide training to special education directors from across the state at the annual ADE/ESS Director’s Institute; 4. Provide capacity building grants to PEAs to facilitate intra/inter agency collaboration and build local capacity to improve postschool outcomes through local interagency work, as well as provide intensive training and support to achieve 100% compliance on Indicator 13; 5. Collaborate with national technical assistance centers and organizations including NSTTAC, NPSO, NDPC-SD, and the NASDSE IDEA Partnership Community of Practice on Transition and Transition Coalition; 6. Participate with other Arizona state agencies including RSA/VR, DDD, Department of Behavioral Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 113 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 Health and the Office for Children with Special Health Care Needs; 7. Collaborate with other ADE sections (High School Renewal and Redesign, Career Technical Education, Dropout Prevention, and School Guidance Counselors) and ADE/ESS areas (Program Support, Assistive Technology, and Parent Information Network). All components of Arizona’s Strategic Plan for Statewide Transition Planning were implemented and completed during FFY 2009. Activities were immediately implemented upon revision, from 8/1/09 to 6/30/10. Activities completed:  449 participants from 64 targeted and non-targeted PEAs received Indicator 13 training from ADE/ESS transition specialists at 28 sites statewide from July 2009 to June 2010.  Arizona’s Ninth Annual Transition Conference was held in September 2009 and offered sessions focused on improving compliance with the eight components of Indicator 13. 713 participants attended the conference, including education and agency professionals, youth, young adults, and family members of youth with disabilities, and vendor/exhibitors. Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 114 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012  181 PEA participants attended Indicator 13 trainings provided by ADE/ESS transition specialists at the annual ADE/ESS Directors Institute in August 2009.  14 PEAs participated in Year 1 of the Secondary Transition Mentoring Project (STMP) capacity building grant, which provided intensive training and support by ADE/ESS in collaboration with STMP grant coaches from the University of Kansas/Transition Coalition, to achieve 100% compliance on Indicator 13 over seven professional development days and through an intensive, month-long online short course.  Collaboration with national technical assistance centers and organizations occurred throughout the year and included: participation in NPSO and NSTTAC Community of Practice calls; utilization of resources from the NSTTAC Web site; participation in the NASDSE IDEA Partnership, Community of Practice National Meeting; and attendance at the National Secondary Transition Planning Institute (May 2010), where OSEP, NPSO, NSTTAC, and NDPC-SD provided guidance. Additionally, ADE/ESS maintains ongoing collaboration with the University of Kansas Transition Coalition and Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 115 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 the Mountain Plains Regional Resource Center.  At the state level, ADE/ESS collaborates with RSA/VR, DDD, Division of Behavioral Health Services (DBHS), and the Office for Children with Special Health Care Needs (OCSHCN) monthly through the Arizona Community of Practice on Transition (AZCoPT). In FFY 2009, AZCoPT completed a presentation for use statewide through RSA/VR and DBHS teleconferencing media to introduce participants to the supports/services available to school-aged and adult individuals with disabilities.  ADE/ESS collaboration meetings with the ADE sections of High School Renewal and Redesign, Career Technical Education, Dropout Prevention, and School Guidance Counselors were held approximately every four months and resulted in cross-training for conferences sponsored by each ADE section on the topic of secondary transition.  Intra-ADE/ESS collaborative efforts included: monthly meetings with PINS (Parent Information Network Specialists) as fellow AZCoPT members, as well as involvement with PINS during quarterly Transition Conference Planning Committee Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 116 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 c) On an annual basis, create and disseminate information through a variety of sources: annual statewide conference, monitoring alerts, Web site and listserv announcements meetings; at least quarterly meetings with ESS Program Support to discuss the use of the Annual Site Visit Log (ASVL); review/revision of secondary transition section of the monitoring manual, and needed secondary trainings for ESS program specialists and PEAs; and the development of collaborative presentations with the ADE/ESS Assistive Technology Unit. Activities completed from 7/1/09 to 6/30/10. 7/1/096/30/10 ADE/ESS Transition Specialists  Four Indicator 13 presentations were offered at the ADE/ESS Directors Institute in August 2009 for approximately 181 participants.  Fifty-two sessions on a wide variety of Indicator 13 topics were offered at the ADE/ESS Statewide Transition Conference held in September 2009.  A Secondary Transition Monitoring Alert describing the changes to the secondary transition IEP requirements was disseminated via the Special Education Directors listserv and posted to the ADE/ESS Program Support and Secondary Transition Web sites in September 2009.  The ADE/ESS Secondary Transition Web site was redesigned in January 2010 and included Indicator 13 materials Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 117 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 d) On an annual basis, analyze pre-and posttraining data collected through the Annual Site Visit Log (ASVL) for each PEA to determine level of compliance on all eight required components of Indicator 13 2) Provide a two year capacity building grant to participate in the Secondary Transition Mentoring Project (STMP) Team Training a) On an annual basis, identify PEAs who met eligibility requirements and extend invitations to participate in STMP trainings b) On an annual basis, provide in-depth and ongoing professional development on transition requirements and best from NSTTAC, IDEA Partnership, and other secondary transition technical assistance centers. Web links to TA centers and other resources were also provided. The Web address is www.azed.gov/ess/specia lprojects/transition/. Activities completed from 7/1/09 to 6/30/10. 7/1/096/30/10 ADE/ESS Transition Specialists ADE/ESS Program Specialists 7/1/096/30/10 ADE/ESS Transition Specialists ADE/ESS Program Specialists 7/1/096/30/10 ADE/ESS Transition Specialists  Analysis of pre-training data found in the (ASVL) was completed in January 2010 after all ESS program specialists were able to complete at least one PEA annual site visit during fall 2009.  Post-training data analysis of 134 PEAs trained in secondary transition during FFY 2009 showed a 92.5% average for compliance with the eight items for Indicator 13. Activities completed from 1/1/09 to 7/30/09.  Utilizing Annual Site Visit (ASV) data, 52 PEAs achieving significantly less than 100% compliance on secondary transition were invited to submit for Year 1 of the noncompetitive STMP capacity building grant.  Fourteen PEAs were accepted for participation in Year 1 of the STMP Team Training in July 2009. Activities completed from 7/1/09 to 6/30/10.  STMP participants attended Arizona’s Ninth Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 118 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 practices Annual Transition Conference, which included a STMP team orientation and designated sessions.  ADE/ESS, in collaboration with STMP grant coaches from the University of Kansas/Transition Coalition, created instructional materials for STMP grant participants designed to accomplish the following Indicator 13 goals: identify PEA barriers to meeting transition requirements; develop an action plan to eliminate barriers; create IEPs that meet transition requirements; implement training to build intra-PEA capacity to attain 100% compliance on secondary transition requirements; determine improvement made and target areas still in need of improvement. c) On an annual basis, analyze pre-and posttraining data collected during STMP trainings for each PEA that participated to determine level of compliance on all eight required components of Indicator 13  Four training days spread throughout the year, an on-line short course, and a webinar were provided for STMP grant Year 1 participants in FFY 2009. Activities completed from 7/1/09 to 6/30/10. 7/1/096/30/10 ADE/ESS Transition Specialists  ADE/ESS analysis of eligibility data for participation in STMP indicated an average Indicator 13 compliance score of 42%.  Measures to determine effectiveness of STMP training included: a) During each Year 1 training, participants reviewed IEPs from their Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 119 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 PEAs using the NSTTAC checklist. The April 2010 training included instruction and extensive practice in the use of interrater reliability measures. As a result, cross-PEA file reviews resulted in participant consensus on compliance for each file reviewed. b) STMP training participants completed a pre/post evaluation of their competency in transition. The elevenquestion survey identified participant’s selfperception of knowledge and skills related to all components of Indicator 13 and best practices in transition planning. Using a Paired Samples T-Test, all scores indicated a statistically significant increase (> 1 point on a 5 point scale) in knowledge from the beginning to the end of Year 1 training. c) Review of ADE/ESS participant evaluation forms showed significant increases on self-rating measures of knowledge at different times during the STMP training experience. Using a scale of 1 to 5 (1 = low and 5 = high), 44% of STMP participants rated their entry level knowledge as a 4 or 5, compared to 95% of participants at exit from the STMP training experience. Additionally, 12% of participants indicated “low” entry level knowledge, compared with 0% of participants’ post-STMP training. Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 120 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 d) ADE/ESS also anticipated using pre/post Annual Site Visit (ASV) data as a measure to determine effectiveness of training and improved level of Indicator 13 compliance. ASV data was not collected on every STMP team between the conclusion of Year 1 training (April 2010) and June 30, 2010, However, of the five PEAs with spring ASV data, average compliance increased from 57% (from fall 2008 ASV data used for STMP eligibility) to 99%. ADE/ESS is reviewing and refining processes to determine if ASV data can be obtained and used as a pre/post measure. Current barriers to its use include: ability to collect post-training ASV data by ESS program specialists within the timeframe needed for SPP/APR reporting, number of files reviewed, and representativeness of IEPs written post-STMP training. e) Anecdotal information provided by STMP training participants and ESS program specialists indicates significant improvement in PEA knowledge and compliant practices. The following are revised and new improvement activities for FFY 2010, and for FFY 2011 and FFY 2012 for the revised SPP. Primary Activity (GOAL) 1) Revise, implement, and Sub-Activities (Objectives or Action Steps) a) On an annual basis, identify PEAs in Years 2 Timeline Complete Projected Resources (Planned) 7/1/106/30/13 ADE/ESS Transition Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 121 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 evaluate a comprehensive plan for training PEAs to increase compliance with postsecondary requirements related to Indicator 13 2) Provide a two year capacity building grant to participate in the Secondary Transition Mentoring Project (STMP) Team Training and 3 of the monitoring cycle through collaboration with ESS specialists b) On an annual basis, review, revise (if necessary), and implement the comprehensive training plan, emphasizing the eight required components of Indicator 13 c) On an annual basis, create and disseminate information through a variety of sources: annual statewide conference, monitoring alerts, Web site, and listserv announcements d) On an annual basis, analyze pre-and posttraining data collected through the Annual Site Visit Log (ASVL) for each PEA to determine level of compliance on all eight required components of Indicator 13 a) On an annual basis, identify PEAs who met eligibility requirements and extend invitations to participate in STMP trainings b) On an annual basis, provide in-depth and ongoing professional development on transition requirements and best practices c) On an annual basis, analyze pre-and posttraining data collected during STMP trainings for each PEA that participated to determine level of compliance on all eight required components of Indicator 13 7/1/106/30/13 Specialists ADE/ESS Program Specialists ADE/ESS Transition Specialists 7/1/106/30/13 ADE/ESS Transition Specialists 7/1/106/30/13 ADE/ESS Transition Specialists ADE/ESS Program Specialists 7/1/106/30/13 ADE/ESS Transition Specialists ADE/ESS Program Specialists ADE/ESS Transition Specialists 7/1/106/30/13 7/1/106/30/13 ADE/ESS Transition Specialists Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 122 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B / Effective Transition Indicator 14: Post School Outcomes Percent of youth who are no longer in secondary school, had IEPs in effect at the time they left school, and were: A. Enrolled in higher education within one year of leaving high school. B. Enrolled in higher education or competitively employed within one year of leaving high school. C. Enrolled in higher education or in some other postsecondary education or training program; or competitively employed or in some other employment within one year of leaving high school. (20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(B)) Measurement A. Percent enrolled in higher education = [(# of youth who are no longer in secondary school, had IEPs in effect at the time they left school and were enrolled in higher education within one year of leaving high school) divided by the (# of respondent youth who are no longer in secondary school and had IEPs in effect at the time they left school)] times 100. B. Percent enrolled in higher education or competitively employed within one year of leaving high school = [(# of youth who are no longer in secondary school, had IEPs in effect at the time they left school and were enrolled in higher education or competitively employed within one year of leaving high school) divided by the (# of respondent youth who are no longer in secondary school and had IEPs in effect at the time they left school)] times 100. C. Percent enrolled in higher education, or in some other postsecondary education or training program; or competitively employed or in some other employment = [(# of youth who are no longer in secondary school, had IEPs in effect at the time they left school and were enrolled in higher education, or in some other postsecondary education or training program; or competitively employed or in some other employment) divided by the (# of respondent youth who are no longer in secondary school and had IEPs in effect at the time they left school)] times 100. Overview of Issue / Description of System or Process In the State Performance Plan (SPP) for FFY 2009, Arizona established a baseline for each of the three measures A, B, and C consistent with the language of the revised measurement table (May 2010), developed new targets for measures A, B, and C, and identified improvement activities through FFY 2012. In the APR development for FFY 2011, anomalies in Indicator I4A and 14B were observed. The ADE/ESS drilled into the data and discovered a computer coding error that affected the hierarchical distribution of outcome categories. In an effort to assure valid and reliable data were reported, ADE/ESS corrected the coding error. Simultaneously, the ADE Information Technology (IT) division reviewed the National Post-School Outcomes Center’s (NPSO’s) “Calculations for Indicator 14 Using Post-School Outcome Survey” contained in the updated June 14, 2010, Post-School Outcome Data Collection Protocol, to assure there were no other IT coding inconsistencies. During this process, the IT division discovered three survey question response options that were not included in the NPSO guidance document. The ADE/ESS requested clarification on the missing response options, which resulted in the NPSO revising their calculation table. Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 123 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 The NPSO calculation table, dated October 26, 2012, was then used to revise and update the ADE/ESS PSO Survey online application and calculations to align fully with NPSO’s revised PostSchool Outcome Data Collection Protocol. When the hierarchy computer coding error was corrected and the new calculations applied, Arizona’s measures A, B, and C changed, necessitating a reset of the FFY 2009 baseline data. The FFY 2005–2012 State Performance Plan, FFY 2011 Revision, includes the new FFY 2011 baseline data and new FFY 2012 targets for measures A, B, and C. To summarize:  The FFY 2005–2012 State Performance Plan, FFY 2009 Revision, in which Arizona established a baseline for measures A, B, and C consistent with the language of the revised measurement table (May 2010), developed new targets for measures A, B, and C, and identified improvement activities through FFY 2013, has been revised for FFY 2011.  The FFY 2011 data, discussion of outcomes, and FFY 2012 targets are based on December 2012 corrected data.  The FFY 2005–2012 State Performance Plan, FFY 2011 Revision, reports new baseline data for measures A, B, and C, and new targets for FFY 2012. Data Data Collection Methods The ADE/ESS used a sampling procedure to collect Post School Outcome (PSO) data. Over the course of the State Performance Plan (SPP), each PEA serving students 16 years old and older is asked to collect and report post school outcomes data during the second year of the six-year monitoring cycle. The monitoring cycle is a representative sample of Arizona’s districts and charter schools and the representative sample is based on the categories of disability, race, and gender. The ADE/ESS sampling plan was approved by OSEP. FFY 2011 marked the beginning of cycle two of Arizona’s PSO Data Collection requirement, in which all eligible PEAs are assigned to a collection year for inclusion in the SPP. Of Arizona’s eligible PEAs, 54 were identified to participate in the PSO Survey requirement for FFY 2011. Of this number, 13 PEAs did not have any leavers who met the criteria (youth with a current IEP who aged out, graduated, or dropped out) to be eligible to participate in the PSO Survey during the 2010–2011 school year. This resulted in 41 PEAs that had eligible leavers and these PEAs were required to conduct the PSO Survey during FFY 2011. It should be noted that of these 41 PEAs, two were charter schools that closed during the 2010–2011 school year and no longer had staff available to complete the PSO Survey requirement for students who exited. In order to participate in the PSO Survey, PEAs gather contact information on student leavers and either input the data into the online PSO data collection system or maintain contact information locally. The PSO data collection system uses a secure application as part of the ADE Common Logon. The application includes an auto-population of student demographic information and exit reason imported directly from the Student Accountability Information System (SAIS), a Web-based system for reporting all student-level details to the ADE. PEAs designate district or charter school personnel to contact student leavers or designated family members (i.e., parent, grandparent, or guardian), conduct phone interviews, and input survey data into the online PSO data collection system. Youth or family members were contacted between July 1 and September 30, 2012, after Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 124 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 being out of school for at least one year. Arizona’s two PEAs with an average daily membership exceeding 50,000 are included in the data collection each year. Definitions The following definitions are used by the ADE/ESS in the data collection and reporting for Indicator 14: Higher Education includes youth who have been enrolled on a full- or part-time basis in a community college (two-year program) or a college/university (four- or more year program) for at least one complete term, at any time in the year since leaving high school. Competitive Employment includes youth who have worked for pay at or above the minimum wage in a setting with others who are nondisabled for a period of 20 hours a week for at least 90 days at any time in the year since leaving high school. This includes military employment. Other Postsecondary Education or Training includes youth enrolled on a full- or part-time basis for at least one complete term at any time in the year since leaving high school in an education or training program (e.g., Job Corps, adult education, workforce development program, or vocational technical school that is less than a two-year program). Some Other Employment includes youth who have worked for pay or been self-employed for a period of at least 90 days at any time in the year since leaving high school. This includes working in a family business (e.g., farm, store, ranching, catering services, etc.). Respondents are youth, young adults, or designated family members who answer the PSO Survey. Leavers are youth or young adults who left school by graduating, aging out, or leaving school early (i.e., dropped out) or who were expected to return to school and did not. Response Rate and Representativeness The response rate was 70%. Table 14.1 shows that Arizona’s FFY 2011 sample included 2,032 youth who were eligible to take the survey. Interviews were conducted with 1,423 youth, young adults, or their family members. The FFY 2011 70% response rate represents a 9% increase in response rate over FFY 2010. Table 14.1 Response Rate Calculation Number of leavers in the sample 2,149 Subtract the number of youth ineligible (those who had returned to school, or were deceased, or whose data were uploaded by the PEA to the SAIS system in error) 80 + 1 + 36 = 117 Number of youth eligible to contact 2,032 Number of completed surveys 1,423 Response rate (1,423 / 2,032) * 100 70% The ADE/ESS used the NPSO Response Calculator to calculate representativeness of the respondent group on the characteristics of (a) disability type, (b) ethnicity, (c) gender, and (d) exit status (e.g., dropout) to determine whether the youth who responded to the interviews were similar to, or different from, the total population of youth with an IEP who exited school during 2010–2011. According to the NPSO Response Calculator, differences between the Respondent Group and the Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 125 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 Target Leaver Group +/− 3% are important. Negative differences indicate an under representativeness of the group and positive differences indicate over representativeness. In Table 14.2, bolded text is used to indicate a difference exceeding a +/− 3% interval. As shown in Table 14.2, respondents were slightly overrepresented in the category of all other disabilities (AO) and underrepresented in the category of dropout. All other categories are deemed representative of 2010–2011 target leavers. Although the dropout category continues to be underrepresented, the difference for FFY 2011 was significantly less than in FFY 2010 and FFY 2009 (−4.86% vs. −6.77% vs. −6.81%), respectively. Each year (FFY 2010 and FFY 2011), the number of youth responding to the PSO Survey from the dropout category has increased. The ADE/ESS is encouraged by the increase in representativeness in the dropout category. The ADE/ESS will continue its efforts to increase response rates, especially among youth who drop out. Table 14.2 Representativeness of Responders to Leavers FFY 2011 Representativeness Overall Target Leaver Totals Response Totals Target Leaver Representation Respondent Representation Difference LD ED MR AO Female Minority ELL Dropout 2,032 1,254 208 187 383 731 363 52 303 1,423 858 123 128 314 522 247 34 143 61.71% 10.24% 9.20% 18.85% 35.97% 17.86% 2.56% 14.91% 60.30% 8.64% 9.00% 22.07% 36.68% 17.36% 2.39% 10.05% −1.42% −1.59% −0.21% 3.22% 0.71% −0.51% −0.17% −4.86% Missing Data Arizona’s PSO response rate for FFY 2011 was 70% (2,032 youth eligible to contact and 1,423 respondents). The FFY 2011 PSO Survey is missing data on 30% or 609 former students. An analysis of missing data indicated that the largest segments of missing data were the result of either schools’ not being able to contact leavers after three attempts (303) or their not having correct contact information (237). In FFY 2010, approximately 150 surveys could not be conducted because contact information was not collected by the PEA. A marked improvement in this category was made in FFY 2011, with only 13 surveys identified as contacts not collected. The ADE/ESS attributes this improvement to increased efforts during trainings to prepare PEAs to participate in the PSO Survey and providing a sample form on the ADE/ESS Web site for collecting contact information. Selection Bias The category of all other disabilities (AO) was slightly over represented by 0.22%. This result is evidence that Arizona PEAs are successfully reaching exiters for them to complete the survey. The under representativeness of youth and young adults in the category of dropout could be attributed to the fact that, in general, this group of youth is a difficult population to reach. Although the dropout category continues to be under represented, the difference between the number of youth and young adults who responded to the survey and were eligible for the survey in FFY 2011 was significantly less than in FFY 2010 and FFY 2009 (−4.86% vs. −6.77% vs. −6.81%). The ADE/ESS is encouraged by the increase in representativeness in the dropout category. The State will continue to work with NPSO to identify strategies to encourage survey responses from youth in the dropout category. Baseline Data for FFY 2011 Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 126 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 FFY 2011 (2011–2012) Number of respondent leavers Percentage of respondent leavers Indicator 14 Baseline Data 14A 14B 14C 371 849 1048 26.1% 59.7% 73.6% Total respondents 1423 Discussion of Baseline Data for FFY 2011 December 2012 Corrected Data There were 1,423 total respondents to the PSO Survey. Each leaver was counted once in the highest category: 1) 371 respondent leavers were enrolled in “higher education” 2) 478 respondent leavers were engaged in “competitive employment” (and not counted in number 1 above) 3) 114 respondent leavers were enrolled in “some other postsecondary education or training” (and not counted in numbers 1 or 2 above) 4) 85 respondent leavers were engaged in “some other employment” (and not counted in numbers 1, 2, or 3 above) Thus: 14A = 371 (#1) divided by 1,423 (total respondents) = 26.1% 14B = 371 (#1) + 478 (#2) divided by 1,423 (total respondents) = 59.7% 14C = 371 (#1) + 478 (#2) + 114 (#3) + 85 (#4) divided by 1,423 (total respondents) = 73.6% Figure 14.1, Arizona PSO Survey FFY 2011 Cohort, 2010–2011 School Year Exiters, shows the outcome categories, including the not engaged category, the number of leavers in each category, and the percentage of leavers in each outcome category. The table below the chart shows the percentages for each measure A, B, and C. As shown in Figure 14.1, the largest percentage of leavers was competitive employment with 33.6% (n = 478) of leavers counted in this category. The second largest percentage of leavers was not engaged with 26.4% (n = 375). The remaining categories, from largest percentage to smallest, were enrolled in higher education, 26.1% (n = 371); enrolled in other postsecondary education or training, 8% (n = 114); and some other employment, 6% (n = 85). Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 127 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 Baseline Data for FFY 2011 Figure 14.1, Arizona PSO Survey FFY 2011 Cohort, 2010–2011 School Year Exiters Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 128 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 Proposed Targets for FFY 2012 Targets were set based on the FFY 2011 baseline data and input from stakeholders. FFY Measurable and Rigorous Targets 14A 14B 14C 26.6% 60.2% 74.1% 2012 Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 129 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 Disaggregated Outcomes by Subgroups The ADE/ESS used the NPSO Data Display Templates to allow for a thorough understanding of the post school outcomes of Arizona’s youth and young adults. The outcomes were examined by each subgroup: gender, disability type, ethnicity, and exit type. Post School Outcomes by Gender As displayed in Figure 14.2, Indicator 14: Arizona’s Post School Outcomes by Gender, female leavers in Arizona had similar outcomes to males in the areas of some other employment and enrolled in other postsecondary education or training. Analysis of engagement in higher education and competitive employment reveals that females are slightly more likely (6%) to have enrolled in higher education (30% vs. 24%) and slightly less likely (7%) to be competitively employed than their male counterparts (29% vs. 36%). The ADE/ESS will share this information with PEAs and assist districts and charters in analyzing root causes for these gender discrepancies. Figure 14.2, Indicator 14: Arizona’s Post School Outcomes by Gender Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 130 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 Post School Outcomes by Disability Category Figure 14.3, Indicator 14: Arizona’s Post School Outcomes Respondents by Type of Disability, shows that individuals with a disability category of mental retardation (MR) were twice as likely to be not engaged (53%) than those in the overall State rate (26%). (It should be noted that the “mental retardation” category was used for this analysis since the terminology update to “intellectually disabled” (ID) in this disability category has not yet been reflected in the SAIS system.) Further analysis of the outcomes of these individuals indicates that of those who responded to the PSO Survey, 30% were engaged in some other employment (13%) or enrolled in other postsecondary education or training (17%) compared to the overall State respondent rate of 14% engagement in some other employment or some other postsecondary education. Furthermore, engagement rates in competitive employment (14%) and higher education (3%) for individuals with a disability category of MR is 17% compared to the statewide engagement rate of 60% (competitive employment = 34% and enrolled in higher education = 26%). Based on this information, in collaboration with our local and State community of practice/community transition teams, ADE/ESS will continue to work on developing strategies and resources to assist local PEAs to improve overall engagement for individuals with a disability category of intellectual disability. Outcomes for individuals with a disability category of emotional disturbance (ED) were also less positive than the overall statewide average. With the exception of individuals with a disability category of MR, those with a disability category of ED were more likely to be not engaged (34%) than their peers with a specific learning disability (SLD) (20%) or individuals with all other categories of disability (30%). They were less likely to be enrolled in higher education (18%) or be competitively employed (29%) compared to their peers with a SLD (enrolled in higher education = 28% and competitively employed = 42%) or with individuals in all other disability categories who enrolled in higher education (33%). Figure 14.3, Indicator 14: Arizona’s Post School Outcomes Respondents by Type of Disability Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 131 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 Post School Outcomes by Ethnicity As displayed in Figure 14.4, Indicator 14: Arizona’s Post School Outcomes by Ethnicity, Arizona youth enrolled in higher education at a rate ranging from 48% for Asians to 18% for American Indian/Alaska Natives. Black or African Americans (38%) and Whites (29%) had enrollment rates higher than the average statewide rate of 26%, while Hispanic/Latinos had a rate of 21%, which is lower than the statewide rate. The ethnic group with the largest percentage of youth who were competitively employed was Hispanic/Latino (38%), as compared with peers who are White (32%), and Black/African American and American Indian/Alaska Native, both at 27%. The percentage of youth enrolled in other postsecondary education or some other employment was consistent across all groups, with Arizona reporting an engagement rate of less than 15% for all ethnic groups. Engaging youth who are identified as American Indian/Alaska Native continues to be a concern for ADE/ESS since those individuals experience the least successful outcomes compared to their peers in terms of engagement in higher education and competitive employment. Figure 14.4, Indicator 14: Arizona’s Post School Outcomes by Ethnicity Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 132 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 Post School Outcomes by Type of Exit Figure 14.5, Indicator 14: Arizona’s Post School Outcomes by Type of Exit, discloses that individuals who earned a high school diploma had better outcomes, especially in the areas of higher education and competitive employment. Only 1% of dropouts enrolled in higher education compared to 29% of graduates; similarly, 27% of dropouts were engaged in competitive employment as compared to 34% of graduates. Dropouts had a lower rate of engagement (45%) compared to graduates (77%). Figure 14.5, Indicator 14: Arizona’s Post School Outcomes by Type of Exit Characteristics of Nonresponders A review of the 609 leavers who did not respond to the survey by demographic subgroup indicates that 66% were male, 43% identified themselves as Hispanic/Latino, 74% exited with a high school diploma, and 65% were individuals identified with the disability category of specific learning disability. The ADE/ESS will continue to share this information with PEAs and encourage schools to target these subgroups for greater participation in the PSO survey. Trend Data Since ADE/ESS is resetting the baseline using corrected data for FFY 2011, trend data will not be available until FFY 2012. Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 133 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 Dissemination of FFY 2011 Data To ensure broad dissemination of Indicator 14 results, ESS will post results on the ADE/ESS Post School Outcomes Web site at http://www.azed.gov/special-education/special-projects/secondarytransition /post-school-outcomes-survey by May 2013. The PEAs that participated in the 2012 PSO Survey will be invited to attend a 2012 PSO Results webinar, which will include State results and information on how to access and use local PSO results. Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed for FFY 2011 Primary Activity (GOAL) 1) Develop, implement, and evaluate procedures and trainings needed to assure participation in Post School Outcomes (PSO) Survey by identified PEAs Sub-Activities (Objectives or Action Steps) a) Revise PSO application and survey questions to align with new Indicator 14 Table, requirements, and definitions b) Provide training to PEAs on Indicator 14 changes and the ADE/ESS PSO Survey Application Timeline Complete Activity completed 7/1/11 to 6/30/12. Enhancements to the online PSO Survey application were completed and the training site was updated in June 2012. Enhancements included a data collection tracker (PSO response rate) by school and increased verification procedures to use before categorizing survey as “unable to contact.” Activity completed 7/1/11 to 6/30/12. Projected 7/1/10– 6/30/13 Resources (Planned) ADE/ESS Transition Specialists ADE/IT Specialists 7/1/10– 6/30/13 ADE/ESS Transition Specialists PEAs in the FFY 2011 PSO Survey participation cohort were identified and targeted for training. Two trainings on Indicator 14 and the enhanced online PSO Survey application were provided at the annual ADE/ESS Directors Institute in August 2011. An additional two trainings on Indicator 14 and the enhanced online PSO Survey application were provided at Arizona’s Eleventh Annual Transition Conference in October 2011. Over 75 people Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 134 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 attended at least one of these sessions. c) Analyze PSO training evaluations and survey results to determine effectiveness of trainings d) Create PSO data reports for participating PEAs to use as a measure for analyzing and improving transition practices 2) Develop, implement, and a) Provide training to STMP teams on Eleven webinar trainings on Indicator 14 and the enhanced online PSO Survey application were offered to all PEAs, including the FFY 2010 and FFY 2011 reporting cohort throughout FFY 2011. Activity completed from 7/1/11 through 6/30/12. 7/1/10– 6/30/13 ADE/ESS Transition Specialists Review and analysis of PSO training participant evaluations was completed after each training and also at the conclusion of FFY 2011. Participant evaluation forms showed significant increases on self-rating measures of knowledge from pre- to post- training. Using a scale of 1 to 5 (1 = low and 5 = high), participants reported an average growth of 1.5 points. Activity completed 7/1/11 to 6/30/12. 7/1/10– 6/30/13 ADE/ESS Transition Specialists One webinar training that highlighted and discussed FFY 2010 State PSO results and included a demonstration of how to access PEA reports was conducted. PSO data reports for participating PEAs were created and made available to PEAs at both the district and school levels in the online PSO Survey application to enable PEAs to obtain response rates and results by subcategories. Activity completed 7/1/11 to 6/30/12. ADE/IT Specialists 7/1/10– 6/30/13 ADE/ESS Transition Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 135 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 sustain local community transition teams during Year 2 of the STMP capacity building team training grant evidence-based practices in developing local community transition teams b) Participate in PSO survey and share results with local community transition teams Specialists This activity was completed and discontinued because it is integrated into the STMP training program. ADE/ESS, in collaboration with STMP grant coaches from the University of Kansas/Transition Coalition, provided training and created instructional materials designed to facilitate the development of local Community Transition Teams (CTTs) for Year 2 STMP grant participants. The goals included: developing interagency CTTs; working across stakeholders to identify and prioritize community transition needs and challenges to attaining successful post school outcomes; developing protocols for working across stakeholders to increase employability and postsecondary participation of students as they leave high school; and improving post school outcome data. An overview of CTTs was provided to Year 1 STMP teams. Activity completed 7/1/11 7/1/10– to 6/30/12. 6/30/13 This activity was completed and discontinued because it is integrated into the STMP training program. ADE/ESS Transition Specialists STMP Grant Year 2 PEAs STMP teams were provided training, reports, and materials for use with local CTT teams on State and local PSO response rates, representativeness, and outcome data. Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 136 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 3) Provide technical assistance to PEAs on strategies to reach exiters to increase response rate, especially targeting dropouts and individuals from minority groups a) Develop and disseminate flyers and printed materials for use by PEAs to inform students and families and encourage participation in the PSO survey b) Encourage use of the Parent Advocacy Coalition for Educational Rights (PACER)/NPSO– created technical assistance video “Be a Superstar—Take the Survey” YouTube video and provide a link to the video on the ADE/ESS Web site Activity completed 7/1/11 to 6/30/12. 7/1/10– 6/30/13 ADE/ESS Transition Specialists 7/1/10– 6/30/13 ADE/ESS Transition Specialists This activity was completed and discontinued. The ESS Web site is updated at least annually. A one-page summary of Arizona’s PSO Survey, an Arizona PSO glossary, and Arizona PSO parent and student (English and Spanish versions) announcement flyers were adapted from NPSO, disseminated via e-mail, and posted on the ADE/ESS Secondary Transition Web site: http://www.azed.gov /special-education /special-projects /secondary-transition /post-school-outcomessurvey/. These support documents were also included on the homepage of the online PSO Survey application. Activity completed 7/1/11 to 6/30/12. This activity was completed and discontinued. The ESS Web site is updated at least annually. ADE/ESS transition specialists and STMP trainers highlighted and encouraged the use of the PACER/NPSO–created technical assistance video “Be a Superstar—Take the Survey” YouTube video. A link to the video and the flyers was posted on the ADE/ESS Secondary Transition Web site: http://www.azed.gov /special-education Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 137 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 c) Provide session(s) at Arizona’s Annual Transition Conference devoted to increasing participation in the PSO Survey d) Survey PEAs to determine use of strategies 4) Work with the National PostSchool Outcomes (NPSO) Technical Assistance Center as an “intensive state” a) Implement technical assistance received from NPSO 5) Revise Arizona’s online PSO data collection system to include missing data and enable future trend analysis a) Revise PSO online data collection system to include reason for PEA failure to collect survey information /special-projects /secondary-transition/postschool-outcomes-survey/. Activity completed 7/1/11 to 6/30/12. 7/1/10– 6/30/13 ADE/ESS Transition Specialists Two sessions were offered during Arizona’s Eleventh Annual Transition Conference, and two sessions were planned for Arizona’s Twelfth Annual Transition Conference. Activity not completed during FFY 2011. 7/1/10– 6/30/13 ADE/ESS Transition Specialists This activity will be implemented during FFY 2012. Activity completed 7/1/11 to 6/30/12. 5/1/11– 6/30/13 ADE/ESS Transition Specialists This activity was completed and discontinued. PSO sessions are included in the conference schedule each year at Arizona’s Annual Transition Conference. ADE/ESS has taken steps to implement technical assistance received from NPSO as evidenced by enhancements made to the online PSO Survey application, updated trainings provided at conferences and via webinars to local PEAs, and incorporation of NPSO data collection and analysis tools. Activity completed 7/1/11 to 6/30/12. A review of the enhancements made to the PSO online data collection system showed that no additional changes were required related to PEA failure to collect NPSO Technical Assistance Center 7/1/10– 6/30/13 ADE/ESS Transition Specialists ADE/IT Specialists Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 138 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 b) Revise PSO online data collection system to allow for the exploration of additional data related to nonengaged youth 6) Increase the number of youth who respond to the post school outcomes survey from 61% (FFY 2010) to 67.5% a) Design and implement a marketing plan to target increased participation by male and ethnic minority youth and young adults b) Enhance the online PSO Survey application to filter and group data by size of PEA and county c) Use the NPSO response calculator to track responses during the data collection to monitor response rates 7) Increase the rate of engagement for students with a disability category of mental retardation from 47% (FFY 2011 baseline) to 48% a) Offer 3 regional trainings a year specifically designed to increase awareness of available options for postsecondary education, training, and employment for students with intellectual disabilities survey information at this time. This activity is discontinued. Activities completed 7/1/11 to 6/30/12. In FFY 2011, a plan for enhancing the online PSO Survey application to include data regarding nonengaged youth was researched and discussed. Further planning and implementation of this enhancement will begin in FFY 2012. Activities completed 1/1/12 to 6/30/12. This activity was completed and the goal was exceeded, as the response rate for FFY 2011 was 70%, an increase of 2.5 percentage points above the target of 67.5%. This activity will be completed during FFY 2012. 7/1/10– 6/30/13 ADE/IT Specialists 1/1/12– 6/30/12 11/1/11– 6/30/12 7/1/12– 9/30/12 The Arizona PSO Online application was enhanced to enable it to track response rates. Activities completed 1/1/12 to 6/30/12. 1/1/12– 6/30/13 Three regional trainings cofacilitated by ADE/ESS and the Division of Developmental Disabilities (DDD) were held highlighting local options for postsecondary engagement ADE/ESS Transition Specialists Parent Information Network Specialists Activity completed 7/1/11 to 6/30/12. This improvement goal is revised to reflect the new FFY 2011 baseline data. ADE/ESS Transition Specialists ADE/ESS Transition Specialists ADE/IT Specialists ADE/ESS Transition Specialists ADE/ESS Transition Specialists AZ Community of Practice on Transition (AZCoPT) Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 139 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 for students with intellectual disabilities. Review and analysis of evaluations from these trainings indicated an increase in knowledge pre/post-training regarding post school options for students with intellectual disabilities served through DDD. The following are revised and new improvement activities for FFY 2010, and for FFY 2011 and FFY 2012 for the revised SPP. Primary Activity (GOAL) 1) Develop, implement, and evaluate procedures and trainings needed to assure participation in Post School Outcomes (PSO) survey by identified PEAs 2) Develop, implement, and sustain local community transition teams during Year 2 of the STMP capacity building team training grant Sub-Activities (Objectives or Action Steps) a) Revise PSO application and survey questions to align with new Indicator 14 Table, requirements, and definitions Timeline Complete Projected 7/1/106/30/13 b) Provide training to PEAs on Indicator 14 changes and the ADE/ESS PSO Survey Application c) Analyze PSO training evaluations and survey results to determine effectiveness of trainings d) Create PSO data reports for participating PEAs to use as a measure for analyzing and improving transition practices 7/1/106/30/13 a) Provide training to STMP teams on evidence-based practices in developing local community transition teams b) Participate in PSO survey and share results with local community transition teams 7/1/106/30/13 Resources (Planned) ADE/ESS Transition Specialists ADE/ IT Specialists ADE/R & E Analysts ADE/ESS Transition Specialists 7/1/106/30/13 ADE/ESS Transition Specialists 7/1/106/30/13 ADE/ESS Transition Specialists ADE/IT Specialists ADE/R & E Analysts ESS Transition Specialists 7/1/106/30/13 ADE/ESS Transition Specialists STMP Grant Year 2 PEAs Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 140 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 3) Provide technical assistance to PEAs on strategies to reach exiters to increase response rate, especially targeting dropouts and individuals from minority groups 4) Work with the National PostSchool Outcomes (NPSO) Technical Assistance Center as an “Intensive State” 5) Revise Arizona’s online PSO data collection system to include a) Develop and disseminate flyers and printed materials for use by PEAs to inform students and families and encourage participation in the PSO survey b) Encourage use of the PACER/NPSO created technical assistance “Be a Superstar-Take the Survey” YouTube video and link to ADE/ESS Web site c) Provide session(s) at Arizona’s Annual Transition Conference devoted to increasing participation in the PSO Survey d) Survey PEAs to determine use of strategies a) Submit an application for intensive technical assistance from NPSO Center 7/1/106/30/13 ADE/ESS Transition Specialists 7/1/106/30/13 ADE/ESS Transition Specialists 7/1/106/30/13 ADE/ESS Transition Specialists 7/1/106/30/13 b) Conduct a needs assessment and develop a comprehensive plan in conjunction with NPSO to improve Indicator 14 in Arizona c) Implement technical assistance received from NPSO 1/1/114/30/11 a) Revise PSO online data collection system to include reason for PEA failure to collect survey information 7/1/106/30/13 ADE/ESS Transition Specialists ADE/ESS Transition Specialists NPSO Technical Assistanc e Center ADE/ESS Transition Specialists NPSO Technical Assistanc e Center ADE/ESS Transition Specialists NPSO Technical Assistanc e Center ADE/ESS Transition Specialists ADE IT Specialists 7/1/108/31/10 5/1/116/30/13 Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 141 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 missing data and enable future trend analysis b) Revise PSO online data collection system to allow for the exploration of additional data related to nonengaged youth 7/1/106/30/13 ADE/ESS Transition Specialists ADE IT Specialists The following are new improvement activities for FFY 2011. Primary Activity (GOAL) 1) Increase the number of youth who respond to the post school outcomes survey from 61% (FFY 2010) to 67.5% 2) Increase the rate of engagement for students with a disability category of mental retardation from 40% (FFY 2010) to 52% Sub-Activities (Objectives or Action Steps) a) Design and implement a marketing plan to target increased participation by male and ethnic minority youth and young adults b) Enhance the online PSO Survey application to filter and group data by size of PEA and county c) Use the NPSO response calculator to track responses during the data collection to monitor response rates a) Offer three regional trainings a year specifically designed to increase awareness of available options for postsecondary education, training, and employment for students with intellectual disabilities Timeline Complete Projected 1/1/12– 6/30/12 11/1/11– 6/30/12 7/1/12– 9/30/12 1/1/12– 6/30/13 Resources (Planned) ADE/ESS Transition Specialists and Parent Information Specialists ADE/ESS Transition Specialists and IT Specialists ADE/ESS Transition Specialists ADE/ESS Transition Specialists AZ Community of Practice on Transition (AZCoPT) Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 142 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B / General Supervision Indicator 15: Effective General Supervision General supervision system (including monitoring, complaints, hearings, etc.) identifies and corrects noncompliance as soon as possible, but in no case later than one year from identification. (20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(B)) Measurement Percent of noncompliance corrected within one year of identification: a. # of findings of noncompliance. b. # of corrections completed as soon as possible but in no case later than one year from identification. Percent = (b divided by a) times 100. Overview of Issue / Description of System or Process Compliance Monitoring Exceptional Student Services (ESS) conducts compliance monitoring for IDEA procedural requirements on a six-year cycle. The activities conducted in each of the six years of the cycle for FFY 2009 were as follows:       Ongoing technical assistance; PEA data review, including student files; Review of policies and procedures; Student Exit Form Data Ongoing technical assistance; PEA data review, including student files; Collection of postschool outcomes; Parent Survey data Ongoing technical assistance; PEA data review, including student files; Preparation for monitoring Ongoing technical assistance; Conduct monitoring activities Ongoing technical assistance; PEA data review, including student files; Corrective Action Plan close-out Ongoing technical assistance; PEA data review, including student files The number of PEAs monitored each year of the six-year cycle ranges from 100 to 120 with a regional balance from year to year. Each year of the cycle also has a mix of elementary, unified districts, and high school districts, charter schools, and other agencies (such as secure care or accommodation schools). Except in those PEAs with less than 10 students with disabilities, a stratified sampling methodology is used to select the files to be reviewed for compliance. The sample always represents the range of grade levels, disabilities, service delivery types, and sites served by the PEA. If appropriate, the sample also includes students who have exited special education, been suspended or expelled, or placed in an out-of-PEA placement by the IEP team. Line items in the monitoring system align with the OSEP Related Requirements document. Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 143 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 The compliance monitoring system is standards-based with all forms, guide steps, enforcement, and reward options provided to PEAs at the beginning of each school year. The monitoring documents also are posted on the ADE/ESS Web site. Data collection may include file reviews and interviews. There are three monitoring options for PEAs. The specific type of monitoring for each PEA is determined by ESS in consultation with the PEA by using information of PEA performance on OSEP compliance and results indicators, Dispute Resolution findings, and technical assistance provided by education program specialists related to annual student file reviews. The monitoring options are:    Data Review: PEAs that meet all state targets for students with disabilities on results and compliance indicators identified by the U.S. Department of Education, have no dispute resolution findings, student file reviews indicate compliant practices. Self Assessment: PEAs with compliance issues in one or more of the areas listed above but no evidence of systemic concerns. On-site: PEAs that have systemic issues in any of the areas listed above. Any PEA with systemic noncompliance can be moved into year 4 of the monitoring cycle for an onsite monitoring. In FFY 2009 Arizona’s monitoring system was revised to address compliance requirements categorized in the areas of Child Find, Evaluation, IEP, and Procedural Safeguards. The items in these categories are aligned with the OSEP Related Requirements document. Dispute Resolution System In addition to monitoring, noncompliance with IDEA is identified through formal complaints and due process hearings. ADE/Dispute Resolution employs four State complaint investigators who work under the supervision of the Director of Dispute Resolution. The director assigns incoming complaints, monitors the investigation progress, and reviews and signs all letters of finding. Upon a finding of noncompliance identified by a complaint investigator, corrective action is ordered in a letter of findings that either requires the immediate provision of services or the immediate cessation of noncompliance, whichever is necessary. The letter also outlines the necessary steps required to prevent the reoccurrence of noncompliance and states what is considered sufficient documentation to ensure that noncompliance has been addressed and to minimize the effects of the violations. ADE/Dispute Resolution employs a Corrective Action Compliance Monitor (CACM) to collect the required documentation, monitor timelines, and provide technical assistance, as necessary. When both parties to a State administrative complaint agree that a mutually beneficial resolution can be reached without the need for a full investigation, the assigned complaint investigator may assist the parties in reaching an informal resolution. Although no formal resolution agreement is required, if the complaining party indicates that s/he is satisfied with the PEA’s response to the complaint, the complaint investigator will issue a withdrawal letter. If the complaining party changes his/her mind about informal resolution and wants the investigation to go forward, the individual may notify the Dispute Resolution office within five business days and the investigation will move forward. Beginning in August 2005, Arizona switched from a two-tiered due process system to a single-tier system. Due process hearings are conducted on behalf of the Arizona Department of Education by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). The OAH employs full-time administrative law judges (ALJ), all of whom are attorneys licensed to practice law in Arizona. The ALJs assigned to Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 144 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 hear special education due process hearings are knowledgeable about the IDEA and receive yearly training. Arizona has a system that allows for mediation of any dispute between parents and PEAs—it is not necessary for either to file a request for a due process hearing to utilize mediation services. Mediators are available statewide and have been trained on both mediation strategies and IDEA requirements. Incentives, Sanctions, and Enforcement Incentives During FFY 2011 the State offered the following incentives for PEAs that exhibited exemplary compliance with IDEA requirements upon completion of their monitoring. 1. ADE/ESS- two paid registrations for ESS Directors Institute or Transition Conference for PEAs that demonstrate 100% compliance on Indicators 11 and 13 in a data review monitoring. 2. ADE/ESS- one paid registration for ESS Directors Institute or Transition Conference for PEAs that have no findings at the completion of the self assessment monitoring. Sanctions and Enforcement Related to Monitoring Arizona uses a variety of methods to ensure that all public education agencies meet the requirements of State and federal statutes and regulations related to special education. The following is a listing of the State’s enforcement steps that may be imposed based upon the severity of the remaining noncompliance:  ESS development of a prescribed corrective action plan (CAP) with required activities and timelines to address the continuing noncompliance.  Enforcement of CAP activities as outlined in the current CAP.  Review and revision of the current CAP to develop targeted activities that address the continuing noncompliance.  Assignment of a special monitor.  Interruption of IDEA payments until adequate compliance is achieved. For charter schools not receiving IDEA funds, a request to begin withholding 10% of State funds.  For charter schools, a request to the appropriate board for a notice of intent to revoke the charter.  With Arizona State Board of Education approval, interruption of Group B weighted state aid or redirection of funds pursuant to 34 CFR § 300.227 (a).  Request to the Arizona Attorney General for legal action. Sanctions and Enforcement Related to Dispute Resolution Upon a finding of noncompliance identified in a State administrative complaint, corrective action is ordered in a Letter of Findings, and documentation of the corrective action submitted will be reviewed by the Corrective Action Compliance Monitor (CACM). If the corrective action documentation received is incomplete, not completed as specified in the Letter of Findings, or if no documentation is received Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 145 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 from the PEA by the date specified in the Letter of Findings, then the following steps will be taken by the PEA and ADE/Dispute Resolution: 1. Within five business days following the due date specified in the Letter of Findings, the CACM will attempt to informally communicate with the PEA via phone calls and/or emails for the following purpose(s):  to inquire why the corrective action is incomplete and to direct the PEA to immediately submit the completed corrective action documentation;  to provide feedback on any concerns with the documentation submitted, to give clarification on the requirements, and to direct the PEA to revise and resubmit the corrective action documentation within a specified timeframe; or  to inquire why the corrective action has not been submitted and to direct the PEA to immediately submit the completed corrective action documentation.  If the delay in submitting the documentation is due to extenuating circumstances, and the CACM determines based on those circumstances that it is reasonable to negotiate a new due date for the corrective action to be submitted, the CACM will send a Letter of Understanding, with a copy to the complainant, detailing (a) the CACM’s concerns and the PEA’s explanation, (b) any decisions made to resolve the problem, and (c) a new negotiated due date. 2. If the concerns are not resolved using the informal procedures described above, the CACM will send a Letter of Inquiry to the PEA, with a copy provided to the complainant. A Letter of Inquiry may be sent for any of the following reasons:  The PEA is nonresponsive to the CACM’s attempts at informal communication.  The CACM and the PEA are not able to resolve concerns with the content of corrective action documentation submitted or the PEA’s failure to submit all required corrective action documentation through informal communication.  The CACM is not satisfied with the PEA’s response to informal inquiries for reasons such as the PEA does not intend to complete and submit the corrective action, the PEA refuses to make needed changes to corrective action documentation, or the PEA’s informal explanation of the circumstances causing the delay in submitting corrective action documentation is unacceptable to the CACM.  The PEA fails to submit new or revised corrective action documentation within the informally negotiated timeframe or by the new due date set forth in the Letter of Understanding.  In other cases determined necessary and appropriate by the CACM.  The PEA must provide a Letter of Explanation to ADE/Dispute Resolution within 3 business days of receipt of the Letter of Inquiry fully answering the inquiry and explaining the circumstances surrounding the non-submission of or failure to complete the corrective action documentation.  If the circumstances are acceptable, then the CACM will send a Letter of Understanding, with a copy to the complainant, detailing (a) the CACM’s concerns and the PEA’s explanation, (b) any decisions made to resolve the problem, and (c) a new negotiated due date. If the circumstances are unacceptable or the PEA does not respond to the Letter of Inquiry as noted above, then the CACM will compose a Letter of Enforcement. 3. If the corrective action documentation submitted was not completed as specified in the Letter of Findings and following informal communication between the CACM and the PEA the revised and resubmitted corrective action documentation is not satisfactory, the CACM will inform the PEA via Letter of Clarification, with a copy to the complainant, that the corrective action item in question must be revised. A new due date for the revised corrective action will be assigned in this letter and technical assistance will be offered. Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 146 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 4. If, after the steps outlined above have been taken, the corrective action documentation received remains incomplete, has not been received by ADE/Dispute Resolution, or the corrective action has not been completed as specified in the Letter of Findings, the CACM will send a Letter of Enforcement to the chief administrator of the PEA, with a copy to the special education director or coordinator and the complainant, detailing the corrective action items that are incomplete, the corrective action items that were not completed as specified in the Letter of Findings, or those items that have not been received.  The Letter of Enforcement will outline which of the following enforcement options will be taken:  Interruption of federal funds  Redirection of federal funds to ensure the child receives a free appropriate public education (FAPE)  If applicable, report violations to a sponsoring entity for charter schools and seek remedies through the appropriate board. Once all corrective action documentation has been received, reviewed, and accepted by ADE/Dispute Resolution, a Letter of Completion will be sent to the chief administrator, the special education director or coordinator of the PEA, the ADE/ESS education program specialist assigned to assist the public education agency, and the complainant. Baseline Data for FFY 2003* (2003–2004) Total # monitored CAP Closed ≤ 1 year Monitoring findings closed within 1 year 90 53% [N = 48 / 90] Complaint findings closed within 1 year 39 97% [N = 38 / 39] TOTAL 129 66.7% [N = 86 / 129] Indicator Subsections *These baseline data were recalculated from FFY 2004 as a result of a change in the measurement strategy required by the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs. Discussion of Baseline Data Monitoring The Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) provided assistance to States in analyzing compliance monitoring findings relative to each of the federal indicators for the State Performance Plan in a document called the Part B Related Requirements and Investigative Questions Table. Arizona used this document to match line items from the State’s compliance monitoring system with the appropriate federal requirement. In Table 14 below, the State reports the total number of individual data points and the total number of out-of-compliance findings from the FFY 2003 monitoring for the noted indicator(s). Arizona tracks the date that each PEA closes out a corrective action plan: therefore, all items have the same “closeout” date within a specific year. Column D in Table 15.1 reflects the compliance status on the line items as of one year from the written notification of findings for all PEAs in the State. This equates to all of the PEAs that were in compliance during the original monitorings plus the Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 147 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 53% of the noncompliant PEAs that were closed out within one year of the monitoring. Thus, the FFY 2004 rate of compliance on all of the PEAs under section A of this indicator was 80.5%. Table 15.1: Monitoring Data Analysis for FFY 2003 A Sum of PEAs reviewed B Sum of PEAs with findings 1. Graduation 2. Dropout 13. Transition Plans 14. Secondary Outcomes 196 94 3. Statewide Assessments 246 64 4. Suspension 27 4 5. LRE 6–21 6. LRE 3–5 591 281 12. In-by-3 35 10 1,095 453 SPP Indicator C # Corrected in 1 year D % Compliance in 1 year 240 (453 X 0.53) 80.5% (A–B+C÷A) PEAs monitored in FFY 2003 # Closed within 1 year of exit conference % CAPS closed within 1 year TOTALS Table 15.2 reflects the compliance status on all other ESS federal monitoring requirements not reported in Section A above. The percentage reported in column D reflects the FFY 2004 compliance rate when all of the Section A items and all State-only requirements are subtracted. Table 15.2: Compliance Unrelated to Monitoring Priorities All other compliance requirements Child Find Evaluation IEP Service Delivery Procedural Safeguards ESS Monitoring Sections A # reviewed B # with findings C # Corrected in 1 year D % Compliance in 1 year 5 432 340 180 63% (340 X 53%) (A–B+C÷A) Dispute Resolution There was one agency that did not correct its noncompliance within one year of identification. The particular agency was found noncompliant system-wide and was issued significant corrective action. Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 148 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 Due to the necessity for system-wide changes, the agency was given an extended period of time to complete the corrective action. FFY Measurable and Rigorous Targets 2005 (2005–2006) 2006 (2006–2007) 2007 (2007–2008) 2008 (2008–2009) 2009 (2009–2010) 2010 (2010–2011) 2011 (2011–2012) 2012 (2012–2013) 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources Progress on improvement activities is reported in the Arizona Annual Performance Report. Improvement Activities for Monitoring Timelines Resources 1. Notify all agencies of the OSEP requirement that all CAPs be cleared within one year. January 2005 ESS Director of Program Support 2. Emphasize at all exit conferences the oneyear closeout requirement. Winter 2005 and continuing ESS specialists 3. Modify the ESS monitoring system to accurately capture the closeout status of all monitorings on an ongoing basis. Summer 2005 ESS programmers Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 149 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 Improvement Activities for Monitoring Timelines Resources 4. Add a “close out due” notification letter to be sent to all PEAs 45–60 days prior to the expiration of their one year. Fall 2005 ESS specialists 5. Continue to require intensive TA to all PEAs unable to close out within one year. Ongoing ESS specialists 6. Copy the president of the school board and the business manager of the PEA on first warning letter regarding fund interruption. Spring 2006 ESS specialists 7. Provide a copy of the corrective action plan to the president of the school board when a PEA is out of compliance in more than two areas. Winter 2006 ESS Director of Program Support 8. Continue to implement progressive enforcement activities for failure to complete corrective action items. Ongoing ESS leadership 9. Train monitoring staff on what to look for in one-year closeouts as systemic change may not be observable in one year. Summer 2006 ESS Monitoring Team 10. Continue to provide incentives to close out in one year and add an incentive for nine30 month closeout. Summer 2007 ESS leadership 11. Develop a status update form for use at nine month date. Summer 2008 ESS Monitoring Team 12. Require PEAs to provide status update to specialist three months prior to closeout 31 date. Fall 2008 ESS leadership 13. Continue involvement of ADE/ESS staff with MPRRC regional monitoring conference calls and meetings. Fall 2007 and continuing ESS leadership Improvement Activities for Complaint Investigation 1. Continue established tracking system to monitor submission of required corrective actions. 30 31 Charter School Board leadership Timelines Summer 2005 and continuing Resources CACM coordinator This activity discontinued as of FFY 2007 because incentives are provided on an informal basis. This activity discontinued as of FFY 2007 because the ADE/ESS program specialists provide the updates. Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 150 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 2. Modify procedures so that corrective action orders that allow the school greater than one year to complete will no longer be issued. Fall 2005 and continuing Complaint investigators 3. Train a backup CACM coordinator so that no interruption of oversight could occur. Summer 2006 CACM coordinator 4. Continue involvement of dispute resolution staff in regional mediation, due process hearing and complaint investigation 32 conference calls and regional meetings. Fall 2007 and continuing ESS leadership The following are new improvement activities for FFY 2007. Monitoring Primary Activity (GOAL) 1) Revise ADE/ESS monitoring process and system to streamline tracking, verification, and reporting of noncompliance and correction Sub-Activities (Objectives or Action Steps) a) ADE/ESS Monitoring Team will revise monitoring process and system Timeline Complete Projected 5/1/08 – 12/31/09 b) Field test revised monitoring system 1/1/10 – 6/30/10 c) Revise monitoring system based on results from field test 7/1/10 – 9/30/10 d) Implementation of fully revised system and process 10/1/10 – 6/30/10 e) Collect and analyze data from revised monitoring system 10/1/10 – 6/30/11 Resources (Planned) ADE/ESS Monitoring Team MPRRC DAC ADE/ESS Monitoring Team ADE/ESS Monitoring Team MPRRC DAC ADE/ESS Monitoring Team ADE/ESS Monitoring Team Dispute Resolution Primary Activity (GOAL) Sub-Activities (Objectives or Action Steps) Timeline Complete Projected Resources (Planned) 32 This activity discontinued as of FFY 2007 because the ESS Dispute Resolution Director keeps the investigators informed and involved, and all are aware of the timelines associated with this indicator. Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 151 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 1) Update procedures within the Dispute Resolution Unit to ensure noncompliance is continually corrected and verified within the one-year timeline a) Update procedures to track correction and verification of noncompliance b) Implement updated procedures to track correction and verification of noncompliance c) Analyze system information to determine if procedures are ensuring noncompliance is corrected and verified within the one-year timeline 7/1/08 8/1/08 – 6/30/09 7/1/09 – 6/30/10 ADE/ESS Director of Dispute Resolution ADE/ESS Director of Dispute Resolution ADE/ESS Director of Dispute Resolution The following is a new improvement activity for FFY 2008 to improve the quality of the data from the monitoring system. Primary Activity (GOAL) 1) Ensure high quality data from the monitoring system Sub-Activities (Objectives or Action Steps) a) Align line items within monitoring system to the Part B SPP/APR Related Requirements b) Increase interrater reliability of compliance line items related to Indicator 13 Timeline Complete Activities completed from 1/1/09 to 6/30/09. The line items were aligned to the Related Requirements. Activities completed from 10/1/08 to 11/30/09. Projected 1/1/09 – 6/30/09 ADE/ESS Monitoring Team MPRRC DAC 10/1/08 – 11/30/09 ADE/ESS Monitoring Team MPRRC DAC 7/1/09 – 6/30/11 ADE/ESS Monitoring Team MPRRC DAC Interrater reliability among ADE/ESS raters was 80% to 100% for each line item. c) Increase validity and reliability of line items within monitoring system Resources (Planned) The following are new improvement activities for FFY 2010, and for FFY 2011 and FFY 2012 for the revised SPP. Primary Activity (GOAL) 1) Develop and conduct webinars pertaining to the Sub-Activities (Objectives or Action Steps) a) Develop webinar trainings for evaluation and IEP requirements Timeline Complete Projected 12/1/106/30/11 Resources (Planned) ADE/ESS Deputy Associate Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 152 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 requirements for compliant evaluations and IEPs 2) Improve the general supervision system of PEAs by enhancing internal staff development b) Conduct statewide webinars for evaluation and IEP requirements 7/1/1112/31/11 c) Collect and analyze training feedback from participants 1/1/124/30/12 d) Collect corrective action close-out (timeline) data for evaluation and IEP monitoring line items a) Review and revise, if necessary, the ADE/ESS mentoring system for ESS monitoring specialists 5/1/126/30/12 b) Implement the ESS mentoring system for the monitoring specialists, based on demand and need 7/1/106/30/13 c) Develop 3-day summer monitoring training each year for ESS monitoring specialists 7/1/106/30/13 d) Implement 3-day summer monitoring training each year for ESS monitoring specialists 7/1/106/30/13 e) Provide follow-up staff development for ESS monitoring specialists periodically throughout the year 7/1/106/30/13 7/1/106/30/13 Superintend ent, Directors, and Specialists ADE/ESS Directors and Specialists ADE/ESS Directors and Specialists ADE/ESS Directors and Specialists ADE/ESS Deputy Associate Superintend ent, Director of Program Support, and Monitoring Team ADE/ESS Director of Program Support and Monitoring Team ADE/ESS Director of Program Support and Monitoring Team ADE/ESS Director of Program Support and Monitoring Team ADE/ESS Director of Program Support and Monitoring Team Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 153 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 3) Conduct Dispute Resolution presentations for PEAs and parent groups a) Review and revise presentation, support materials, and resources 7/1/116/30/13 b) Conduct statewide presentations at various regional and statewide venues 7/1/116/30/13 ADE/ESS Dispute Resolution Director and Dispute Resolution Coordinator ADE/ESS Dispute Resolution Director and Complaint Investigator The following are new improvement activities for FFY 2011. Primary Activity (GOAL) 1) Develop dispute resolution database to improve collection, maintenance, and reporting of data Sub-Activities (Objectives or Action Steps) a) Review dispute resolution database Timeline Complete Projected 7/1/11– 6/30/12 b) Reconstruct dispute resolution database 7/1/12– 12/31/12 c) Test phase  alpha-test to debug  beta-test to ensure ease of use d) Full implementation of reconstructed dispute resolution database 1/1/13– 6/30/13 7/1/13 Resources (Planned) ADE/ESS Dispute Resolution Director and Corrective Action Compliance Monitor ADE/ESS Dispute Resolution Director and Corrective Action Compliance Monitor Dispute Resolution Team Dispute Resolution Team Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 154 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B / General Supervision Indicator 18: Resolution Session Effectiveness Percent of hearing requests that went to resolution sessions that were resolved through resolution session settlement agreements. (20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3(B)) Measurement: Percent = 3.1(a) divided by (3.1) times 100. Overview of Issue / Description of System or Process ADE/Dispute Resolution has provided numerous training sessions to inform PEAs of their responsibility to convene a resolution session within 15 days of receiving a due process hearing request, unless the parties have agreed in writing to waive the resolution session, or unless the parties have agreed to participate in mediation. The presentation used at the various trainings is posted on the ADE/ESS Web site. When a due process hearing is requested, the ADE/Dispute Resolution notifies the parties of the hearing dates and the contact information of the assigned ALJ by issuing a Notice of Hearing. The Notice of Hearing also includes information about the due process hearing system. Included with the Notice of Hearing is an information sheet about resolution session requirements and a Resolution Session Tracking Form that PEAs are required to submit during the resolution period in order to keep the ALJ and the ADE/Dispute Resolution informed about the timeliness and outcome of the resolution session or mediation. Baseline Data for FFY 2004 (2004–2005) 57.9% [N = 11 / 19] of the hearing requests that went to resolution sessions were resolved through resolution session settlement agreements. Discussion of Baseline Data There were only 19 resolution sessions held in Arizona during FFY 2005. An informal inquiry into why this is the case revealed that parents who are represented by an attorney are generally advised to request mediation instead of agreeing to a resolution session. The justification for this is that parents and schools have been unsuccessful in the past in resolving the issues on their own and that a third party mediator is necessary in order to make any progress. FFY Measurable and Rigorous Targets Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 155 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 2006 60.0% (2006–2007) 2007 63.0% (2007–2008) 2008 68.0% (2008–2009) 2009 70.0% (2009–2010) 2010 75.0% (2010–2011) 2011 75.5% (2011–2012) 2012 76.0% (2012–2013) Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources Progress on improvement activities is reported in the Arizona Annual Performance Report. Improvement Activities 1. Timelines Resources Modify ESS Dispute Resolution data base to capture data required by IDEA 2004 regarding resolution sessions. Winter/spring 2006 Continue to work with the Arizona OAH to develop an efficient interagency data tracking system. Ongoing 3. Offer a workshop to PEAs on mediation, negotiation, and facilitation techniques in order to encourage resolution of due process complaints. Spring 2006 Various private consulting companies 4. Review and analyze results semiannually and modify training and procedures to improve outcomes. Summer 2006 and continuing Dispute Resolution Director 5. Develop a feedback system for participants in resolution sessions to determine the reasons for success or failure. Summer 2007 and continuing Dispute Resolution Director 2. IT programmer ESS Dispute Resolution Coordinator ESS Director of Dispute Resolution Arizona OAH Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 156 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 The following is a new improvement activity for FFY 2007. Primary Activity (GOAL) 1) Develop a survey to be given to parties that participate in a resolution session Sub-Activities (Objectives or Action Steps) a) Develop survey Timeline Complete Projected 7/1/08 – 9/1/08 b) Field test survey and revise if appropriate 9/1/08 – 6/30/09 c) Implement survey for parties that participate in a resolution session 7/1/09 – 6/30/11 Resources (Planned) ESS Dispute Resolution Director ESS Dispute Resolution Coordinator ESS Dispute Resolution Director ESS Dispute Resolution Coordinator ESS Dispute Resolution Director ESS Dispute Resolution Coordinator The following are new improvement activities for FFY 2008 which establishes a formal process to track the effectiveness of resolution sessions. Primary Activity (GOAL) 1) Track resolution sessions to determine effectiveness 2) Train PEAs and families on resolution sessions Sub-Activities (Objectives or Action Steps) a) Develop a resolution session tracking form Timeline Complete Projected 12/15/09 b) Disseminate tracking form to each PEA upon the filing of a due process hearing 12/1/096/30/11 c) Use results of tracking form to collect and report data for Dispute Resolution, Table 7 a) Develop power point presentation for training PEAs and families b) Train PEAs at various conferences throughout the year c) Work with Arizona’s PTI and ADE/ESS Parent Information 7/1/09 – 6/30/11 1/6/10 1/1/10 – 6/30/11 1/1/10 – 6/30/11 Resources (Planned) ESS Dispute Resolution Director ESS Dispute Resolution Director ESS Dispute Resolution Coordinator ESS Dispute Resolution Director ESS Dispute Resolution Director ESS Dispute Resolution Director ESS Dispute Resolution Director Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 157 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 Network Specialists (PINS) to train families throughout the year d) Train Administrative Law Judges on resolution sessions 1/1/10 – 6/30/11 ESS Deputy Associate Superintendent ESS Dispute Resolution Director External Consultant The following are new improvement activities for FFY 2010, and for FFY 2011 and FFY 2012 for the revised SPP. Primary Activity (GOAL) 1) Train PEAs on Resolution Session Effectiveness 2) Conduct Dispute Resolution presentations for PEAs and parent groups 3) Review and revise Dispute Resolution brochure Sub-Activities (Objectives or Action Steps) a) Identify qualified trainer Timeline Complete Projected 10/1/105/1/11 b) Provide training at a statewide conference 5/1/116/30/12 a) Review and revise presentation, support materials, and resources 7/1/116/30/13 b) Conduct statewide presentations at various regional and statewide venues 7/1/116/30/13 a) Revise and update brochure 7/1/116/30/13 b) Disseminate brochure statewide and post on ADE/ESS Web site 7/1/116/30/13 Resources (Planned) ADE/ESS Dispute Resolution Director and Coordinator ADE/ESS Dispute Resolution Director and Coordinator ADE/ESS Dispute Resolution Director and Coordinator ADE/ESS Dispute Resolution Director and Complaint Investigator ADE/ESS Dispute Resolution Director and Coordinator ADE/ESS Dispute Resolution Director and Coordinator Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 158 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B / General Supervision Indicator 19: Mediation Agreements Percent of mediations held that resulted in mediation agreements. (20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(B)) Measurement: Percent = (2.1(a)(i) + 2.1(b)(i)) divided by (2.1) times 100. Overview of Issue / Description of System or Process Arizona has a system that allows for mediation of special education related disputes between parents and PEAs—it is not necessary for either to file a request for a due process hearing to utilize mediation services. Mediators are available statewide and have been trained on both mediation strategies and IDEA requirements. Baseline Data for FFY 2004 (2004–2005) 82% of mediation requests resulted in a mediation agreement. Discussion of Baseline Data It is difficult to explain why only 82% of mediations resulted in a mediation agreement since mediations are conducted by contracted mediators and are confidential. Presumably, some parties are unable to come to resolution and must utilize the due process system to resolve their disputes. FFY 2005 (2005–2006) 2006 (2006–2007) 2007 (2007–2008) 2008 (2008–2009) 2009 (2009–2010) Measurable and Rigorous Targets 82.0% 82.5% 83.0% 83.5% 84.0% Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 159 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 2010 84.5% (2010–2011) 2011 85% (2011–2012) 2012 85.5% (2012–2013) Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources Progress on improvement activities is reported in the Arizona Annual Performance Report. Improvement Activities Timelines Resources 1. Provide mediation training. December 2005 ESS Dispute Resolution unit 2. Utilize PINS specialists to discuss value of mediation with parents. Winter 2006 and continuing PINS specialists 3. Analyze feedback from mediation survey sent to parties following mediation to determine what ADE can do to improve the mediation system. Spring 2006 and continuing ESS Dispute Resolution Coordinator Present training sessions at annual Directors’ Institute on mediation. Fall 2006 and continuing 4. ESS Director of Dispute Resolution ESS Dispute Resolution unit The following are new improvement activities for FFY 2007. Primary Activity (GOAL) 1) Increase response rate to mediation survey 2) Review and revise, if appropriate, mediation survey Sub-Activities (Objectives or Action Steps) a) Train mediators about purpose and distribution of survey Timeline Complete Projected 7/1/08 – 6/30/09 b) Analyze response rate to mediation survey 7/1/09 – 6/30/10 a) Review mediation survey and results to determine participant satisfaction and feedback 7/1/08 – 6/30/09 Resources (Planned) ESS Dispute Resolution Director ESS Dispute Resolution Coordinator ESS Dispute Resolution Director ESS Dispute Resolution Coordinator ESS Dispute Resolution Director ESS Dispute Resolution Coordinator Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 160 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 b) Revise mediation survey, if appropriate, based on review and analysis 7/1/09 – 9/1/09 c) Implement revised survey 9/1/09 – 6/30/11 ESS Dispute Resolution Director ESS Dispute Resolution Coordinator ESS Dispute Resolution Director ESS Dispute Resolution Coordinator The following are new improvement activities for FFY 2011 and FFY 2012 for the revised SPP. Primary Activity (GOAL) 1) Train mediators on current developments in special education law 2) Conduct Dispute Resolution presentations for PEAs and parent groups 3) Review and revise Dispute Resolution Sub-Activities (Objectives or Action Steps) a) Invite mediators to attend the ADE/ESS Directors Institute Timeline Complete Projected 7/1/106/30/13 b) Invite mediators to participate in the Dispute Resolution in Special Education Consortium quarterly conference calls for mediators 7/1/106/30/13 a) Review and revise presentation, support materials, and resources 7/1/116/30/13 b) Conduct statewide presentations at various regional and statewide venues 7/1/116/30/13 a) Revise and update brochure 7/1/116/30/13 Resources (Planned) ADE/ESS Dispute Resolution Director and Coordinator Technical Assistance for Excellence in Special Education (TAESE) ADE/ESS Dispute Resolution Director and Coordinator Technical Assistance for Excellence in Special Education (TAESE) ADE/ESS Dispute Resolution Director and Coordinator ADE/ESS Dispute Resolution Director and Complaint Investigator ADE/ESS Dispute Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 161 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 brochure b) Disseminate brochure statewide and post on ADE/ESS Web site 7/1/116/30/13 Resolution Director and Coordinator ADE/ESS Dispute Resolution Director and Coordinator Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 162 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B / General Supervision Indicator 20: State Reported Data 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, State Performance Plan, and Annual Performance Reports, are: a. Submitted on or before due dates (first Wednesday in February for child count, including race and ethnicity; and educational environments; first Wednesday in November for exiting, discipline, personnel and dispute resolution; December 15 for assessment; May 1 for Maintenance of Effort & Coordinated Early Intervening Services; and February 1 for Annual Performance Reports). Accurate, including covering the correct year and following the correct measurement. Overview of Issue / Description of System or Process Arizona collects State reported data, including 618 data and annual performance reports, through the following sources:  Student Accountability Information System (SAIS), a Web-based system for the collection of all student data from the PEAs;  Arizona’s Instrument to Measure Standards (AIMS) and Arizona’s Instrument to Measure Standards Alternate (AIMS A), the statewide student assessment system used by the Arizona Department of Education for AYP and AZ LEARNS determinations;  Arizona Safety Accountability for Education (AZ SAFE), a Web-based system for PEAs to submit data on the discipline elements;  Annual Special Education Data Collection, a Web-based system for PEAs to submit data on the preschool transition, personnel, and exit elements;  Teaching Strategies Gold, a web-based data collection system for PEAs to submit preschool outcome data;  Arizona Parent Survey, a Web-based system for parents to submit survey responses;  Arizona Monitoring System, a Web-based system to collect monitoring data; and  Dispute Resolution spreadsheet to collect, maintain, and report all dispute resolution information. Arizona has in place multiple validity and reliability checks and follows the principles of the Critical Elements document. Baseline Data for FFY 2004 (2004–2005) 33 33 The dates reported for the 2004-2005 baseline year were in error and are reported correctly in this SPP. Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 163 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 Data Element Due Date Preliminary Child Count February 1 Submission Date 2002–2003 2003–2004 2004–2005 2/5/03 1/15/04 1/28/05 Preliminary Placement 2/5/03 1/15/04 1/28/05 Final Child Count 7/10/03 7/7/04 7/13/05 Final Placement 7/10/03 7/7/04 7/31/05 10/31/03 10/29/04 10/29/05 Exit 10/31/03 10/29/04 10/29/05 Discipline 10/31/03 10/29/04 10/29/05 Personnel November 1 FFY Measurable and Rigorous Targets 2005 (2005–2006) 100% 2006 (2006–2007) 100% 2007 (2007–2008) 100% 2008 (2008–2009) 100% 2009 (2009–2010) 100% 2010 (2010–2011) 100% 2011 (2011–2012) 100% 2012 (2012–2013) 100% Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 164 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 Progress on improvement activities is reported in the Arizona Annual Performance Report. Improvement Activities Timelines 1. Improve data integrity checks in Student Accountability Information System (SAIS). Spring 2005 2. Collaborate with Safe and Drug Free Schools staff to build data set for suspension/expulsion. Fall 2005 Resources Data Manager IT programmer/analyst Data Manager Director of Program Support Director of School Safety and Prevention 3. Extract exit data from SAIS. Summer 2006 Data Manager IT programmer/analyst 4. Collaborate with NCSEAM and with other similarly situated States to improve ESS census verification process. Fall 2006 5. Maintain the timeliness of data submission at 100% and review annually, at a minimum, to update/improve accuracy and timeliness. 2007 and continuing Data Manager Director of Program Support Data Manager Director of Program Support IT programmer/analyst 6. Review ADE/ESS efforts to ensure valid and reliable data through the use of the data standards. Spring 2007 and continuing Data Manager 7. Initiate discussions with other ADE divisions with federal reporting requirements that are extracted from SAIS to build rationale for statutory change. Summer 2007 Associate Superintendents and ADE Management Team 8. Investigate the advantages and disadvantages of moving the federal child count date from December 1 to an earlier 34 date. Winter—Spring 2008 ESS Leadership Director of Funding School Finance Leadership IT Leadership The following are new improvement activities for FFY 2007. Primary Activity (GOAL) 34 Sub-Activities (Objectives or Action Steps) Timeline Complete Projected Resources (Planned) New for FFY 2006. Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 165 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 1) Review and revision of the ADE Student Accountability Information System (SAIS) to improve timely and accurate special education data 2) Refine ADE/ESS procedures for data aggregation a) ADE/ESS will contribute funds toward the review and revision of SAIS 10/1/08 – 6/30/09 b) ADE/ESS will meet with Information Technology (IT) staff periodically to revise procedures as necessary and address problems 3/1/09 – 6/30/11 c) ADE/ESS will write business rules for the SAIS revisions 7/1/09 – 6/30/10 d) ADE/ESS will analyze SAIS operation for timely and accurate collection and reporting of special education data 7/1/09 – 6/30/11 a) ADE/ESS will review and revise internal procedures for processing and reporting special education data 3/1/09 – 6/30/10 b) ADE/ESS will analyze and refine internal procedures for processing and reporting special education data 7/1/09 – 6/30/11 ADE/ESS Deputy Associate Superintendent ADE/ESS Directors ADE/ESS Data management coordinator ADE/ESS Deputy Associate Superintendent ADE/ESS Directors ADE/ESS Data management coordinator IT Staff ADE/ESS Deputy Associate Superintendent ADE/ESS Directors ADE/ESS Data management coordinator IT Staff ADE/ESS Deputy Associate Superintendent ADE/ESS Directors ADE/ESS Data management coordinator IT Staff ADE/ESS Deputy Associate Superintendent ADE/ESS Directors ADE/ESS Data management coordinator IT Staff ADE/ESS Deputy Associate Superintendent ADE/ESS Directors ADE/ESS Data management coordinator IT Staff The following are extended and new improvement activities for FFY 2010, and for FFY 2011 and FFY 2012 for the revised SPP. Primary Activity (GOAL) Sub-Activities (Objectives or Timeline Complete Projected Resources (Planned) Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 166 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 1) Provide SPP/APR Indicator data to each PEA in secure format 2) Review and revise the ADE Student Accountability Information System (SAIS) to improve timely and accurate special education data Action Steps) a) Develop Data Profiles each federal fiscal year 7/1/10 – 6/30/13 b) Disseminate Data Profiles each federal fiscal year 7/1/10 – 6/30/13 a) ADE/ESS will meet with Information Technology (IT) staff periodically to revise procedures as necessary and address problems 7/1/11 – 6/30/13 b) ADE/ESS will write business rules for the SAIS revisions 7/1/11 – 6/30/13 c) ADE/ESS will analyze SAIS operation for timely and accurate collection and reporting of special education data 7/1/11 – 6/30/13 d) Investigate the creation of two fulltime equivalent (FTE) positions: 1) a PEA data support, and 2) an IT SAIS developer 7/1/11 – 6/30/13 ADE/ESS Deputy Associate Superintende nt, Directors, and Data Management Specialist ADE/ESS Deputy Associate Superintende nt, Directors, and Data Management Specialist ADE/ESS Deputy Associate Superintende nt, Directors, and Data Management Specialist ADE IT Staff ADE/ESS Deputy Associate Superintende nt, Directors, and Data Management Specialist ADE IT Staff ADE/ESS Deputy Associate Superintende nt, Directors, and Data Management Specialist ADE IT Staff ADE/ESS Deputy Associate Superintende nt, Directors, and Data Management Specialist Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 167 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 3) Provide information to PEAs about data accuracy and timeliness a) Develop webinars and workshops for PEAs 7/1/11 – 6/30/13 b) Conduct data workshops at annual Directors Institute 7/1/11 – 6/30/13 c) Conduct webinars and workshops for PEAs 7/1/11 – 6/30/13 ADE/ESS Deputy Associate Superintende nt, Directors, and Data Management Specialist ADE/ESS Deputy Associate Superintende nt, Directors, and Data Management Specialist ADE/ESS Deputy Associate Superintende nt, Directors, and Data Management Specialist Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 168 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 Attachment 1: Sample Parent Involvement Survey Arizona Parent Satisfaction Survey Greetings! The Arizona Department of Education, Exceptional Student Services (ADE/ESS) and local schools have a history of commitment to family involvement in the special education process. State and local activities focus on improving outcomes for students by promoting family and school partnerships. Parental feedback is regularly collected in a variety of ways to evaluate the success of education programs. Our State Performance Plan includes a goal to measure how well your district/school has involved you to improve special education services and results for your child. Your input on the Web-based Parent Survey will help to enhance the relationship you have with your district/school. This confidential survey was developed by the National Center for Special Education Accountability Monitoring (NCSEAM). The results will be tabulated annually for public distribution. Your district/school and family will benefit from knowing how well the needs of special education students and their parents are being met. Listed below are instructions for the confidential survey. Please take a few minutes to answer questions about how your school has facilitated your involvement as a means to improve special education services and results for your child. INSTRUCTIONS  We prefer you complete the survey online at www.ade.az.gov/parentsurvey. It’s easy! If that’s not possible, complete this form.  ALL of the statements in Section A and 25 questions in Section B must be answered.  Enter the confidential survey User ID and Password given to you by your child’s school.  Check one box -  - for each of the following statements and questions.  MAIL the completed survey in the envelope provided by the school. Your survey will be sent to your district or school administrative office for data entry. Do not write your name or address on the survey or the envelope. Your survey is confidential. Section A Confidential Survey User ID: __________ Password: _________ My child’s grade level is:  Preschool  Kindergarten  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12 My child's age in years is:  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22 My child's primary disability is:  Preschool - Moderate Delay  Preschool - Severe Delay Impairment  Severe Mental Retardation  Multiple Disability - Severe Sensory Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 169 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012  Preschool - Speech or Language Delay  Autism  Deafness  Emotional Disability  Hearing Impairment  Mild Mental Retardation  Moderate Mental Retardation My child's race / ethnicity is:  White / Caucasian  Black / African-American  Hispanic / Latino  Orthopedic Impairment  Other Health Impairment  Specific Learning Disability  Speech or Language Impairment  Traumatic Brain Injury  Visual Impairment  Asian / Pacific Islander  American Indian / Alaskan Native  Multi-racial My child's gender is:  Male  Female Section B 1. I am considered an equal partner with teachers and other professionals in planning my child's program.  Very Strongly Agree  Strongly Agree  Agree  Disagree  Strongly Disagree  Very Strongly Disagree 2. At the IEP meeting, we discussed how my child would participate in statewide assessments.  Very Strongly Agree  Strongly Agree  Agree  Disagree  Strongly Disagree  Very Strongly Disagree 3. At the IEP meeting, we discussed accommodations and modifications my child would need.  Very Strongly Agree  Strongly Agree  Agree  Disagree  Strongly Disagree  Very Strongly Disagree 4. We discussed whether my child needed services beyond the regular school year.  Very Strongly Agree  Strongly Agree  Agree  Disagree  Strongly Disagree  Very Strongly Disagree 5. Written justification was given for the extent that my child would not receive services in the regular classroom.  Very Strongly Agree  Strongly Agree  Agree  Disagree  Strongly Disagree  Very Strongly Disagree 6. I was given information about organizations that offer information and training for parents of students with disabilities.  Very Strongly Agree  Strongly Agree  Agree  Disagree  Strongly Disagree  Very Strongly Disagree 7. I have been asked for my opinion about how well special education services are meeting my child's needs.  Very Strongly Agree  Strongly Agree  Agree  Disagree  Strongly Disagree  Very Strongly Disagree 8. My child's evaluation report is written in terms I understand.  Very Strongly Agree  Strongly Agree  Agree  Disagree  Strongly Disagree  Very Strongly Disagree Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 170 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 9. Written information I receive is written in an understandable way.  Very Strongly Agree  Strongly Agree  Agree  Disagree  Strongly Disagree  Very Strongly Disagree 10. Teachers are available to speak with me.  Very Strongly Agree  Strongly Agree  Agree  Disagree  Strongly Disagree  Very Strongly Disagree 11. Teachers treat me as a team member.  Very Strongly Agree  Strongly Agree  Agree  Disagree  Strongly Disagree  Very Strongly Disagree 12. Teachers and administrators seek out parent input.  Very Strongly Agree  Strongly Agree  Agree  Disagree  Strongly Disagree  Very Strongly Disagree 13. Teachers and administrators show sensitivity to the needs of students with disabilities and their families.  Very Strongly Agree  Strongly Agree  Agree  Disagree  Strongly Disagree  Very Strongly Disagree 14. Teachers and administrators encourage me to participate in the decision-making process.  Very Strongly Agree  Strongly Agree  Agree  Disagree  Strongly Disagree  Very Strongly Disagree 15. Teachers and administrators at my child's school answered any questions I had about Procedural Safeguards.  Very Strongly Agree  Strongly Agree  Agree  Disagree  Strongly Disagree  Very Strongly Disagree 16. Teachers and administrators respect my cultural heritage.  Very Strongly Agree  Strongly Agree  Agree  Disagree  Strongly Disagree  Very Strongly Disagree 17. The school has a person on staff who is available to answer parents' questions.  Very Strongly Agree  Strongly Agree  Agree  Disagree  Strongly Disagree  Very Strongly Disagree 18. The school communicates regularly with me regarding my child's progress on IEP goals.  Very Strongly Agree  Strongly Agree  Agree  Disagree  Strongly Disagree  Very Strongly Disagree 19. The school gives me choices with regard to services that address my child's needs.  Very Strongly Agree  Strongly Agree  Agree  Disagree  Strongly Disagree  Very Strongly Disagree 20. The school offers parents training about special education issues.  Very Strongly Agree  Strongly Agree  Agree  Disagree  Strongly Disagree  Very Strongly Disagree 21. My child's school told me how to request services that my child needs. Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 171 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012  Very Strongly Agree  Strongly Agree  Agree  Disagree  Strongly Disagree  Very Strongly Disagree 22. The school offers parents a variety of ways to communicate with teachers.  Very Strongly Agree  Strongly Agree  Agree  Disagree  Strongly Disagree  Very Strongly Disagree 23. The school gives parents the help they may need to play an active role in their child's education.  Very Strongly Agree  Strongly Agree  Agree  Disagree  Strongly Disagree  Very Strongly Disagree 24. The school provides information on agencies that can assist my child in the transition from school.  Very Strongly Agree  Strongly Agree  Agree  Disagree  Strongly Disagree  Very Strongly Disagree 25. The school explains what options parents have if they disagree with a decision of the school.  Very Strongly Agree  Strongly Agree  Agree  Disagree  Strongly Disagree  Very Strongly Disagree Thank you for completing the Parent Survey. Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 172 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 Attachment 2: Dispute Resolution Baseline Data SECTION A: Signed, written complaints (1) Signed, written complaints total (1.1) Complaints with reports issued 128 117 (a) Reports with findings 25 (b) Reports within timeline 66 (c) Reports within extended timelines 19 (1.2) Complaints withdrawn or dismissed (1.3) Complaints pending (a) Complaint pending a due process hearing 10 1 0 SECTION B: Mediation requests (2) Mediation requests total 43 (2.1) Mediations (a) Mediations related to due process (i) Mediation agreements (b) Mediations not related to due process (i) Mediation agreements (2.2) Mediations not held (including pending) 7 5 36 17 16 SECTION C: Hearing requests (3) Hearing requests total (3.1) Resolution sessions (a) Settlement agreements (3.2) Hearings (fully adjudicated) 51 0 0 7 (a) Decisions within timeline 0 (b) Decisions within extended timeline 6 (3.3) Resolved without a hearing 25 SECTION D: Expedited hearing requests (related to disciplinary decision) (4) Expedited hearing requests total (4.1) Resolution sessions (a) Settlement agreements (4.2) Expedited hearings (fully adjudicated) (a) Change of placement ordered 4 0 0 1 0 Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 173 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 Attachment 3: List of Acronyms and Terms AAC Arizona Administrative Code ADE Arizona Department of Education AHAA Arizona High Achievement for All AIMS Arizona’s Instrument to Measure Standards AIMS A Arizona’s Instrument to Measure Standards Alternate ALJ Administrative Law Judge AMO Annual Measurable Objective APR Annual Performance Report ARR Alternate Risk Ratio ARS Arizona Revised Statutes ASAMA Arizona Students Achieving Mathematics Academy ASVL Annual Site Visit Log AT Assistive Technology AYP Adequate Yearly Progress AZCoPT Arizona Community of Practice on Transition AzEIP Arizona Early Intervention Program for Infants and Toddlers AZ SAFE Arizona Safety and Accountability for Education AzTAP Arizona Technology Access Program AZ TAS Arizona Technical Assistance System CACM Corrective Action Compliance Monitor CAP Corrective Action Plan CoP Community of Practice CSPD Comprehensive System of Personnel Development CTE Career and Technical Education CTT Community Transition Team Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 174 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 DAC Data Accountability Center DANS Data Analysis System DBHS Division of Behavioral Health Services DDD Division of Developmental Disabilities DEC Division of Early Childhood EAPN Enhancing Arizona’s Parent Networks ECE Early Childhood Education ECQUIP Early Childhood Quality Improvement Practices Process ECSE Early Childhood Special Education ESEA Elementary and Secondary Education Act ESS Exceptional Student Services FAPE Free Appropriate Public Education FFY Federal Fiscal Year GOLD Teaching Strategies GOLD (early childhood assessment) 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 NCCRESt National Center for Culturally Responsive Educational Systems NCLB No Child Left Behind Act NCSEAM National Center for Special Education Accountability and Monitoring NDPC-SD National Dropout Prevention Center for Students with Disabilities Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 175 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 NPSO National Post School Outcomes Center NSTTAC National Secondary Transition Technical Assistance Center OAH Office of Administrative Hearings OCSHCN Office for Children with Special Health Care Needs OELAS Office of English Language Acquisition Services OSEP Office of Special Education Programs/U.S. Department of Education PBISAz Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports of Arizona PEA Public Education Agency PINS Parent Information Network Specialist PSO Post School Outcome PTI Parent Training Institute R and E Research and Evaluation RSA/VR Rehabilitation Services of Arizona/Vocational Rehabilitation RTI Response to Intervention SAIS Student Accountability Information System SCR Systemic Change in Reading SEAP Special Education Advisory Panel SEAS-Math Special Education Achieving Success in Mathematics SFY State Fiscal Year SPDG State Personnel Development Grant SPP State Performance Plan SSPD School Safety and Prevention Division STMP Secondary Transition Mentoring Project SUMS Special Education Using Mathematics for School Improvement SUPPORT System for Utilizing Peers in Program Organization, Review, and Technical Assistance Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 176 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 SW-PBIS School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports TA Technical Assistance TAESE Technical Assistance for Excellence in Special Education WRR Weighted Risk Ratio Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 177 Arizona Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 The contents of this publication were developed with funds allocated by the U.S. Department of Education under The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. These contents do not necessarily represent the guideline of the agency, nor should endorsement by the federal government be assumed. The Arizona Department of Education of the State of Arizona does not discriminate on the basis of race, religion, color, national origin, sex, disability or age in its programs, activities or in its hiring and employment practices. For questions or concerns regarding this statement, please contact Administrative Services at 602-542-3186. Printed in Phoenix, Arizona, by the Arizona Department of Education Part B Arizona State Performance Plan (SPP) 2005-2012 178