Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 State of Arizona Department of Education Office of John Huppenthal Superintendent of Public Instruction Arizona FFY 2009 Annual Performance Report for Special Education Educational Services And Resources Division Exceptional Student Services 1535 West Jefferson, Phoenix, AZ 85007 www.ade.az.gov/ess February 1, 2011 Revised April 18, 2011 Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 1 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 Arizona FFY 2009 Annual Performance Report for Special Education Submitted to the Office of Special Education Programs United States Department of Education Educational Services and Resources Division Colette Chapman Exceptional Student Services Deputy Associate Superintendent 602-542-4013 essdesk@azed.gov www.ade.az.gov/ess February 1, 2011 Revised April 18, 2011 Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 2 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 Table of Contents Overview of the Annual Performance Report Development ................................................................... 4 Indicator 1: Graduation Rates .................................................................................................................... 6 Indicator 2: Dropout Rates ....................................................................................................................... 15 Indicator 3: Assessments......................................................................................................................... 24 Indicator 4A: Suspension and Expulsion ............................................................................................... 36 Indicator 4B: Suspension and Expulsion by Race or Ethnicity ........................................................... 46 Indicator 5: School Age LRE .................................................................................................................... 51 Indicator 6: Preschool LRE ...................................................................................................................... 58 Indicator 7: Preschool Outcomes ............................................................................................................ 59 Indicator 8: Parent Involvement .............................................................................................................. 67 Indicator 9: Racial / Ethnic Disproportionality ....................................................................................... 75 Indicator 10: Racial / Ethnic Disproportionality by Disability ............................................................... 86 Indicator 11: Evaluation Timelines .......................................................................................................... 98 Indicator 12: Early Childhood Transition .............................................................................................. 109 Indicator 13: Secondary Transition ....................................................................................................... 118 Indicator 14: Post School Outcomes .................................................................................................... 134 Indicator 15: Effective General Supervision ......................................................................................... 149 Indicator 16: Complaint Timelines ........................................................................................................ 173 Indicator 17: Due Process Timelines .................................................................................................... 176 Indicator 18: Resolution Session Effectiveness .................................................................................. 181 Indicator 19: Mediation Agreements ..................................................................................................... 186 Indicator 20: State Reported Data ......................................................................................................... 190 Attachments ............................................................................................................................................ 198 Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 3 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 The Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for Special Education Federal Fiscal Year 2009 Overview of the Annual Performance Report Development In accordance with 20 U.S.C. § 1416 (b)(2)(C)(ii) and 34 CFR § 300.602, the State of Arizona must report annually to the United States Secretary of Education on Arizona’s performance under its Part B State Performance Plan (SPP). The annual report is the Part B Annual Performance Report (APR). The submission of the Part B APR, due February 1, 2011, reflects those requirements and the State’s progress toward the goals established in the State Performance Plan submitted to the U.S. Department of Education in December 2005. The February 1, 2011, APR gives actual target data and other responsive information for Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4A, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20. Additionally, the APR provides baseline data, targets, and improvement activities for Indicators 4B, 13, and 14 using the SPP template. Each of the 20 Indicators includes targets and improvement activities for FFY 2011 and FFY 2012 for the revised SPP. The Annual Performance Report was developed by the staff at the Arizona Department of Education/Exceptional Student Services (ADE/ESS) and the Arizona Department of Education/Early Childhood Special Education (ADE/ECSE). A number of Arizona Department of Education staff members with specialization in different areas examined improvement activities, collected and analyzed the data, and drafted the reports for the 20 indicators. Members of the Special Education Advisory Panel (SEAP) and education personnel from the field reviewed data, annual targets, and improvement activities and offered suggestions. Descriptions of the data, including sources, sampling methodology, and validity and reliability, are located under each indicator. Information is included which replies to the Arizona Part B FFY 2008 SPP/APR Response Table from the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP). All improvement activities were reviewed during FFY 2009, which led to the revision of some of the activities. Revisions were made to Arizona’s FFY 2005-2012 State Performance Plan for Special Education. The revised SPP includes annual targets and improvement activities for FFY 2011 and FFY 2012. The document is available on the ADE/ESS Web site at http://www.ade.az.gov/ess/ in the Resources section, under the menu labeled State Performance Plan. Stakeholder Involvement As data and other communications became available after the close of the 2009-2010 school year, the ADE/ESS staff reported to the Special Education Advisory Panel (SEAP). The SEAP members represent a broad group of stakeholders throughout Arizona. Groups represented on the panel include parents of children with disabilities, individuals with disabilities, teachers, early childhood education, charter schools, school districts, institutions of higher education that prepare special education and related services personnel, secure care facilities, and public agencies. The ADE/ESS responded to questions and comments from the SEAP members, and considered the panel’s advice. In addition to reporting on the APR to the SEAP, ESS requested input from special education administrators through meetings of the regional organizations, small workshops, and large conferences. The ADE/ESS data management coordinator trained data managers and administrators on the data requirements, and also requested input for improving the State’s data collection and reporting process. ESS program specialists spoke to administrators and teachers specifically about the 0% and 100% Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 4 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 compliance indicators during on-site visits, seeking information for the revision of improvement activities to increase compliance. Public Reporting and Dissemination Arizona must report annually to the public on: 1) the State’s progress and/or slippage in meeting the measurable and rigorous targets in the SPP and, 2) the performance of each public education agency (PEA) in the State on the SPP targets. The annual performance report (APR) on the State’s progress and/or slippage is available on the ADE/ESS Web site at http://www.ade.az.gov/ess/ in the Resources section, under the menu labeled State Performance Plan, on February 1, 2011. The title of the APR is Arizona FFY 2009 Annual Performance Report. The revised State Performance Plan (SPP) for FFY 2009 is available on the ADE/ESS Web site at http://www.ade.az.gov/ess/ in the Resources section, under the menu labeled State Performance Plan, on February 1, 2011. The title of the SPP is Arizona State Performance Plan FFY 2005-2012 Revised FFY 2009. The annual public reports will be available on the ADE/ESS Web site at http://www.ade.az.gov/ess/ in the Resources section, under the menu labeled School Year 2009-10 Public Reports, within 120 days of the February 1, 2011 submission of the APR. These reports list the performance of each school district and charter school in Arizona on the SPP targets. The SPP and APR are disseminated to the public by hard copy, e-mail, and the ADE/ESS Web site. Each member of SEAP receives a copy of the revised SPP and the APR, as does Arizona’s Parent and Training Information Center. The ESS special education listserv, Parent Information Network specialists (PINS), ESS and ECSE specialists, trainings, and conferences serve as the vehicles to notify parents, the PEAs, and the public of the availability of the SPP and APR. Special Education Monitoring Alerts, memoranda pertaining to specific topics including the SPP/APR, are sent to the field electronically on the ESS listserv and distributed by hard copy through the ESS and PIN specialists. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 5 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 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. Target Data for FFY 2009 FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target 2009 80% Actual Target Data for FFY 2009 # of youth with IEPs who graduated in 4 years with a regular high school diploma # of youth with IEPs who entered high school 4 years earlier (adjusting for transfers and deceased youth) 4656 7178 Actual Target Data for FFY 2009 64.9% 4656  7178  100 = 0.648 = 64.9% Arizona did not meet the target. Data Data Source The graduation data from Arizona’s 2009 cohort were 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. Data Description The graduation data were 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 was used and it is the same data as reported to the U.S. Department of Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 6 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 Education under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). It is the same data as was reported in Arizona’s Consolidated State Performance Report Part I, submitted December 17, 2010. Target Data The target data are the same as the annual graduation rate targets under Title I of the ESEA and explained in Arizona’s Accountability Workbook. 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. Valid and Reliable Data The graduation data were obtained from the ADE Accountability Division/Research and Evaluation Section (ADE/R & E), which follows internal processes to ensure valid, reliable, and accurate data. Conditions to Graduate Graduation Cohort 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). Graduation rates are used in the Elementary and Secondary Act Adequate Yearly Progress determinations. Conditions to Graduate with Regular Diploma Conditions students without disabilities must meet in order to graduate with a regular high school diploma:  The PEA’s requirements to receive a regular high school diploma (Arizona Revised Statutes § 15701.01 (C) and Arizona Administrative Code R7-2-302); and  Achieve passing scores on the Arizona’s Instrument to Measure Standards (Arizona Revised Statutes § 15-701.01 (A)). Conditions students with disabilities must meet in order to graduate with a regular high school diploma:  The local governing board of each school district is responsible for developing a course of study and graduation requirements for all students placed in special education programs (Arizona Administrative Code R7-2-302 (6)).  According to Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS) § 15-701.01 (B), students with disabilities do not have to achieve passing scores on the Arizona’s Instrument to Measure Standards (AIMS) or Arizona’s Instrument to Measure Standards Alternate (AIMS A) to graduate with a regular high school diploma unless specifically required by the IEP team. Explanation of Progress that Occurred for FFY 2009 Arizona’s graduation target (80%) for FFY 2009 is the same as the annual graduation rate target under Title 1 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). The State did not meet this target but Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 7 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 made a gain from FFY 2008 (results rose from 64% to 64.9%). This reflects steady improvement and a cumulative increase over the past four years of almost five percent. Arizona maintains that quality transition planning for students from secondary to postsecondary education, training, and employment settings has positively affected graduation rates for students with disabilities. To this end, the ADE/ESS transition specialists provided training and technical assistance to 581 participants from 102 different PEAs, as well as four adult service agencies (Rehabilitation Services Administration, Division of Developmental Disabilities, Arizona Department of Health Services, and Arizona’s Behavioral Health Services); established 14 community interagency transition teams through the Secondary Transition Mentoring Project (STMP); held a statewide conference dedicated to transition; and developed and disseminated information and materials through webinars and updates to the ADE/ESS secondary transition Web site). The ADE/ESS is committed to offering intensive capacity building grant opportunities for PEAs in need of assistance in transition planning and service provision. In FFY 2009, the Community Transition Team (CTT) two-year capacity building grant funded three PEA teams to receive instruction and participate in activities focused on identifying community needs and priorities, developing action plans, and creating sustainable community teams to facilitate positive post-school outcomes for students with disabilities. A review of the action plans by University of Kansas/Transition Coalition coaches and ADE/ESS personnel indicated a 100% completion rate on activities in CTT team plans. Additionally, review of CTT training evaluation forms showed that participating PEAs felt more prepared to plan and implement transition services leading to improved post school outcomes. Also in FFY 2009, the CTT grant was redesigned and became the Secondary Transition Mentoring Project (STMP), which incorporated Indicator 13 elements from the Pilot Mentoring Project conducted in FFY 2008 as well as the Indicator 14 components from the existing CTT trainings. (It should be noted that the final CTT PEA cohort completed the two-year grant in FFY 2009.) The STMP is a two-year grant opportunity designed to assist PEAs with increasing capacity related to secondary transition requirements and better practices with 14 teams participating in its inaugural year. As part of the FFY 2009 STMP grant, teams reviewed their own PEA’s data in the following areas: graduation rates, dropout rates, postschool outcomes data (if available), and Indicator 13 compliance. If applicable, teams developed action plans for increasing graduation rates or reducing dropout rates for students with disabilities. These action plans included root cause analyses to determine potential barriers within their agency. STMP teams were provided an overview of community transition team creation and will work on developing, implementing, and sustaining local community transition teams during the second year of training in FFY 2010. Additionally, ADE/ESS transition and program specialists work closely with PEAs to assist in data review, analysis, and training. Transition specialists analyze data collected from on-site PEA Annual Site Visits (technical assistance visits conducted by ESS program specialists), and target staff development to those PEAs most in need of training with regard to secondary transition requirements. Further, ESS program specialists review graduation rates with PEAs on an annual basis as part of a larger data review that includes performance and compliance indicator data, PEA determinations, dispute resolution data, and annual technical assistance visit information. If a PEA has not met the State target for graduation rate, then the PEA may be required to conduct a drill down exercise that is designed to explore root causes. Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed for FFY 2009 Primary Activity (GOAL) 1) Provide training to PEAs on effective transition Sub-Activities (Objectives or Action Steps) a) Develop a strategic plan to provide training and Timeline Complete Plan development completed September 1, 2008. Projected 10/1/082/1/09 Resources (Planned) ADE/ESS Transition Specialists Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 8 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 services to increase graduation rate of students with disabilities follow-up technical assistance to PEAs Plan includes 10 main components: 1. Use of Annual Site Visit Log (ASVL) to identify PEAs most in need of training and TA. 2. Provide training to targeted PEAs and in response to requests from non-targeted PEAs. 3. Review follow-up ASVL data to determine training effectiveness. 4. Organize Arizona’s Ninth Annual Transition Conference focusing on improving postschool outcomes for students with disabilities by providing sessions on transition planning and dropout prevention. 5. Provide training to special education directors from across the State at the annual ADE/ESS Directors Institute. 6. Develop a pilot mentoring project in southern Arizona to develop a capacity building training model and materials to self-monitor and improve transition compliance and services for students. 7. Provide capacity building grants to PEAs to facilitate intra/inter agency collaboration and build local capacity to improve post-school outcomes through local interagency work. 8. Collaborate with national technical assistance centers and organizations including NSTTAC, NPSO, NPDC-SD, and the NASDE IDEA Partnership Community of Practice on Transition. 9. Participate with other Arizona state agencies including Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 9 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 RSA/VR, DDD, Department of Behavioral Health, and the Office for Children with Special Health Care Needs. b) Implement statewide plan for training and technical assistance to PEAs 10. Collaborate with other ADE sections (High School Renewal and Redesign, Career Technical Education, Dropout Prevention, and School Guidance Counselors) and ADE/ESS areas (Data Management, Program Support, and Parent Information Network). Plan was implemented beginning September 1, 2008. 2/1/096/30/11 ADE/ESS Transition Specialists All components of Arizona’s Strategic Plan for Statewide Transition Planning were implemented and completed during FFY 2009. Activities completed 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.  181 PEA participants attended Indicator 13 trainings provided by ADE/ESS transition specialists at the annual ADE/ESS Directors Institute in Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 10 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 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 on-line 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 the Mountain Plains Regional Resource Center.  At the state level, ADE/ESS collaborates with RSA/VR, DDD, Arizona Department of Behavioral Health (ADBH), and the Office for Children with Special Health Care Needs (OCSHCN) monthly through the Arizona Community of Practice for Transition (AZCoPT). In FFY 2009, AZCoPT completed a Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 11 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 presentation for use statewide through RSA/VR and ADBH 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 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. Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources for FFY 2010 The following are proposed targets for FFY 2011 and FFY 2012 for the revised SPP. FFY Measurable and Rigorous Targets Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 12 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 2011 (2011–2012) 80% 2012 (2012–2013) 80% 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. The following are revised and new improvement activities for FFY 2010, and for FFY 2011 and FFY 2012 for the revised SPP to improve graduation rates. 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 Site Visit Log 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 Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 13 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 2) Provide a twoyear capacity building grant to participate in the Secondary Transition Mentoring Project (STMP) Team Training (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 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 Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 14 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 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. Target Data for FFY 2009 FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target 2009 ≤ 5.20% Actual Target Data for FFY 2009 (using 2008-2009 data) # of youths with IEPs dropping out of grades 9 – 12 # of youths with IEPs in grades 9 – 12 1709 35690 Actual Target Data for FFY 2009 4.8% 1709  35690  100 = 0.047 = 4.8% Arizona met the target. Data Data Source The dropout data were 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. Data Description The 2008-2009 data were analyzed by the Arizona Department of Education’s Accountability Division/Research and Evaluation Section (ADE/R & E). It is the same data as reported to the U.S. Department of Education under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Act (ESEA), and as reported in Arizona’s Consolidated State Performance Report Part I, submitted December 17, 2010. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 15 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 Valid and Reliable Data The dropout data were obtained from the ADE Accountability Division/Research and Evaluation Section (ADE/R & E), which follows internal processes to ensure valid, reliable, and accurate data. Definition of Dropout and Methodology For purposes of calculating and reporting a dropout rate, Arizona used 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 used 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 state- or districtapproved educational program (including correctional or health facility programs); b) temporary absence due to suspension or school-excused illness; or c) death. The same definition and methodology for dropout rates apply to all students in Arizona. Explanation of Progress that Occurred for FFY 2009 Arizona met the FFY 2009 target and saw a gain of 2.7% from FFY 2008 (7.5%) to FFY 2009 (4.8%). The ADE/ESS continues to work toward quality transition planning for students from secondary to postsecondary education, training, and employment settings with the intent to positively affect dropout rates for students with disabilities. To this end, the ADE/ESS transition specialists provided training and technical assistance to 581 participants from 102 different PEAs, as well as four adult service agencies (Rehabilitation Services Administration, Division of Developmental Disabilities, Arizona Department of Health Services, and Arizona’s Behavioral Health Services); established 14 community interagency transition teams through the Secondary Transition Mentoring Project (STMP); held a statewide conference dedicated to transition with two sessions focused on dropout prevention, attended by 128 participants; and developed and disseminated information and materials through various media (i.e., webinars, updates to the ADE/ESS secondary transition Web site). The ADE/ESS is committed to offering intensive capacity building grant opportunities for PEAs in need of assistance in transition planning and service provision. In FFY 2009, the Community Transition Team (CTT) two-year capacity building grant funded three PEA teams to receive instruction and participate in activities focused on identifying community needs and priorities, developing action plans, and creating sustainable community teams to facilitate positive post-school outcomes for students with disabilities. A review of the action plans by University of Kansas/Transition Coalition coaches and ADE/ESS personnel indicated a 100% completion rate on activities in CTT team plans. Additionally, review of CTT training evaluation forms showed that participating PEAs felt more prepared to plan and implement transition services leading to improved post school outcomes. Also in FFY 2009, the CTT grant was redesigned and became the Secondary Transition Mentoring Project (STMP), which incorporated Indicator 13 elements from the Pilot Mentoring Project conducted in FFY 2008 as well as the Indicator 14 components from the existing CTT trainings. (It should be noted that the final CTT PEA cohort completed the two-year grant in FFY 2009.) The STMP is a two-year grant opportunity designed to assist PEAs with increasing capacity related to secondary transition requirements and better practices with 14 teams participating in its inaugural year. As part of the FFY 2009 STMP grant, teams reviewed their own PEA’s data in the following areas: graduation rates, dropout rates, postschool outcomes data (if available), and Indicator 13 compliance. If applicable, teams developed action Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 16 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 plans for increasing graduation rates or reducing dropout rates for students with disabilities. These action plans included root cause analyses to determine potential barriers within their agency. STMP teams were provided an overview of community transition team creation and will work on developing, implementing, and sustaining local community transition teams during the second year of training in FFY 2010. In addition to PEA training opportunities, internal and external stakeholder collaboration efforts were conducted to enhance the secondary transition planning process. During FFY 2009, four intradepartmental collaboration meetings were held with the ADE sections of Dropout Prevention, Innovative Practices, and Career and Technical Education (including School/Career Counseling). The goal of these discussions was to improve collaboration between key ADE personnel to assist with preparation and progress toward successful post secondary outcomes for students with disabilities currently enrolled in secondary education. External collaboration efforts were also conducted through the Arizona Community of Practice on Transition (AZCoPT), which is coordinated by ADE and comprised of stakeholders from other State agencies whose services affect successful post school outcomes for students with disabilities. AZCoPT members include personnel from the Rehabilitation Services Administration/Vocational Rehabilitation, the Division of Developmental Disabilities, the Department of Health Services, and the Department of Behavioral Health Services. AZCoPT conducted seven intergovernmental collaboration meetings focusing on increasing awareness of agency services available for individuals with disabilities. Its members completed various activities throughout the year to increase awareness in the field, including presenting at agency statewide conferences, participating in the National Community of Practice meeting, and participating in the National Dropout Prevention Conference for Native Americans hosted by ADE. Specific dropout prevention guidance was received by the ADE/ESS transition specialists at the National Secondary Transition Technical Assistance Center’s State Planning Institute in May 2010, and specialists also participated in presentations on dropout prevention provided by the National Dropout Prevention Center. Finally, ADE/ESS transition and program specialists work closely with PEAs to assist in data review, analysis, and training. Transition specialists analyze data collected from on-site PEA Annual Site Visits (technical assistance visits conducted by ESS program specialists), and target staff development to those PEAs most in need of training with regard to secondary transition requirements. Further, ESS program specialists review dropout rates with PEAs on an annual basis as part of a larger data review that includes performance and compliance indicator data, PEA determinations, dispute resolution data, and annual technical assistance visit information. If a PEA has not met the State target for dropout rate, then the PEA may be required to conduct a drill down exercise that is designed to explore root causes. Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed for FFY 2009 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 Timeline Complete Plan development completed September 1, 2008. Projected 10/1/082/1/09 Resources (Planned) ADE/ESS Transition Specialists Plan includes 10 main components: 1. Use of Annual Site Visit Log (ASVL) to identify PEAs most in need of training and TA. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 17 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 2. Provide training to targeted PEAs and in response to requests from non-targeted PEAs. 3. Review follow-up ASVL data to determine training effectiveness. 4. Organize Arizona’s Ninth Annual Transition Conference focusing on improving postschool outcomes for students with disabilities by providing sessions on transition planning and dropout prevention. 5. Provide training to special education directors from across the State at the annual ADE/ESS Directors Institute. 6. Develop a pilot mentoring project in southern Arizona to develop a capacity building training model and materials to self-monitor and improve transition compliance and services for students. 7. Provide capacity building grants to PEAs to facilitate intra/inter agency collaboration and build local capacity to improve post-school outcomes through local interagency work. 8. Collaborate with national technical assistance centers and organizations including NSTTAC, NPSO, NPDC-SD, and the NASDE IDEA Partnership Community of Practice on Transition. 9. Participate with other Arizona state agencies including RSA/VR, DDD, Department of Behavioral Health, and the Office for Children with Special Health Care Needs. 10. Collaborate with other ADE sections (High School Renewal Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 18 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 b) Implement statewide plan for training and technical assistance to PEAs and Redesign, Career Technical Education, Dropout Prevention, and School Guidance Counselors) and ADE/ESS areas (Data Management, Program Support, and Parent Information Network). Plan was implemented beginning September 1, 2008. 2/1/096/30/11 ADE/ESS Transition Specialists All components of Arizona’s Strategic Plan for Statewide Transition Planning were implemented and completed during FFY 2009. Activities completed 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.  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 Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 19 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 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 on-line 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 the Mountain Plains Regional Resource Center.  At the state level, ADE/ESS collaborates with RSA/VR, DDD, Arizona Department of Behavioral Health (ADBH), and the Office for Children with Special Health Care Needs (OCSHCN) monthly through the Arizona Community of Practice for Transition (AZCoPT). In FFY 2009, AZCoPT completed a presentation for use statewide through RSA/VR and ADBH teleconferencing media to introduce participants to the supports/services available to Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 20 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 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 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. Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources for FFY 2010 The following are proposed targets for FFY 2011 and FFY 2012 for the revised SPP. FFY Measurable and Rigorous Targets 2011 (2011–2012) 5.0% Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 21 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 2012 (2012–2013) 4.9% The following are revised and new improvement activities for FFY 2010, and for FFY 2011 and FFY 2012 for the revised SPP to improve dropout rates. 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 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 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 Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 22 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 participate in the Secondary Transition Mentoring Project (STMP) Team Training 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 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 Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 23 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 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 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. 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. B. Participation rate percent = [(# of children with IEPs participating in the 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 enrolled for a full academic year scoring at or above proficient) divided by the (total # of children with IEPs enrolled for a full academic year, calculated separately for reading and math)]. Data Data Source The assessment data were from Arizona’s Instrument to Measure Standards (AIMS) and Arizona’s Instrument to Measure Standards Alternate (AIMS A). Data Description The assessment data were analyzed by the Arizona Department of Education’s Accountability Division/Research and Evaluation Section (ADE/R & E) and the Information Technology Division (IT). It is the same data as reported to the U.S. Department of Education under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). The AIMS and AIMS A data were used for determining AYP and for reporting participation and performance. The grades tested for FFY 2009 were grades 3 through 8 and grade 10. The State uses four categories for the proficiency status:  Falls Far Below the Standard (F)  Approaches the Standard (A)  Meets the Standard (M)  Exceeds the Standard (E) Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 24 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 Students who met the standard (M) or exceeded the standard (E) were counted as proficient. Valid and Reliable Data The assessment data were obtained from the ADE Accountability Division/Research and Evaluation Section and the Information Technology Division (IT), which follows internal processes to ensure valid, reliable, and accurate data. The ADE Standards and Assessment Division/Assessment Section ensure its assessments adhere to the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. 3A — AYP Target Data for FFY 2009 FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target FFY 2009 25% 3A — Actual AYP Target Data for FFY 2009 Year Total Number of PEAs Number of PEAs that Met the Minimum ―n‖ Size Number of PEAs that Met the Minimum ―n‖ Size and Met AYP for FFY 2009 Percent of PEAs FFY 2009 (20092010) 590 74 2 2.70% Arizona did not meet the target for 3A for AYP. 3B — Target Data for Mathematics and Reading Participation for FFY 2009 FFY 2009 Measurable and Rigorous Targets Mathematics Reading 95% 95% 3B — Actual Target Data for Mathematics Participation for FFY 2009 Mathematics Assessment Participation for FFY 2009 Total Number a Children with IEPs enrolled Total Percent 71495 Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 25 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 b Children with IEPs participating in regular assessment with no accommodations 33942 48.2% c Children with IEPs participating in regular assessment with accommodations 31087 44.1% d Children with IEPs participating in alternate assessment against grade-level standards 0 0 e Children with IEPs participating in alternate assessment against modified standards 0 0 f Children with IEPs participating in alternate assessment against alternate standards 5394 7.7% g Students with IEPs participating (b+c+d+e+f) 70423 98.5% Children included in a but not included in the other counts above Children with IEPs who were not participants were absent or had invalid scores, consistent with Arizona’s Accountability Workbook and requirements. 1072 1.5% Arizona exceeded the target for 3B for the mathematics participation rate. 3B — Actual Target Data for Reading Participation for FFY 2009 Reading Assessment Participation for FFY 2009 Total Number Total Percent a Children with IEPs enrolled 71633 b Children with IEPs participating in regular assessment with no accommodations 38296 54.2% c Children with IEPs participating in regular assessment with accommodations 26935 38.1% d Children with IEPs participating in alternate assessment against grade-level standards 0 0 e Children with IEPs participating in alternate assessment against modified standards 0 0 f Children with IEPs participating in alternate assessment against alternate standards 5405 7.7% g Students with IEPs participating (b+c+d+e+f) 70636 98.6% Children included in a but not included in the other counts above Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 26 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 Children with IEPs who were not participants were absent or had invalid scores, consistent with Arizona’s Accountability Workbook and requirements. 997 1.4% Arizona exceeded the target for 3B for the reading participation rate. Mathematics and Reading Participation Data The mathematics and reading participation data are the same as used for accountability reporting under Title I of the ESEA and was reported in Arizona’s Consolidated State Performance Report Part I, submitted December 17, 2010. Mathematics and reading participation rates are inclusive of all ESEA grades assessed in Arizona (grades 3 through 8 and grade 10) for students with IEPs, and inclusive of all assessments (regular and alternate). The calculation includes all students with IEPs in all the grades assessed, including those enrolled for less than a full academic year. The differences between the denominators for mathematics and reading can be attributed to the different assessment dates. Mathematics and reading assessments were given to all students in grades 3 through 8 on April 12, 2010. The mathematics assessment was given to students in grade 10 on April 7, 2010. The reading assessment was given to students in grade 10 on February 24, 2010. 3C — Target Data for Mathematics and Reading Proficiency for FFY 2009 FFY 2009 Measurable and Rigorous Targets Grades 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 Mathematics 53% 50% 44% 43% 44% 44% 48% Reading 62.6% 56% 54.6% 56% 59.2% 54% 48.6% The mathematics and reading proficiency targets are the same as the State’s ESEA targets, as reported in Arizona’s Accountability Workbook, revised July 6, 2010. 3C — Actual Target Data for Mathematics Proficiency for FFY 2009 FFY 2009 Grades Mathematics Assessment Proficiency 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 Total enrolled 11160 11348 11174 10429 9765 9440 8179 Total number tested and enrolled for full academic year 9839 9994 9804 9128 8372 8108 6807 Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 27 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 Total number children with IEPs scoring at or above proficient Total percent children with IEPs scoring at or above proficient 3883 3381 2683 1972 1745 1701 1381 34.8% 29.8% 24.0% 19.0% 17.9% 18.0% 16.9% Arizona did not meet the target for 3C for mathematics proficiency in any of the assessed grades 3 through 8 and grade 10. 3C — Actual Target Data for Reading Proficiency for FFY 2009 FFY 2009 Grades Total enrolled Total number tested and enrolled for full academic year Total number children with IEPs scoring at or above proficient Total percent children with IEPs scoring at or above proficient Reading Assessment Proficiency 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11160 11348 11174 10431 9765 9440 8315 9839 9990 9807 9133 8377 8112 7031 4047 3861 3392 3464 3011 2517 2573 36.3% 34.1% 30.3% 33.2% 31.0% 26.7% 31.0% Arizona did not meet the target for 3C for reading proficiency in any of the assessed grades 3 through 8 and grade 10. Mathematics and Reading Proficiency Data The mathematics and reading proficiency data are provided in the same format as reported under Title I of the ESEA in Arizona’s Consolidated State Performance Report Part I, submitted December 17, 2010. Mathematics and reading proficiency rates are inclusive of all ESEA grades assessed in Arizona (grades 3 through 8 and grade 10) for students with IEPs, and inclusive of all assessments (regular and alternate). The calculation includes only those scores for students with IEPs who were enrolled for a full academic year. Explanation of Progress and Slippage that Occurred for FFY 2009 Progress was made for Indicator 3.B over the past year. There was a gain of 1% for both mathematics and reading participation rates from FFY 2008 to FFY 2009. It is difficult to determine if progress or slippage occurred for Indicator 3.C for mathematics and reading proficiency because the targets are new for FFY 2009. The proficiency targets are the same as the State’s ESEA targets, as reported in Arizona’s Accountability Workbook, revised July 6, 2010. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 28 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 Arizona did not meet the target for Indicator 3.A, and experienced slippage from FFY 2008 (5.33%) to FFY 2009 (2.7%). This could be attributable to revisions to the mathematics standards. In June of 2008, the State Board of Education approved new mathematics academic standards for Arizona. Students were first tested on the new standards in the 2009-2010 school year. In June of 2010, the State Board of Education approved new performance standards for the mathematics assessment, which resulted in a more difficult test. The percentage of students considered proficient fell across all grades for all students, with the size of the decrease ranging from 7 to 16 percentage points. The ADE/ESS continues to support PEAs with sponsorship of Arizona Students Achieving Mathematics Academy (ASAMA) and Systemic Change in Reading (SCR), two programs designed to target PEAs making little or no progress on proficiency measures and with meeting AYP. Both programs provide research-based interventions and strategies to educators. Although slippage occurred due to the introduction of new mathematics standards, some schools participating in ASAMA demonstrated gains in the number of mathematics items correct per student, proficiency rate, and AYP score. A professional development plan was developed over the past year to ensure that ASAMA teams train all staff members at their school sites. The curriculum for the SCR program was modified to align more closely with the State’s academic standards and to focus on reading comprehension strategies. As a result of the modifications over the past year, many schools experienced slippage in proficiency scores. As noted in the improvement activities, however, some schools had gains in the number of reading items correct per student, proficiency rate, and AYP score. Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed for FFY 2009 Primary Activity (GOAL) 1) By the end of Year 1, teams will increase mathematics proficiency rate for students with IEPs, as determined by third grade AIMS data Sub-Activities (Objectives or Action Steps) a) Provide mathematics training in number, operations, structure, and logic through the Arizona Students Achieving Mathematics Academy (ASAMA) b) Collect and analyze third grade AIMS data by strand Timeline Complete Projected Resources (Planned) Activities completed 9/1/09 to 6/30/10. 9/1/09 – 6/30/11 CSPD Staff 100% of the 25 schools represented in the Arizona Students Achieving Mathematics Academy (ASAMA) Year 1 completed the training with emphasis in number/number operations (Strand 1) and structure/logic (Strand 5) strategies. Activities completed 9/1/09 to 6/30/10. 9/1/09 – 6/30/11 CSPD Staff The 25 schools represented in ASAMA are made up of two cohorts: Rhombi-11 schools-2008 to 2010 Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 29 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 Pentagons-14 schools2009 to present Rhombi demonstrated a growth of 24% of the schools meeting AYP and 9% of the schools meeting proficiency rate. The average number of items correct per student increased by 1% in Strand 1 and 19% in Strand 5. 2) By the end of Year 2, teams will increase mathematics proficiency rate for students with IEPs, as determined by third grade AIMS data a) Provide mathematics training in connecting number and operations to data analysis/ probability/discrete math strand, algebra/patterns/funct ions strand, geometry/measurem ent strand, and structure/logic strand through the Arizona Students Achieving Mathematics Academy b) Collect and analyze third grade AIMS data by strand Pentagons demonstrated a decline of 8% of the schools meeting AYP and an increase of 7% of the schools meeting proficiency rate. The average number of items correct per student decreased by 10% in Strand 1 and increased 38% in Strand 5. Activities completed 9/1/09 to 6/30/10. 9/1/09 – 6/30/11 CSPD Staff 100% of the 11 Rhombi schools represented in the Arizona Students Achieving Mathematics Academy (ASAMA) Year 2 completed the training with emphasis on data analysis/probability/discre te math (Strand 2), algebra/patterns/functions (Strand 3), geometry/measurement (Strand 4), and structure/logic (Strand 5) strategies. Fourteen of the 25 schools are currently receiving training in these strands. Activities completed 9/1/09 to 6/30/10. 9/1/09 – 6/30/11 CSPD Staff The 11 schools represented in ASAMA are in the Rhombi Cohort. Rhombi demonstrated a Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 30 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 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 a) Provide training in the use of SETT (Student, Environment, Task, Tools) Process and the Star Model 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. 4) 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 a) Provide reading training through the Systemic Change in Reading b) Collect and analyze third grade AIMS reading data growth of 24% of the schools meeting AYP and 9% of the schools meeting proficiency rate. The average number of items correct per student decreased by 2% in Strand 2, increased by 20% in Strand 3, decreased by 5% in Strand 4, and increased by 19% in Strand 5. Activities completed 9/1/09 to 6/30/10. 9/1/09 – 6/30/11 CSPD Staff 100% of the 25 schools represented in ASAMA have received training in the SETT Process and the Star Model to improve accessibility of mathematics and enhance mathematics instruction for all students. Activities completed 9/1/09 to 6/30/10. 9/1/09 – 6/30/11 CSPD Staff 100% of the 25 schools represented in ASAMA have received training in the professional learning community and/or meeting model that will help teams collaborate, analyze data, make instructional decisions, continue learning and/or create a school-wide professional development plan. Activities completed 9/1/09 to 6/30/10. 9/1/09 – 6/30/11 CSPD Staff 95% Group 100% of the 22 schools represented in the Systemic Change in Reading (SCR) Year 1 completed the training. Activities completed 9/1/09 to 6/30/10. 9/1/09 – 6/30/11 CSPD Staff 95% Group The 22 schools represented in SCR are Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 31 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 made up of two cohorts: Alphas-8 schools-2008 to 2010 Betas-14 schools-2009 to present Alphas demonstrated a decline of 12% of the schools meeting AYP and a decline of 13% of the schools meeting proficiency rate. 5) 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 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 6) 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 a) Provide reading training comprehension and vocabulary strand through Systemic Change in Reading Betas demonstrated a growth of 7% of the schools meeting AYP and an increase of 8% of the schools meeting proficiency rate. Activities completed 9/1/09 to 6/30/10. 9/1/09 – 6/30/11 CSPD Staff 95% Group 100% of the 22 schools represented in the Systemic Change in Reading (SCR) Year 2 have completed the training with emphasis on phonemic awareness, phonics, and fluency (Strand 1) strategies. Activities completed 9/1/09 to 6/30/10. 9/1/09 – 6/30/11 CSPD Staff 95% Group Alphas demonstrated that the average number of items correct per student increased by 1% in Strand 1. Betas demonstrated that the average number of items correct per student increased by 1% in Strand 1. Activities completed 9/1/09 to 6/30/10. 9/1/09 – 6/30/11 CSPD Staff 95% Group 100% of the 8 schools represented in the Systemic Change in Reading (SCR) have completed the training with emphasis on Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 32 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 grade AIMS data b) Collect and analyze third grade Comprehension and Vocabulary data on the AIMS comprehension/vocabular y (Strand 1, 2, and 3) strategies. Activities completed 9/1/09 to 6/30/10. 9/1/09 – 6/30/11 CSPD Staff 95% Group Alphas demonstrated that the average number of items correct per student decreased by 23% in Strand 1, decreased by 8% in Strand 2, and decreased by 10% in Strand 3. Betas are currently scheduled to receive training in Strands 1, 2, and 3 during school year 2010-2011. Public Reporting Information The location (URL) of public reports of assessment results conforming to 34 CFR § 300.160 (f) is http://www.ade.az.gov/ResearchPolicy/AIMSResults/. Additional Information Required by the OSEP APR Response Table for this Indicator Not applicable. Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources for FFY 2010 The following are proposed targets for FFY 2011 and FFY 2012 for the revised SPP. Measurable and Rigorous Targets for Indicator 3A and 3B FFY 2011 (2011–2012) 2012 (2012–2013) 3A - AYP 3B - Math Participation 3B - Reading Participation 26% 95% 95% 26.5% 95% 95% Measurable and Rigorous Targets for Indicator 3C - Mathematics Proficiency Grades 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 33 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 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% The following are improvement activities for FFY 2010, and for FFY 2011 and 2012 for the revised SPP to improve results for students with IEPs on assessments. Primary Activity (GOAL) 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 Sub-Activities (Objectives or Action Steps) 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 Timeline Complete Projected Resources (Planned) 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 Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 34 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 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 Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 35 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 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. Data Data Source The 2008-2009 data were reported by the PEAs through the Annual Special Education Data Collection, an ADE Web-based system. The data are the same as reported in Table 5 (Report of Children with Disabilities Unilaterally Removed or Suspended/Expelled for More than 10 Days) for school year 20082009, under Section 618. Valid and Reliable Data The ADE/ESS assures the validity and reliability of the data because it collected, maintained, and reported the November 1, 2009 discipline data through internal edit checks. The State requires an assurance from the PEAs through the submission of a signed form attesting to the validity of the data. Definition of Significant Discrepancy and Methodology A PEA is determined to be significantly discrepant when it suspended or expelled 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. Arizona determined the percentage of students who were suspended or expelled for more than 10 days and compared the number to the State defined rate. 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. Arizona defines a minimum ―n‖ size as the suspension or expulsion of 10 or more students with IEPs. Arizona excluded 104 PEAs from the calculation using this minimum ―n‖ size and used the total number of PEAs (590) in the State in the denominator. 4A — Target Data for FFY 2009 (using 2008-2009 data) Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 36 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target FFY 2009 (using 20082009 data) 1.35% 4A — Actual Target Data for FFY 2009 (using 2008-2009 data) 0.51% Arizona exceeded the target. PEAs with Significant Discrepancy in Rates for Suspension and Expulsion Year Total Number of PEAs* Number of PEAs that have Significant Discrepancies Percent FFY 2009 (using 2008-2009 data) 590 3 0.51% *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 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 Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 37 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 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 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). 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. Correction of FFY 2008 Findings of Noncompliance Arizona did not make any findings of noncompliance in FFY 2008 as a result of the review of policies, procedures, and practices required by 34 CFR 300.170 (b). 1. Number of findings of noncompliance the State made during FFY 2008 (the period from July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2009) using 2007-2008 data 2. Number of FFY 2008 findings the State verified as timely corrected (corrected within one year from the date of notification to the LEA of the finding) 3. Number of FFY 2008 findings not verified as corrected within one year [(1) minus (2)] 0 Correction of FFY 2008 Findings of Noncompliance Not Timely Corrected (corrected more than one year from identification of the noncompliance) 4. Number of FFY 2008 findings not timely corrected (same as the number from (3) above) 5. Number of FFY 2008 findings the State has verified as corrected beyond the one-year timeline (―subsequent correction‖) 6. Number of FFY 2008 findings not yet verified as corrected [(4) minus (5)] 0 Actions Taken if Noncompliance Not Corrected Arizona did not make any findings of noncompliance in FFY 2008. If findings of noncompliance are made, Arizona works in a collaborative process with the PEAs as the agencies identify the root causes of continuing noncompliance through drill downs in the specific focus area. When noncompliance is not corrected within one year, the ADE/ESS uses a variety of methods to ensure that all public agencies meet the requirements of State and federal statutes related to special education. The progressive enforcement actions taken by ESS for the PEAs that are unable to demonstrate compliance within one year from the date of written notification are as follows: Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 38 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009  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.  Assignment of a special monitor.  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. Verification of Correction (either timely or subsequent) Arizona did not make any findings of noncompliance in FFY 2008. Correction of Remaining FFY 2007 Findings of Noncompliance Not applicable. There were no findings of noncompliance. 1. Number of remaining FFY 2007 findings (identified in July 1, 2007 – June 30, 2008 using 2006-2007 data), noted in OSEP’s June 1, 2010, FFY 2008 APR response table for this indicator 2. Number of remaining FFY 2007 findings the State has verified as corrected 3. Number of remaining FFY 2007 findings the State has NOT verified as corrected [(1) minus (2)] 0 Correction of Any Remaining Findings of Noncompliance from FFY 2006 or Earlier Not applicable. Additional Information Required by the OSEP APR Response Table for this Indicator Not applicable. Explanation of Slippage that Occurred in FFY 2009 Minor slippage occurred from FFY 2008 (0.18%) to FFY 2009 (0.51%). The ADE/ESS sponsors the AHAA Institute (Arizona High Achievement for All) that offers professional development and technical assistance to PEAs participating in the training with the goal of reducing suspension and expulsion rates for students with IEPs. The AHAA Institute has a variety of sessions during a two-year span for teams composed of building principals, special education teachers, general education teachers, and two other members of a school’s choice. Each school receives a capacity building grant to support its participation in the Institute. The AHAA curriculum addresses, in addition to behavior, effective instruction, differentiation of instruction, and student engagement strategies as key factors in reducing behavior problems. Accountability is Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 39 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 emphasized through data collection and reporting with the use of an Implementation Portfolio. A staff development protocol was recently added to the Implementation Portfolios to increase fidelity. Invitations to attend the Institute were sent to PEAs that did not meet the target for Indicator 4. The invitations included the PEA’s data and criteria, and explained how AHAA can support their efforts in meeting the Indicator 4 target. The AHAA coordinator and presenter identified three primary reasons why schools experienced difficulty with meeting targets. Initially, all school teams had difficulty accepting they had problems with discipline. Second, there was a lack of fidelity in implementation. Third, some teams did not have full staff support. The ESS staff and AHAA presenter are refining training procedures and practices to address these issues. In addition, they will include more training on the sustainability of the strategies and implementation models. The Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports of Arizona (PBISAz) consultants reported schools’ lack of fidelity of implementation and lack of staff support as main reasons for all schools not meeting the targets. Due to the unstructured team membership and many changes of team members, it was difficult to identify a clear process of utilizing PBIS strategies. The PBIS training was discontinued in this reporting year. Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed in FFY 2009 Primary Activity (GOAL) 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 Schoolwide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (SW-PBIS) with fidelity as measured by a score of 80% on the Arizona Implementation Checklist Sub-Activities (Objectives or Action Steps) 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 Timeline Complete Activities completed from 9/1/09 to 6/30/10. 100% of the eight teams completed Year 2 of PBISAz and submitted data with a score of 80% or better on the Arizona Implementation Checklist, demonstrating the team’s level of implementation. Projected 8/1/096/30/10 Resources (Planned) PBISAz Coordinato rs AZ Implement ation Checklist Quarterly Reports Year 2 teams demonstrated a decrease in office referrals of 33% for all students and a decrease in office referrals of 67% for students with IEPs. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 40 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 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% 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-of-year data submitted to ADE 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 Activities completed from 9/1/09 to 6/30/10. 8/1/096/30/10 Year 2 teams demonstrated a decrease in suspensions/expulsion of 50% for all students and a decrease in suspensions/expulsion of 67% for students with IEPs. Activities completed from 9/1/09 to 6/30/10. PBISAz Coordinato rs AZ Implement ation Checklist ADE data 8/1/096/30/10 PBISAz Coordinato rs AZ Implement ation Checklist ADE data 9/1/09 – 6/30/10 CSPD Staff 100% of the Year 2 teams reported no students, including students with IEPs, receiving suspensions/expulsion s over 10 days. Activities completed from 9/1/09 to 6/30/10. 100% of the nine teams in AHAA Siete submitted data on suspension/expulsion. Activities completed from 9/1/09 to 6/30/10. 100% of the nine teams in AHAA Siete submitted data on office referrals. Activities completed from 9/1/09 to 6/30/10. The following express the percentages of Siete teams that decreased suspension/expulsion rates and office referrals for special education students:  77% decreased inschool suspensions  66% decreased out-of-school suspensions School Principals 9/1/08 – 6/30/10 CSPD Staff School Principals 9/1/08 – 6/30/11 CSPD Staff School Teams Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 41 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009  100% decreased suspensions > 10 days  88% decreased expulsions  77% decreased office referrals 3) AHAA Year 2 Seis schools will decrease the suspension/ expulsion rate greater than 10 days for students with disabilities to less than 5% 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 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 The following express the percentages of Siete teams that decreased suspension/expulsion rates and office referrals for general education students:  77% decreased inschool suspensions  77% decreased out-of-school suspensions  88% decreased suspensions > 10 days  88% decreased expulsions  77% decreased office referrals Activities completed from 9/1/09 to 6/30/10. 10/7/09 – 6/30/11 School Teams 100% of the nine teams in AHAA Siete completed Team Implementation Portfolios. Activities completed from 9/1/09 to 6/30/10. 100% of the seven teams in AHAA Seis submitted data on suspension/expulsion. Activities completed from 9/1/09 to 6/30/10. CSPD Staff AHAA Director 9/1/08 – 6/30/10 CSPD Staff School Principals 9/1/08 – 6/30/10 CSPD Staff School Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 42 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 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 100% of the seven teams in AHAA Seis submitted data on office referrals. Activities completed from 9/1/09 to 6/30/10. Principals 9/1/08 – 6/30/11 School Teams The following express the percentages of Seis teams that decreased suspension/expulsion rates and office referrals for special education students:  57% decreased inschool suspensions  57% decreased out-of-school suspensions  57% decreased suspensions > 10 days  100% decreased expulsions  57% decreased office referrals The following express the percentages of Seis teams that decreased suspension/expulsion rates and office referrals for general education students:  71% decreased inschool suspensions  57% decreased out-of-school suspensions  71% decreased suspensions > 10 days  100% decreased expulsions  71% decreased office referrals Activities completed from 9/1/09 to 6/30/10. 100% of the nine teams in AHAA Seis CSPD Staff 10/7/09 – 6/30/11 CSPD Staff School Teams Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 43 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 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. AHAA Director completed Team Implementation Portfolios. Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources for FFY 2010 The following are proposed targets for FFY 2011 and FFY 2012 for the revised SPP. FFY Measurable and Rigorous Targets Measurable and Rigorous Targets 4A 4B 1.25% 0% 1.20% 0% 2011 (using 2010– 2011 data) 2012 (using 2011– 2012 data) The following are new improvement activities for FFY 2010, and for FFY 2011 and FFY 2012 for the revised SPP. 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, defined as those PEAs that suspend or expel five or more students with 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 Timeline Complete Projected Resources (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 Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 44 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 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 nt Specialist 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 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 Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 45 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 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 Arizona uses a comparison of the suspension/expulsion rates of students with disabilities among PEAs within the State to analyze suspension/expulsion data. The data are reported by the PEAs via the Annual Special Education Data Collection application. The data are the same as reported in Table 5 (Report of Children with Disabilities Unilaterally Removed or Suspended/Expelled for More than 10 Days) under Section 618. A PEA is determined to have significant discrepancy by race or ethnicity when it suspended or expelled 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. Arizona calculates the percentage of students who were suspended or expelled for more than 10 days and compares the number to the State defined rate. When a PEA is flagged for significant discrepancy by race or ethnicity because its data exceed the State’s allowable numbers within the State definition, the State reviews the policies, procedures, and practices of the PEA related to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards to ensure compliance with the regulatory requirements. Definition of Significant Discrepancy and Methodology A PEA is determined to have significant discrepancy by race or ethnicity when it suspended or expelled 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. Arizona calculates the percentage of students who were suspended or expelled for more than 10 days and compares the number to the State defined rate. A PEA is determined to have policies, procedures, or practices that contribute to the significant discrepancy when the PEA has policies, procedures, or practices that do not comply with requirements Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 46 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards. Arizona determined the percentage of students who were suspended or expelled for more than 10 days and compared the number to the State defined rate. 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. Arizona defines a minimum ―n‖ size as the suspension or expulsion of 10 or more students with IEPs. Arizona excluded 115 PEAs from the calculation using this minimum ―n‖ size and used the total number of PEAs (590) in the State in the denominator. 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 because the PEAs’ data exceeded the State’s allowable numbers within the State definition. 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 Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 47 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 FFY 2009 (using 2008-2009 data) 590 3 0.51% *Arizona included the total number of PEAs in the State in the denominator 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 because the PEAs’ data exceeded the State’s allowable numbers within the State definition. 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 results of the self assessment identified practices within each of the three PEAs Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 48 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 related to their data maintenance, collection, or reporting that contributed to their significant discrepancy. The ESS specialists then interviewed the special education administrators and reviewed student files via on-site visits and/or desk audits to verify compliance with IDEA requirements related to the development and implementation of IEPs, use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards. The ADE did not find any inappropriate policies, procedures, or practices related to compliance with IDEA requirements that pertain to the development and implementation of IEPs, use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards that contributed to the PEAs’ significant discrepancy. 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 practices related to the maintenance, collection, or reporting of data. 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 data management practices were being followed. 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). 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% 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 Timeline Complete Projected Resources (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 7/1/106/30/13 Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 49 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 of its special education population 3) Provide support for PEAs that are flagged for significant discrepancy for race or ethnicity, 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 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 b) Provide technical assistance to PEA staff during their review of policies, procedures, and practices Program Specialists 7/1/106/30/13 7/1/106/30/13 7/1/106/30/13 ADE/ESS Directors ADE/ESS Program Specialists ADE/ESS Directors ADE/ESS Program Specialists ADE/ESS Directors ADE/ESS Program Specialists Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 50 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 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. 5A, 5B, and 5C — Target Data for FFY 2009 FFY Measurable and Rigorous Targets 2009 A. > 80% B. < 40% C. Separate 53% 15% 1.9% 5A, 5B, and 5C — Actual Target Data for FFY 2009 A. Served inside regular class 80% or more of the day B. Served inside regular class less than 40% of the day C. Served in separate schools, residential facilities, or homebound/hospital placements # of children 65385 16328 2961 % of children 58.6% 14.6% 2.65% # of students aged 6–21 with IEPs 111,526 5A—Arizona exceeded the target. 5B—Arizona met the target. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 51 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 5C—Arizona did not meet the target. Data Data Source The data was collected through the October 1, 2009 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 it collected, maintained, and reported the October 1, 2009 child count data and the February 1, 2010 placement data through internal edit checks. The State requires the PEAs to assure data accuracy and reliability through submission of a signed verification letter. Explanation of Progress that Occurred for FFY 2009 Arizona exceeded the target for Indicator 5.A, met the target for 5.B, and did not meet the target for 5.C. However, progress was made from FFY 2008 on Indicators 5.A, 5.B, and 5.C. The ADE/ESS sponsors the AHAA Institute (Arizona High Achievement for All), which is designed for schools with data that does not meet State targets for Indicator 5. The Institute offers various sessions during a two-year time span to teams composed of building principals, special education teachers, general education teachers, and two other members of a school’s choice. Each school receives a capacity building grant to support its participation in the Institute. Training outcomes for AHAA during Year 1 are:  Identify faculty beliefs about teaching and learning.  Implement training to address teaching and learning belief system barriers.  Create an Individualized Accommodation Plan to assist learners with special needs.  Initiate behavioral data collection and determine areas of concern.  Create a Check In/Check Out intervention that combines with Accommodation Plan.  Establish AHAA Team Meetings twice a month to design staff trainings, analyze data, progress monitor interventions, and review action plan.  Implement evidence-based practices on handling behavior problems without disrupting the flow of instruction, removing, or suspending.  Develop and maintain an Implementation Team Portfolio that compiles specific data about site efforts to alter practices related to teaching and office discipline. Training outcomes during Year 2 are:  Identify faculty belief system barriers about behavior to effectively handle problem behavior.  Implement site training to address behavior belief system barriers.  Implement evidence-based practices for behavior problems without disrupting the flow of instruction, removing, or suspending.  Expand Check In/Check Out and Accommodation Planning to maintain LRE and reduce office discipline problems.  Continue AHAA Team Meetings twice a month to design staff trainings, analyze data, progress monitor interventions, and review action plan.  Develop effective individualized behavior plans for treatment resistant individuals. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 52 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009  Expand the Implementation Team Portfolio to compile second-year data about site efforts to alter practices related to teaching and behavior support. The AHAA presenter and Exceptional Student Services emphasize accountability through data collection and reporting. An Implementation Portfolio completed by the teams ensures that participants implement with fidelity the new strategies learned at the Institute. In addition to the AHAA Institute, the ADE/ESS program specialists review least restrictive environment data on an annual basis with school administrators at each PEA in the State. If the PEA’s data does not meet State targets for LRE, then the concern is discussed with the administrators. If the PEA is in year 4 of the monitoring cycle, then a self assessment in this area may be one of the activities. Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed for FFY 2009 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 Timeline Complete Activities completed from 9/1/09 to 6/30/10. 100% of the nine teams in AHAA Siete submitted data on suspension/expulsion. Activities completed from 9/1/09 to 6/30/10. 100% of the nine teams in AHAA Siete submitted data on office referrals. Activities completed from 9/1/09 to 6/30/10. The following express percentages of Siete teams that decreased suspension/expulsion rates and office referrals, and students placed in separate settings for special education students:  77% decreased inschool suspensions  66% decreased out-ofschool suspensions  100% decreased suspensions > 10 days  88% decreased expulsions  77% decreased office 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 Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 53 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 referrals  77% decreased students placed in separate settings 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 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 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 The following express percentages of Siete teams that decreased suspension/expulsion rates and office referrals, and students placed in separate settings for general education students:  77% decreased inschool suspensions  77% decreased out-ofschool suspensions  88% decreased suspensions > 10 days  88% decreased expulsions  77% decreased office referrals  87% decreased students placed in separate settings Activities completed from 9/1/09 to 6/30/10. 10/7/09 – 6/30/11 School Teams 100% of the nine teams in AHAA Siete submitted data on office referrals. Activities completed from 9/1/09 to 6/30/10. 100% of the seven teams in AHAA Seis submitted data on suspension/expulsion. Activities completed from 9/1/09 to 6/30/10. 100% of the seven teams in AHAA Seis submitted CSPD Staff AHAA Director 9/1/08 – 6/30/10 CSPD Staff School Principals 9/1/08 – 6/30/10 CSPD Staff School Principals Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 54 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 data on office referrals. 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 Activities completed from 9/1/09 to 6/30/10. 9/1/08 – 6/30/11 School Teams The following express percentages of Seis teams that decreased suspension/expulsion rates and office referrals, and students placed in separate settings for special education students:  57% decreased inschool suspensions  57% decreased out-ofschool suspensions  57% decreased suspensions > 10 days  100% decreased expulsions  57% decreased office referrals  85% decreased students placed in separate settings The following express percentages of Seis teams that decreased suspension/expulsion rates and office referrals, and students placed in separate settings for general education students:  71% decreased inschool suspensions  57% decreased out-ofschool suspensions  71% decreased suspensions > 10 days  100% decreased expulsions  71% decreased office referrals  100% decreased students placed in separate settings Activities completed from 9/1/09 to 6/30/10. CSPD Staff 10/7/09 – 6/30/11 CSPD Staff School Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 55 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 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. 100% of teams completed Team Implementation Portfolios. Teams AHAA Director Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources for FFY 2010 The following are proposed targets for FFY 2011 and FFY 2012 for the revised SPP. FFY Measurable and Rigorous Targets Measurement A ≥ 80% Measurement B < 40% Measurement C Separate 2011 (2011–2012) 55% 14% 1.5% 2012 (2012–2013) 56% 13.5% 1.3% The following are improvement activities for FFY 2010, and for FFY 2011 and 2012 for the revised SPP, to improve results for Indicator 5, school age LRE. Primary Activity (GOAL) 1) Conduct interviews with special education directors and site administrators about available service delivery models and LRE data as a component of all on-site monitorings. Documentation to show individualized Sub-Activities (Objectives or Action 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 Timeline Complete Projected Resources (Planned) 10/1/106/30/11 ADE/ESS Directors and Specialists 7/1/116/30/12 ADE/ESS Directors and Specialists Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 56 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 decision-making process for placement is required. c) Conduct revised interviews and gather supporting documentation. 7/1/126/30/13 ADE/ESS Directors and Specialists Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 57 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 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. NOTE  New baselines, targets, and, as needed, improvement activities will be established and submitted in the FFY 2010 APR, due February 1, 2012. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 58 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE Indicator 7: Preschool Outcomes Percent of preschool children aged 3 through 5 with IEPs who demonstrate improved: A. Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships); B. Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/communication and early literacy); and C. Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs. (20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A)) 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 sameaged 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 same-aged 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 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 progress Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 59 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 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. Target Data for FFY 2009 Measurable and Rigorous Targets FFY 2009 Positive SocialEmotional Skills Acquiring and Using Knowledge and Skills Taking Appropriate Action to Meet Needs 1. Of those children who entered the program below age expectations, the percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they exited. 75.88% 68.47% 76.95% 2. Percent of children who were functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers by the time they exited. 59.30% 47.36% 57.50% FFY 2009 Positive SocialEmotional Skills Acquiring and Using Knowledge and Skills Taking Appropriate Action to Meet Needs 1. Of those children who entered the program below age expectations, the percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they exited. 81.39% 82.02% 75.54% 2. Percent of children who were functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers by the time they exited. 70.13% 69.76% 61.85% Actual Target Data for Preschool Children Exiting in FFY 2009 Five of the six targets were met (in bold text). The one target that was not met was Summary Statement 1 for Taking Appropriate Action to Meet Needs. Table 7.1 Number and Percentage of Children in Each Progress Category and Summary Statement Calculations for Preschool Children Exiting in FFY 2009 FFY 2009 a. Children who did not improve functioning Positive SocialEmotional Skills Acquiring and Using Knowledge and Skills Taking Appropriate Action to Meet Needs # of children % of children # of children % of children # of children % of children 87 2.65% 75 2.28% 84 2.56% Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 60 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 b. Children who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same age peers 340 10.35% 342 10.41% 548 16.69% c. Children who improved functioning to a level nearer to sameaged peers but did not reach it 554 16.87% 576 17.54% 621 18.91% 1314 40.01% 1326 40.38% 1331 40.53% 989 30.12% 965 29.38% 700 21.32% 3284 100.0% 3284 100.0% 3284 100.0% 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 Summary Statements 1. Of those children who entered the program below age expectations, the percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they exited. 81.39% 82.02% 75.54% 2. Percent of children who were functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers by the time they exited. 70.13% 69.76% 61.85% Table 7.1 (above) shows the number and percentage of children in each progress category as well as the results of the summary statement calculations. Table 7.2 Summary Statements Comparing Baseline Data for FFY 2008 and Progress for FFY 2009 Positive SocialEmotional Skills FFY Number of Children 1. Of those children who entered the program below age expectations, the percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they exited. 2. Percent of children who were functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers by the time they exited. Acquiring and Using Knowledge and Skills Taking Appropriate Action to Meet Needs 2008-09 2009-10 2008-09 2009-10 2008-09 2009-10 3334 3284 3334 3284 3334 3284 75.88% 81.39% 68.47% 82.02% 76.95% 75.54% 59.30% 70.13% 47.36% 69.76% 57.50% 61.85% Table 7.2 (above) compares the baseline data established in FFY 2008 to the progress made during FFY 2009. Progress was made in all areas except Summary Statement 1 for Taking Appropriate Action to Meet Needs. Data Data Source PEAs report the assessment data using a Web-based data collection system that is integrated with the ADE Student Accountability Information System (SAIS). Bi-annual data are collected from all programs providing special education services for preschool children. Sampling is not used for this indicator as all preschool children with disabilities have their entry status and exit status assessed. Instruments Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 61 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 All early childhood programs must select and administer one assessment tool from an Arizona State Board of Education approved menu of four ongoing progress monitoring assessments: 1) Child Observation Record (High/Scope Educational Research Foundation, Ypsilanti, MI) 2) Creative Curriculum Developmental Continuum for Ages 3–5 (Teaching Strategies, Inc., Washington, DC) 3) Galileo Preschool Online Educational Management System (Assessment Technology, Incorporated, Tucson, AZ) 4) Work Sampling System (Pearson Learning Group, Parsippany, NJ) Training on selected instruments and fidelity regarding assessment documentation was provided to Arizona programs by specific instrument publishing companies in summer and fall 2006. Ongoing technical assistance for SAIS, including the early childhood assessment component, is provided by the IT Division. The Arizona Department of Education/Early Childhood Education (ADE/ECE) trains PEAs on a continual basis regarding the use of the assessments as progress monitoring tools to drive instruction and program improvement. Data Analysis Outcome data analysis was provided by Dr. Susan Wagner, president of Data Driven Enterprises, utilizing extrapolation of raw assessment data from SAIS. In years past, ―comparable to same-aged peers‖ was defined as a score that is equal to or greater than the score obtained by 50% of the typical preschool children evaluated during the same time frame using the same instruments. However, ADE determined th that this standard of performance is too stringent given that students who score below a 50 percentile score also are typically defined as ―at age level.‖ In fact, the ECO Center recommends that ―comparable th to same-aged peers‖ be defined at the 10 percentile score for a given assessment (www.isbe.net/earlychi/pdf/ECO_recommendation.pdf). Because the ADE did not capture standard scores or percentile scores for these assessments, the ADE considered a conceptual definition of ―comparable to same-aged peers‖ that would be equated to a th th roughly 10 to 15 percentile score. In addition, slight statistical modifications in the scores were made in order to equate the results across the four assessments. Note that in FFY 2010, the ADE selected one assessment that all preschools will use to measure student progress on these three outcome areas. This will allow ―comparable to same-aged peers‖ to be tied to a standard score and a percentile score. Valid and Reliable Data In addition to offering professional development and incorporating a review of a PEA’s assessment system into monitoring visits, the Arizona Department of Education/Early Childhood Special Education (ADE/ECSE) assures the validity and reliability of the Early Childhood Outcomes (ECO) data by conducting systematic checks of the database by cross referencing child count data with districts’ submission of assessment data. Explanation of Progress and Slippage that Occurred for FFY 2009 As noted in Table 7.2, from FFY 2008 to FFY 2009, scores increased in all areas except one, which is Summary Statement 1 for Taking Appropriate Action to Meet Needs. For this area, results decreased by approximately 1.5 percentage points. For each of the three outcomes areas, more than 75% of exiting children increased their rate of growth by the time they exited. Further, for each of the three outcomes areas, over 60% of exiting children were functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers at the time they exited. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 62 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 The increase in scores from FFY 2008 to FFY 2009 may be attributed to more consistent and reliable use of the assessment instruments by district personnel as a result of professional development provided by the ADE/ECE. The ADE/ECSE provided technical assistance related to reporting through SAIS. In some instances, ECSE issued corrective action to districts that had not submitted assessment data on time. Corrective action resulted in 18 additional districts reporting assessment data on time. Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed for FFY 2009 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 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 compliancebased 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 communitybased forums to present existing and new ECO-related training d) Adapt existing training to distance learning formats such as IDEAL, ADE’s Timeline Complete Projected Resources (Planned) Activities completed from 11/1/08 to 1/31/09. 11/1/081/31/09 ECSE worked with IT and identified issues. Activities completed from 1/1/09 to 3/30/09. ADE/ECSE ADE Information Technology 1/1/093/30/09 ADE/ECSE ECSE and IT worked with the publisher and made changes to the analysis. Activities completed from 3/1/09 to 6/30/09. 3/1/096/30/09 ADE/ECSE ECSE notified PEAs that used Creative Curriculum via e-mail. Activities completed by 4/30/09. 11/1/084/30/09 ADE/ECSE Activities completed by 2/28/09. 11/1/082/28/09 ADE/ECSE ECSE identified new professional development in February 2009. Activities completed by 1/31/09. 11/1/081/31/09 ADE/ECSE ADE/ECSE identified existing forums where ECSE could provide professional development. Activities completed from 7/1/09 to 6/30/10. 1/1/096/30/10 ADE/ECSE ADE Educationa l ECSE created and disseminated surveys in April 2009. ADE/ECSE did not pursue Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 63 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 Internet-based professional development platform https://www.ideal.azed .gov e) Develop new faceto-face and distance learning offerings IDEAL trainings because the agency is transitioning to the Teaching Strategies GOLD assessment. ECSE will address trainings through Teaching Strategies GOLD. Activities completed from 7/1/09 to 6/30/10. Technology 7/1/096/30/11 ADE/ECSE Activity completed and discontinued due to transition to new assessment. Activities completed from 7/1/09 to 6/30/10. 1/1/096/30/10 ADE/ECSE completed focus groups and stakeholder input for redesigning the Early Childhood Assessment and Reporting System. Activities completed from 7/1/09 to 6/30/10. ADE/ECSE ADE/R&E ADE IT ADE Procureme nt 2/1/096/30/10 ADE/ECSE ADE/ECSE completed consultations with stakeholders at the Directors Institute and Early Learning Institute and analyzed feedback to assist in developing a new Request for Proposals. Activities completed from 7/1/09 to 6/30/10. 1/1/096/30/10 ADE/ECSE ADE/ECSE completed the process to pinpoint the different features and other considerations for the assessment system based on stakeholder feedback. Activities completed from 7/1/09 to 6/30/10. 7/1/0912/31/10 ADE/ECSE ADE IT ADE/ECSE is working with Teaching Strategies GOLD to develop face-to-face and distance learning offerings as the agency transitions to one assessment. 3) Develop and implement a plan to redesign the Early Childhood Assessment and Reporting System to address methodological issues impacting reporting for this indicator a) Gather internal ADE stakeholders to analyze the existing methodology and system 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 ADE/ECSE worked with the Student Accountability Information System (SAIS) staff to create process and Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 64 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 procedures for interfacing with Teaching Strategies GOLD data. Activities completed and revised (refer to new improvement activities). Activities completed from 7/1/09 to 6/30/10. 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 2/1/096/30/10 The RFP process was completed and a new assessment instrument selected. ADE/ECSE ADE Procureme nt Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources for FFY 2010 Arizona proposed targets for FFY 2009 and FFY 2010 in the FFY 2008 APR. Arizona proposes to add the following targets for each outcomes area and each summary statement for FFY 2011 and FFY 2012. Positive Social-Emotional Skills FFY 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 1. Of those children who entered the program below age expectations, the percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they exited. 75.88% 76.38% 76.88% 77.38% 2. Percent of children who were functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers by the time they exited. 59.30% 59.80% 60.30% 60.80% Acquiring and Using Knowledge and Skills FFY 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 1. Of those children who entered the program below age expectations, the percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they exited. 68.47% 68.97% 69.47% 69.97% 2. Percent of children who were functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers by the time they exited. 47.36% 47.86% 48.36% 48.86% Taking Appropriate Action to Meet Needs FFY 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 1. Of those children who entered the program below age expectations, the percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they exited. 76.95% 77.45% 77.95% 78.45% Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 65 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 2. Percent of children who were functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers by the time they exited. 57.50% 57.90% 58.50% 58.90% The following are improvement activities for FFY 2010, and for FFY 2011 and FFY 2012 for the revised SPP. Primary Activity (GOAL) 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 Sub-Activities (Objectives or Action Steps) a) Identify and implement ADE infrastructure modifications 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 Timeline Complete Projected 7/1/106/30/12 1/1/116/30/12 7/1/106/30/13 7/1/106/30/13 7/1/106/30/13 Resources (Planned) 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 Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 66 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 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. Target Data for FFY 2009 FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target 2009 48% Actual Target Data for FFY 2009 # of respondent parents who report schools facilitated parent involvement as a means of improving services and results for children with disabilities total # of respondent parents of children with disabilities 7546 8836 Actual Target Data for FFY 2009 85% 7546  8836  100 = 0.85 = 85% Arizona exceeded the target. Data Data Source The data 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 the same survey as used for past years and has not been revised. Data Description Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 67 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 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. Sampling Procedures 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. Valid and Reliable Data Arizona ensures the data are valid and reliable by offering extensive ongoing technical assistance to PEAs. Initial survey instructions detail the steps that PEAs must follow to distribute survey instructions and confidential User IDs/Passwords to all parents who have a child with a disability. PEAs are given surplus User IDs/Passwords to have ready for transfer students. PEAs also receive guidance on how to maximize their parental response and involvement rates as demonstrated in the improvement activities. Table 8.1 Comparison of Parent Responses by Race/Ethnicity to State Special Education Population Race/Ethnicity of Child of Parent Respondent # of Responses % of Responses # of Special Education Population (Child Count) % of Special Education Population (Child Count) American Indian 364 4.12% 2069 1.64% Asian 131 1.48% 9029 7.17% Black 522 5.91% 8812 7.00% Hispanic 3347 37.88% 50358 40.01% Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 68 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 White 3701 41.89% Multi-racial 505 5.72% No response 266 3.01% Total 8836 55598 44.17% 125866 Table 8.1 shows the response rate by race/ethnicity is in alignment with the race/ethnicity of children in special education in Arizona for Black, Hispanic, and White populations, although higher for the American Indian population. In FFY 2008, the response rates from Black and Hispanic parents were lower than State special education population data. The rise in response rates for these two groups in FFY 2009 is likely due to efforts of the Parent Information Network (PIN) Specialists to boost parent participation as part of Improvement Activity #1. The response rate for Asian parents (1.48%) is lower than the State special education population data (7.17%). Involvement of Asian parents will be monitored during the next year and targeted through appropriate action steps. Table 8.2 Comparison of Parent Responses by Child Age Group to State Special Education Population Child Age Group # of Responses % of Responses # of Special Education Population (Child Count) % of Special Education Population (Child Count) Ages 3–5 1504 17.02% 14340 11.39% Ages 6–13 5434 61.50% 72886 57.91% Ages 14–22 1503 17.01% 38640 30.70% No response 395 4.47% Total 8836 125866 Table 8.2 shows the response rate is in alignment with the age group statistics for parents of children ages 6–13. The response rate is higher than the age group statistics for parents of children ages 3–5. Conversely, the response rate is lower than the age group statistics for parents of children ages 14–22. The decline is possibly due to fewer PEAs with high school-aged students completing the survey during FFY 2009. Involvement of parents of students ages 14–22 will be monitored during the next year and targeted through appropriate action steps. Explanation of Slippage that Occurred for FFY 2009 Arizona exceeded the target for FFY 2009, but there was a slight decrease in the percentage of parents reporting that schools facilitated parent involvement as a means of improving services (from 88% in FFY 2008 to 85% in FFY 2009). This change may be because the participating PEAs in FFY 2009, which Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 69 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 included newly opened charter schools, was a different cohort compared to the group that completed the survey in FFY 2008. Only PEAs with a student population greater than 50,000, and schools repeating the survey as a result of a less than 10% response rate in the prior survey year, were participants in both survey years. Although there was slippage, the Parent Information Network (PIN) specialists and ESS program specialists were in regular contact with participating PEAs, as noted in the improvement activities. They offered free consultation, training, print and electronic special education resources, and toll-free assistance to families and schools throughout Arizona. Analysis of the requests for assistance during FFY 2009 shows an increase in the use of PIN services by educators and families. PIN services, founded on principles of effective parent involvement reflected in the NCSEAM survey questions, align with the strategies, which if used by the PEAs, would yield a higher measurement of satisfactory parental involvement. Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed for FFY 2009 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 bimonthly 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 selfmonitor their progress c) Develop and distribute public awareness announcements promoting the parent survey to agencies and organizations who Timeline Completed Projected Resources (Planned) Activities completed from 7/1/09 to 6/30/10. 9/1/08 – 6/30/11 PIN specialists and ESS program specialists provided approximately 2,400 combined phone, email, and on-site contacts with PEAs. Activities completed from 7/1/09 to 6/30/10. 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 Web site (www.azed.gov/es s/parentsurvey) 9/1/086/30/11 ADE/ESS PIN Coordinator ADE/ESS PIN Specialists (www.azed.gov/es s/pinspals) Enhancing 122 workshops and events (approximately 1,948 attendees) were held to explain or demonstrate the survey to parents and educators. 10 monthly response rate tallies were emailed to participating PEAs and were posted on the parent survey Web site. Activities completed from 7/1/09 to 6/30/10. A parent survey announcement was emailed to 57 Enhancing Arizona’s Parent Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 70 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 serve families 2) Increase awareness of training, consultation, and resources available statewide to facilitate parent involvement in the special education process 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 a) Develop and maintain curricula to increase parent knowledge of the special education process and effective parent involvement strategies 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 Arizona’s Parent Networks (www.azeapn.org) Networks (EAPN) groups. A survey announcement was printed in two issues of the PIN newsletter. The newsletter was mailed to 4,035 parents and agencies; posted on the PIN Web site at http://www.azed.gov/es s/pinspals; e-mailed to several hundred families; and, e-mailed to PEAs and EAPN members. Activities completed from 7/1/09 to 6/30/10. 9/1/086/30/11 ADE/ESS PIN Coordinator MPRRC Web site and teleconferences Technical Assistance Alliance of Parent Centers (www.taalliance.or g) 9/1/086/30/11 ADE/ESS PIN Coordinator ADE/ESS PIN Specialists Technical Assistance Alliance of Parent Centers (www.taalliance.or g) National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities (www.nichcy.org) 9/1/086/30/11 ADE/ESS PIN Coordinator ADE/ESS PIN Specialists ADE/ESS PIN Clearinghouse (www.azed.gov/es s/pinspals/docume Annual review and revision of documents was completed by PIN coordinator and the ESS IT specialist. Activities completed from 7/1/09 to 6/30/10. Annual review and revision of curricula and supporting documents was completed by PIN coordinator and PIN specialists. PIN coordinator attended the June 2010 Partnering to Improve Parent Involvement Conference hosted by MPRRC in Salt Lake City, UT. Activities completed from 7/1/09 to 6/30/10. PIN Clearinghouse resources were distributed at trainings, exhibits, and consultations. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 71 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 process and opportunities for their 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 3) Review and enhance PEAs’ initiatives designed to facilitate parent involvement 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 b) Develop and implement staff and/or parental consultation, training, and/or distribution of resources to improve PEA parent involvement initiatives Resources were also distributed via e-mail and were available on the PIN Web site (www.azed.gov/ess/pin spals). Activities completed from 7/1/09 to 6/30/10. nts/) 9/1/086/30/11 ADE/ESS PIN Coordinator ADE/ESS PIN Specialists Raising Special Kids Enhancing Arizona’s Parent Networks (www.azeapn.org) 9/1/086/30/11 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 Bi-monthly announcements were e-mailed to the AZ PTI and other EAPN members promoting parent activities and soliciting events for the EAPN training calendar (www.ade.az.gov/ESS/ EAPN/). 314 events and trainings were posted on the EAPN training calendar. Activities completed from 7/1/09 to 6/30/10. PIN specialists and ESS program specialists conducted approximately 240 consultations. Activities completed from 7/1/09 to 6/30/10. Annual review and revision of curricula and supporting documents was completed by PIN coordinator and PIN specialists. 9/1/086/30/11 PIN Clearinghouse documents are available in print, on CD, and can be downloaded from www.azed.gov/ess/pins pals. PIN specialists Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 72 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 consulted and trained 8,296 individuals. Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources for FFY 2010 The following are proposed targets for FFY 2011 and FFY 2012 for the revised SPP. FFY Measurable and Rigorous Targets 2011 (2011–2012) 60% 2012 (2012–2013) 65% The following are new improvement activities for FFY 2010, and for FFY 2011 and FFY 2012 for the revised SPP, to improve results for Indicator 8. 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 2) Increase opportunities for PEAs and parents to gain knowledge about the parent involvement survey and related family involvement projects 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 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 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 7/1/106/30/13 ADE/ESS PIN Coordinator ADE/ESS PIN Specialists 7/1/116/30/13 ADE/ESS PIN Coordinator Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 73 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 parent involvement survey Web site ADE/ESS PIN Specialists Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 74 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 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 2009, describe how the State made its annual determination that the disproportionate representation it identified (consider both over and underrepresentation) 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 2009 reporting period, i.e., after June 30, 2010. If inappropriate identification is identified, report on corrective actions taken. Data Data Source The ADE/ESS collected the data from the PEAs through the October 1, 2009, Child Count report. The data are the same as collected and reported on Table 1, Report of Children with Disabilities Receiving Special Education under Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, As Amended, for all children with disabilities aged 6–21 served under IDEA. Valid and Reliable Data The ADE/ESS assures the validity and reliability of the data because it collected, maintained, and reported the October 1, 2009 child count data through internal edit checks. In addition, the State requires the PEAs to assure data accuracy and reliability with a signed verification letter. Definition of Disproportionate Representation Disproportionate Representation Weighted Risk Ratio Target Racial/Ethnic Group Racial/Ethnic Groups in Special Education and Related Services Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 75 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 Under representation ≤ 0.30 30 30 Over representation ≥ 3.00 30 30 Methodology The data were 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 used 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 determined 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. The data for all PEAs in Arizona were analyzed for disproportionality; no district or charter school was excluded from the calculation. Arizona included the total number of PEAs in the State (590) in the denominator. Data for both under representation and over representation were examined. PEAs with a cell size of 30 or more students in the target racial/ethnic group and in the other racial/ethnic groups and meeting the weighted risk ratio criteria for under representation and over representation were flagged for a review of policies, procedures, and practices by the State. PEAs with a lower cell size in the target groups were not flagged because false positives were identified as a function of the small number rather than as a result of noncompliant policies, procedures, and practices. There were 186 PEAs that had a weighted risk ratio of ≤ 0.30 and ≥ 3.00. Within this group, one PEA had a cell size of 30 or more students in the target racial/ethnic group and in the other racial/ethnic groups. This one PEA was flagged for a review of policies, procedures, and practices. There were 185 PEAs excluded from the review of policies, procedures, and practices. Arizona’s Procedures to Determine if Disproportionate Representation is the Result of Inappropriate Identification Arizona ensures that PEAs’ policies, procedures, and practices are reviewed as required by 34 CFR §§ 300.173, 300.600(d)(3), and 300.602(a). The data are analyzed annually and PEAs may be flagged each year for both under representation and 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 re-submit 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 Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 76 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 the Exceptional Student Services, the PEA must re-submit the policies and procedures to the Exceptional Student Services for review and acceptance.‖ In addition, the PEAs that are flagged for disproportionate representation must submit their policies and procedures related to child find, evaluation, and eligibility to an ADE/ESS specialist for review. Arizona’s Review of 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 under representation or over representation the first year:  The ESS specialist reviews current monitoring data, if applicable.  The PEA conducts a self assessment of the agency’s child find, evaluation, and eligibility practices to determine whether the disproportionate representation is a result of inappropriate identification. The self assessment consists of a series of questions requiring narrative responses and a review of student files using the State’s monitoring forms. The ADE/ESS specialists conduct on-site visits and/or desk audits during the self 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 selfidentified 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 under representation or 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. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 77 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 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. Target Data for FFY 2009 FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target FFY 2009 0% Actual Target Data for FFY 2009 0% Arizona met the target. PEAs with Disproportionate Representation of Racial and Ethnic Groups Arizona identified one PEA with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services. PEAs with Disproportionate Representation of Racial and Ethnic Groups that was the Result of Inappropriate Identification Arizona identified zero PEAs with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services that was the result of inappropriate identification (0%). PEAs with Disproportionate Representation of Racial and Ethnic Groups that was the Result of Inappropriate Identification Year FFY 2009 (20092010) Total Number of PEAs* 590 Number of PEAs with Disproportionate Representation Number of PEAs with Disproportionate Representation of Racial and Ethnic Groups that was the Result of Inappropriate Identification 1 0 Percent of PEAs 0.00% *Arizona included the total number of PEAs in the State in the denominator. Table 9.1 PEAs with Under Representation by Racial/Ethnic Group Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 78 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 Indicator 9 - Under Representation # of PEAs flagged for under representation # of PEAs found to have disproportionate representation (under representation) as a result of inappropriate identification American Indian Asian Black Hispanic 1 0 White As shown in Table 9.1, one PEA was flagged for under representation for one racial/ethnic group (Hispanic). It was determined that the PEA did not have disproportionate representation as a result of inappropriate identification. Table 9.2 PEAs with Over Representation by Racial/Ethnic Group Indicator 9 - Over Representation # of PEAs flagged for over representation # of PEAs found to have disproportionate representation (over representation) as a result of inappropriate identification American Indian Asian Black Hispanic White Table 9.2 shows that no PEAs were flagged for over representation. The following describes the investigation of the policies, procedures, and practices of the one PEA:  The charter school submitted special education policies and procedures that were 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. The ESS specialist reviewed the Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 79 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 child find, evaluation, and eligibility policies and procedures during the PEA’s self assessment and found them to be in compliance.  The charter school was flagged for the first time during FFY 2009. The PEA conducted a self assessment of its practices. Validation of the PEA’s decisions during the self assessment was done by the assigned ADE/ESS specialist during on site visits. The practices of the PEA were found to be consistent with 34 CFR § 300.173 and § 300.600(d)(3). It was determined that the PEA did not have disproportionate representation as a result of inappropriate identification. Arizona did not make any findings of noncompliance as a result of the review of child find, evaluation, and eligibility policies, procedures, and practices. Explanation of Progress that Occurred for FFY 2009 Arizona’s results of 0% for FFY 2009 are the same as for FFY 2008. The Exceptional Student Services division has placed importance on improving the child find and evaluation process in a number of ways. The ESS directors and specialists review the PEAs’ data related to the SPP/APR Indicators annually. When a district or charter is identified as at risk for under representation or over representation, the ESS specialist notifies the PEA and offers information and support during a self-guided drill down. The monitoring process also helps the public schools to identify weaknesses with the child find and evaluation areas and to strengthen them through a comprehensive Corrective Action Plan. Additionally, the Parent Information Network specialists (PINS) disseminate information to both parents and PEAs about child find requirements. At the annual ESS Directors Institute, every PEA received an individualized data profile, which described two- or three-year trend data and State results. Participants could attend small group sessions and individual consultations with a Research and Evaluation analyst, the data management specialist, and the SPP coordinator, who answered questions about the data, the analysis using the weighted risk ratio, and disproportionality. Correction of FFY 2008 Findings of Noncompliance (if State did not report 0%) Arizona did not make any findings of noncompliance in FFY 2008. Level of compliance (actual target data) State reported for FFY 2008 for this indicator: 0% 1. Number of findings of noncompliance the State made during FFY 2008 (the period from July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2009) 2. Number of FFY 2008 findings the State verified as timely corrected (corrected within one year from the date of notification to the LEA of the finding) 3. Number of FFY 2008 findings not verified as corrected within one year [(1) minus (2)] 0 Correction of FFY 2008 Findings of Noncompliance Not Timely Corrected (corrected more than one year from identification of the noncompliance) 4. Number of FFY 2008 findings not timely corrected (same as the number from (3) Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 80 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 above) 5. Number of FFY 2008 findings the State has verified as corrected beyond the one-year timeline (―subsequent correction‖) 6. Number of FFY 2008 findings not yet verified as corrected [(4) minus (5)] 0 Actions Taken if Noncompliance Not Corrected Arizona did not make any findings of noncompliance in FFY 2008. If findings of noncompliance are made, Arizona works in a collaborative process with the PEAs as the agencies identify the root causes of continuing noncompliance through drill downs in the specific focus area. When noncompliance is not corrected within one year, the ADE/ESS uses a variety of methods to ensure that all public agencies meet the requirements of State and federal statutes related to special education. The progressive enforcement actions taken by ESS for the PEAs that are unable to demonstrate compliance within one year from the date of written notification are as follows:  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.  Assignment of a special monitor.  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. Verification of Correction (either timely or subsequent) Arizona did not make any findings of noncompliance in FFY 2008. Specific Actions the State Took to Verify the Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified in FFY 2008 Arizona did not make any findings of noncompliance in FFY 2008. Correction of Remaining FFY 2007 Findings of Noncompliance Not applicable. 1. Number of remaining FFY 2007 findings noted in OSEP’s June 2010 FFY 2008 APR response table for this indicator 2. Number of remaining FFY 2007 findings the State has verified as corrected 3. Number of remaining FFY 2007findings the State has not verified as corrected [(1) minus (2)] 0 Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 81 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 Verification of Correction of Remaining FFY 2007 Findings Not applicable. Specific Actions the State Took to Verify the Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified in FFY 2007 Not applicable. Correction of Any Remaining Findings of Noncompliance from FFY 2006 or Earlier Not applicable. Additional Information Required by the OSEP APR Response Table for this Indicator Not applicable. Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed, Revised, and Discontinued, with Justification, for FFY 2009 The following improvement activities have been completed and discontinued because they are revised and included in the improvement activities for FFY 2010, FFY 2011, and FFY 2012. Primary Activity (GOAL) 1) Develop and implement a system for PEAs that are flagged as at risk for disproportionate representation (DR) 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 Timeline Complete Activities completed from 7/1/09 to 6/30/10. Projected 7/1/098/1/11 ADE/ESS Directors and Program Specialists ADE Research and Evaluation MPRRC 8/1/099/1/11 ADE/ESS Directors Data were analyzed to obtain a WRR that flags PEAs as at-risk for over representation (≥ 2.5) and under representation (≤ 0.40). Activity completed and discontinued (refer to new improvement activities below). Activities completed from 2/1/10 to 4/30/10. Resources (Planned) PEAs were notified by assigned ADE/ESS specialist via on-site visit. Activity completed and Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 82 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 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 discontinued (refer to new improvement activities below). Activities completed from 2/1/09 to 6/30/10. 9/1/0912/1/11 ADE/ESS Directors 10/1/0912/31/11 ADE/ESS Directors ADE/ESS gave PEAs self assessment, monitoring tools, and support from assigned ESS specialists to drill down for reasons for WRR ≤ 0.40 for under representation and WRR ≥ 2.5 for over representation. Activity completed and discontinued (refer to new improvement activities below). Activities completed from 7/1/09 to 6/30/10. ADE/ESS provided PEAs with resources to analyze atrisk disproportionate representation, and to follow through if concerns arose about inappropriate identification. Activity completed and discontinued (refer to new improvement activities below). Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources for FFY 2010 The following are proposed targets for FFY 2011 and FFY 2012 for the revised SPP. FFY Measurable and Rigorous Targets 2011 (2011–2012) 0% 2012 (2012–2013) 0% The following are new improvement activities for FFY 2010, and for FFY 2011 and FFY 2012 for the revised SPP. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 83 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 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 b) Obtain input from stakeholders via regional groups and Special Education Advisory Panel 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 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 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 Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 84 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 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 Program Specialists ADE/ESS Deputy Associate Superinten dent ADE/ESS Directors ADE/ESS Program Specialists Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 85 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 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 2009, describe how the State made its annual determination that the disproportionate representation it identified (consider both over and under representation) 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 2009, i.e., after June 30, 2010. If inappropriate identification is identified, report on corrective actions taken. Data Data Source The ADE/ESS collected the data from the PEAs through the October 1, 2009, Child Count report. The data are the same as collected and reported on Table 1, Report of Children with Disabilities Receiving Special Education under Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, As Amended, for all children with disabilities aged 6–21 served under IDEA. Valid and Reliable Data The ADE/ESS assures the validity and reliability of the data because it collected, maintained, and reported the October 1, 2009 child count data through internal edit checks. In addition, the State requires the PEAs to assure data accuracy and reliability with a signed verification letter. Definition of Disproportionate Representation Disproportionate Representation Weighted Risk Ratio Target Racial/Ethnic Group Racial/Ethnic Groups in Special Education and Related Services Under representation ≤ 0.30 30 30 Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 86 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 Over representation ≥ 3.00 30 30 Methodology The data were analyzed using Statistical Analysis Software (SAS) to produce a weighted risk ratio (WRR) that identifies all racial/ethnic groups and six disability categories for all PEAs in the State. The ADE/ESS also used 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 determined 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. The data for all PEAs in Arizona were analyzed for disproportionality; no district or charter school was excluded from the calculation. Arizona included the total number of PEAs in the State (590) in the denominator. Data for both under representation and over representation were examined. PEAs with a cell size of 30 or more students in the target racial/ethnic group and in the other racial/ethnic groups and meeting the weighted risk ratio criteria for under representation and over representation were flagged for a review of policies, procedures, and practices by the State. PEAs with a lower cell size in the target groups were not flagged because false positives were identified as a function of the small number rather than as a result of noncompliant policies, procedures, and practices. There were 517 PEAs that had a weighted risk ratio of ≤ 0.30 and ≥ 3.00. Within this group, nine PEAs had a cell size of 30 or more students in the target racial/ethnic group and in the other racial/ethnic groups. These nine PEAs were flagged for a review of policies, procedures, and practices. There were 508 PEAs excluded from the review of policies, procedures, and practices. Arizona’s Procedures to Determine if Disproportionate Representation is the Result of Inappropriate Identification Arizona ensures that PEAs’ policies, procedures, and practices are reviewed, as required by 34 CFR §§ 300.173, 300.600(d)(3), and 300.602(a). The data are analyzed annually and PEAs may be flagged each year for both under representation and 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 re-submit 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.‖ Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 87 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 In addition, the PEAs that are flagged for disproportionate representation must submit their policies and procedures related to child find, evaluation, and eligibility to an ADE/ESS specialist for review. Arizona’s Review of 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 under representation or over representation the first year:  The ESS specialist reviews current monitoring data, if applicable.  The PEA conducts a self assessment of the agency’s child find, evaluation, and eligibility practices to determine whether the disproportionate representation is a result of inappropriate identification. The self assessment consists of a series of questions requiring narrative responses and a review of student files using the State’s monitoring forms. The ADE/ESS specialists conduct on-site visits and/or desk audits during the self 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 selfidentified 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 under representation or 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. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 88 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 Target Data for FFY 2009 FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target FFY 2009 0% Actual Target Data for FFY 2009 0% Arizona met the target. PEAs with Disproportionate Representation of Racial and Ethnic Groups Arizona identified nine PEAs with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories. PEAs with Disproportionate Representation of Racial and Ethnic Groups that was the Result of Inappropriate Identification Arizona identified zero PEAs with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories that was the result of inappropriate identification (0%). PEAs with Disproportionate Representation of Racial and Ethnic Groups in Specific Disability Categories that was the Result of Inappropriate Identification Year FFY 2009 (20092010) Total Number of PEAs* 590 Number of PEAs with Disproportionate Representation 9 Number of PEAs with Disproportionate Representation of Racial and Ethnic Groups in Specific Disability Categories that was the Result of Inappropriate Identification 0 Percent of PEAs 0.00% *Arizona included the total number of PEAs in the State in the denominator. Table 10.1 PEAs, and Cases, with Under Representation by Racial/Ethnic Group and Disability Note: The cases give a duplicated count. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 89 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 Cases of under representation American Indian Asian Black Hispanic Autism 1 Emotionally Disturbed 5 White Mental Retardation Other Health Impairments Specific Learning Disability 2 2 Speech and Language Impairment # of PEAs flagged for under representation 7 # of PEAs found to have disproportionate representation (under representation) as a result of inappropriate identification 0 The following is a breakdown of Table 10.1:     Seven PEAs were flagged for under representation due to a WRR of ≤ 0.30 for a total of 10 cases (i.e., 1 + 5 + 2 +2 = 10). Five PEAs were flagged for one racial/ethnic group (Hispanic) for three different disability categories (ED, OHI, and A). This accounted for eight of the 10 cases. Two PEAs were flagged for one racial/ethnic (Asian) for one disability category (SLD). This accounted for two of the 10 cases. No PEAs were found to have disproportionate representation as a result of inappropriate identification. The following describes the investigation of the policies, procedures, and practices of the seven PEAs:  The seven PEAs flagged for under representation submitted special education policies and procedures that were 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. The ADE/ESS specialists reviewed the child find, evaluation, and eligibility policies and procedures during the PEAs’ self assessment and found them to be in compliance.  Two PEAs were flagged for the first time during FFY 2009. The PEAs conducted a self assessment of the agencies’ practices. Validation of the PEAs’ decisions during the self Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 90 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 assessment was done by the assigned ADE/ESS specialists through site visits and/or desk audits. The practices of the PEAs were found to be consistent with 34 CFR § 300.173 and § 300.600(d)(3). It was determined that the two PEAs did not have disproportionate representation as a result of inappropriate identification.  Five PEAs were flagged for more than one consecutive year and it was determined that the five agencies did not have disproportionate representation as a result of inappropriate identification the prior year. In order to confirm this conclusion, the ADE/ESS specialists reviewed individual student files from FFY 2009 and the first few months of FFY 2010 and current monitoring data, where available. The practices of the PEAs were found to be consistent with 34 CFR § 300.173 and § 300.600(d)(3). It was determined that the five PEAs did not have disproportionate representation as a result of inappropriate identification. Table 10.2 PEAs, and Cases, with Over Representation by Racial/Ethnic Group and Disability Note: The cases give a duplicated count. Cases of over representation American Indian Asian Black Hispanic White Autism 1 Emotionally Disturbed 3 Mental Retardation Other Health Impairments 1 Specific Learning Disability Speech and Language Impairment # of PEAs flagged for over representation 4 # of PEAs found to have disproportionate representation (over representation) as a result of inappropriate identification 0 The following is a breakdown of Table 10.2:  Four PEAs were flagged for over representation due to a WRR of 3.0 or above for a total of five cases (i.e., 1 + 3 + 1 = 5). Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 91 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009     One PEA was flagged for one racial/ethnic group (White) for two different disability categories (ED and A). This accounted for two of the five cases. Two PEAs were flagged for one racial/ethnic group (White) for one disability category (ED). This accounted for two of the five cases. One PEA was flagged for one racial/ethnic group (White) for one disability category (OHI). This accounted for one of the five cases. No PEAs were found to have disproportionate representation as a result of inappropriate identification. The following describes the investigation of the policies, procedures, and practices of the four PEAs:  The four PEAs flagged for over representation submitted special education policies and procedures that were 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. The ADE/ESS specialists reviewed the child find, evaluation, and eligibility policies and procedures during the PEAs’ self assessment and found them to be in compliance.  The four PEAs were flagged for more than one consecutive year and it was determined that the four did not have disproportionate representation as a result of inappropriate identification the first year. In order to confirm this conclusion, the ADE/ESS specialists reviewed individual student files from FFY 2009 and the first few months of FFY 2010 and current monitoring data, where available. The practices of the PEAs were found to be consistent with 34 CFR § 300.173 and § 300.600(d)(3). It was determined that the four PEAs did not have disproportionate representation as a result of inappropriate identification. Summary of Table 10.1 and Table 10.2   Two PEAs were flagged for both under representation and over representation, with a duplicated count of 11 PEAs flagged. An unduplicated count gives a total of nine PEAs flagged for both under representation and over representation. The nine PEAs involved a total of 15 cases. Explanation of Progress that Occurred in FFY 2009 The results are the same this federal fiscal year (0%) as they were for FFY 2008. The Exceptional Student Services division has placed importance on improving the child find and evaluation process in a number of ways. The ESS directors and specialists review the PEAs’ data related to the SPP/APR Indicators annually. When a district or charter is identified as at risk for under representation or over representation, the ESS specialist notifies the PEA and offers information and support during a selfguided drill down. The monitoring process also helps the public schools to identify weaknesses with the child find and evaluation areas and to strengthen them through a comprehensive Corrective Action Plan. Additionally, the Parent Information Network specialists (PINS) disseminate information to both parents and PEAs about child find requirements. At the annual ESS Directors Institute, every PEA received an individualized data profile, which described two- or three-year trend data and State results. Participants could attend small group sessions and individual consultations with a Research and Evaluation analyst, the data management specialist, and the SPP coordinator, who answered questions about the data, the analysis using the weighted risk ratio, and disproportionality. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 92 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 Correction of FFY 2008 Findings of Noncompliance (if State reported more than 0% compliance) Arizona did not make any findings of noncompliance in FFY 2008. Level of compliance (actual target data) State reported for FFY 2008 for this indicator: 0% 1. Number of findings of noncompliance the State made during FFY 2008 (the period from July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2009) 2. Number of FFY 2008 findings the State verified as timely corrected (corrected within one year from the date of notification to the LEA of the finding) 3. Number of FFY 2008 findings not verified as corrected within one year [(1) minus (2)] 0 Correction of FFY 2008 Findings of Noncompliance Not Timely Corrected (corrected more than one year from identification of the noncompliance) 4. Number of FFY 2008 findings not timely corrected (same as the number from (3) above) 5. Number of FFY 2008 findings the State has verified as corrected beyond the one-year timeline (―subsequent correction‖) 6. Number of FFY 2008 findings not yet verified as corrected [(4) minus (5)] 0 Actions Taken if Noncompliance Not Corrected Arizona did not make any findings of noncompliance in FFY 2008. If findings of noncompliance are made, Arizona works in a collaborative process with the PEAs as the agencies identify the root causes of continuing noncompliance through drill downs in the specific focus area. When noncompliance is not corrected within one year, the ADE/ESS uses a variety of methods to ensure that all public agencies meet the requirements of State and federal statutes related to special education. The progressive enforcement actions taken by ESS for the PEAs that are unable to demonstrate compliance within one year from the date of written notification are as follows:  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.  Assignment of a special monitor.  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. Verification of Correction (either timely or subsequent) Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 93 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 Arizona did not make any findings of noncompliance in FFY 2008. Specific Actions the State Took to Verify the Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified in FFY 2008 Arizona did not make any findings of noncompliance in FFY 2008. Correction of Remaining FFY 2007 Findings of Noncompliance Not applicable. 1. Number of remaining FFY 2007 findings noted in OSEP’s June 2010 FFY 2008 APR response table for this indicator 2. Number of remaining FFY 2007findings the State has verified as corrected 3. Number of remaining FFY 2007 findings the State has not verified as corrected [(1) minus (2)] 0 Verification of Correction of Remaining FFY 2007 Findings Not applicable. Specific Actions the State Took to Verify the Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified in FFY 2007 Not applicable. Correction of Any Remaining Findings of Noncompliance from FFY 2006 or Earlier Not applicable. Additional Information Required by the OSEP APR Response Table for this Indicator Not applicable. Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed, Revised, and Discontinued, with Justification, for FFY 2009 The following improvement activities have been completed and discontinued because they are revised and included in the improvement activities for FFY 2010, FFY 2011, and FFY 2012. Primary Activity (GOAL) Sub-Activities (Objectives or Action Steps) Timeline Complete Projected Resources (Planned) Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 94 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 1) Develop and implement a system for PEAs that are flagged as at risk for disproportionate representation (DR) 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 Activities completed from 7/1/09 to 6/30/10. 7/1/098/1/11 ADE/ESS Directors and Program Specialists ADE Research and Evaluation MPRRC 8/1/099/1/11 ADE/ESS Directors 9/1/0912/1/11 ADE/ESS Directors 10/1/0912/31/11 ADE/ESS Directors Data were analyzed to obtain a WRR that flags PEAs as at-risk for over representation (≥ 2.5) and under representation (≤ 0.40). Activity completed and discontinued (refer to new improvement activities below). Activities completed from 2/1/10 to 4/30/10. PEAs were notified by assigned ADE/ESS specialist via on-site visit. Activity completed and discontinued (refer to new improvement activities below). Activities completed from 2/1/09 to 6/30/10. ADE/ESS gave PEAs self assessment, monitoring tools, and support from assigned ESS specialists to drill down for reasons for WRR ≤ 0.40 for under representation and WRR ≥ 2.5 for over representation. Activity completed and discontinued (refer to new improvement activities below). Activities completed from 7/1/09 to 6/30/10. ADE/ESS provided PEAs with resources to analyze atrisk disproportionate representation, and to follow through if concerns arose about inappropriate identification. Activity completed and discontinued (refer to new Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 95 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 improvement activities below). Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources for FFY 2010 The following are proposed targets for FFY 2011 and FFY 2012 for the revised SPP. FFY Measurable and Rigorous Targets 2011 (2011–2012) 0% 2012 (2012–2013) 0% 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 2) Provide support for PEAs that are flagged for 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 Timeline Complete Projected 7/1/106/30/13 7/1/106/30/13 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 ADE/ESS Directors ADE/ESS Program Specialists ADE/ESS Directors ADE/ESS Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 96 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 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 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 Program Specialists ADE/ESS Directors ADE/ESS Program Specialists 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 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 Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 97 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 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. Target Data for FFY 2009 FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target FFY 2009 100% Actual Target Data for FFY 2009 96% Arizona did not meet the target. Data Data Source The data for Indicator 11 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 Collection Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 98 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 Data are collected from the PEAs during one of three types of monitorings:  Data Review - PEAs review student files with a focus on Indicator 11. The ADE/ESS specialist validates the compliance calls. The student file forms are submitted to ESS for data entry.  Self-Assessment - PEAs review student files and collect data for Indicator 11. The PEAs also focus on identified SPP/APR Indicators 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 11. The ADE/ESS staff inputs data. Evaluation Timeline Arizona has established a 60-day timeline for initial evaluations. Arizona Administrative Code (AAC) R7-2401 (E) (3) says the initial evaluation shall not exceed 60 calendar days from receipt of informed written consent. The 60-day evaluation period may be extended for an additional 30 days if in the best interests of the child and the parents and the public education agency agree in writing to do so (AAC R7-2-401 (E) (4). Definition of Finding for Monitoring for FFY 2009 During FFY 2009, a finding by incidence for Indicator 11 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 11 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. Children Evaluated Within 60 Days (or State-established timeline) a. Number of children for whom parental consent to evaluate was received 554 b. Number of children whose evaluations were completed within 60 days (or Stateestablished timeline) 532 Percent of children with parental consent to evaluate, who were evaluated within 60 days (or State established-timeline) (Percent = [(b) divided by (a)] times 100) 96% Children Included in a (above) and Not Included in b (above) FFY 2009 Noncompliance # findings by incidence of noncompliance # of findings by incidence corrected prior to oneyear timeline as of 1/15/11 22 18 Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 99 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 Arizona made 22 findings of noncompliance in FFY 2009. Although the PEAs have one year to correct the noncompliance, 18 findings have been corrected as of January 15, 2011. Correction of the remaining noncompliance will be reported in the FFY 2010 APR. Range of Days beyond the Timeline and Reasons for the Delays Table 11.1 Range of Days beyond Timeline Range of days 2 - 485 Mean 44 Median 14 Mode 2 The 485 days beyond the 60-day timeline occurred at a unified school district. The speech/language pathologist left on a medical emergency; the previous district special education director forgot about the consent for evaluation that had already been signed. However, the evaluation was completed immediately after the file was reviewed at the time of the monitoring. The ADE/ESS verified the correction of the child specific noncompliance and verified that a new strategy was developed to ensure compliance with the 60-day evaluation timelines. Follow-up visits by the ESS specialist verified that new evaluations are being done within the timeline to ensure sustainability. Table 11.2 Reasons Given for Delays Delays in parent response, failure to attend meetings 6 Unavailability of required personnel (parent, general education teacher, etc.) 5 Lack of an adequate timeline tracking system 4 Need for specialized evaluation (medical, audiological, etc.) 2 Interruption in school calendar 1 Lack of bilingual evaluator 1 Lack of understanding of evaluation process 1 Unavailability of student (absences, illness, etc.) 1 Medical emergency of evaluator 1 Explanation of Progress that Occurred for FFY 2009 Progress occurred during the past federal fiscal year with a gain of four percentage points, from 92% to 96% for FFY 2009. The Exceptional Student Services Division (ESS) has continued to communicate the Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 100 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 importance of this 100% compliance indicator to the PEAs at statewide conferences, workshops, and trainings. In addition, the monitoring system entails an annual comprehensive review of data elements, including Indicator 11. Each February, the ESS directors and program specialists examine the APR data and other information for all the PEAs in the State. Following these day-long meetings, the specialists visit their assigned PEAs to discuss each agency’s results, the SPP/APR targets, and strategies to achieve compliance and improve results. The specialists explain the 60-day timeline requirement; provide a tracking spreadsheet; and distribute a laminated 60-day calendar chart. The specialists provide ongoing technical assistance throughout the year during on-site visits to review files and to teach the school personnel how to review and analyze their own student files. These site visits and follow-up by the ADE/ESS specialists continue to focus on Indicator 11. The first site visit of the school year must be completed by the end of the second quarter of the school year and information entered into the log by the specialist within seven calendar days. This visit consists of informing the staff about the requirements of IDEA regarding evaluation timelines. School staff is asked to analyze their system for tracking timelines and examine files. When the PEA does not have systems in place, a second site visit is conducted by the beginning of the fourth quarter of the school year. The PEAs that continue to have difficulty with following evaluation timelines receive more technical assistance from the assigned specialist. Further analysis of the reasons is done and systemic changes are suggested by the ESS specialists to improve adherence to the timeline. Correction of FFY 2008 Findings of Noncompliance (if State reported less than 100% compliance) Level of compliance (actual target data) State reported for FFY 2008 for this indicator: 92% 1. Number of findings of noncompliance the State made during FFY 2008 (the period from July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2009) 59 2. Number of FFY 2008 findings the State verified as timely corrected (corrected within one year from the date of notification to the LEA of the finding) 59 3. Number of FFY 2008 findings not verified as corrected within one year [(1) minus (2)] 0 Correction of FFY 2008 Findings of Noncompliance Not Timely Corrected (corrected more than one year from identification of the noncompliance) 4. Number of FFY 2008 findings not timely corrected (same as the number from (3) above) 0 5. Number of FFY 2008 findings the State has verified as corrected beyond the oneyear timeline (―subsequent correction‖) 0 6. Number of FFY 2008 findings not verified as corrected [(4) minus (5)] 0 The ADE/ESS specialists reviewed the child specific files from the monitorings to determine that the PEAs completed the evaluation for any child whose initial evaluation was not timely, unless the child was no longer within the PEA. The ESS specialists reviewed updated data from subsequent files during follow-up visits to determine that the PEAs were correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirements (i.e., Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 101 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 achieved 100% compliance) related to the evaluation process in conformity with 34 CFR § 300.301 (c) (1). Actions Taken if Noncompliance Not Corrected All FFY 2008 noncompliance has been corrected, and Arizona has verified correction for all FFY 2008 findings. When findings of noncompliance are made, Arizona works in a collaborative process with the PEAs as the agencies identify the root causes of continuing noncompliance through drill downs in the specific focus area for this Indicator. However, when noncompliance is not corrected within one year, the ADE/ESS uses a variety of methods to ensure that all public agencies meet the requirements of State and federal statutes related to special education. The progressive enforcement actions taken by ESS for the PEAs that are unable to demonstrate compliance within one year from the date of written notification are as follows:  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.  Assignment of a special monitor.  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. Verification of Correction (either timely or subsequent) FFY 2008 Verification of Correction from Monitoring As specified in OSEP’s June 1, 2010 FFY 2008 SPP/APR Response Table, Arizona verified that each PEA with noncompliance reflected in the data: 1) is correctly implementing 34 CFR § 300.301 (c) (1) (i.e., achieved 100% compliance) based on a review of updated data such as data subsequently collected through on-site monitoring; and 2) has completed the evaluation, although late, for any child whose initial evaluation was not timely, unless the child is no longer within the jurisdiction of the LEA, consistent with OSEP Memorandum 09-02, dated October 17, 2008. Specific Actions Taken to Verify the Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified in FFY 2008 The specific methods Arizona used to verify that PEAs corrected all instances of noncompliance, including child-specific noncompliance, and were correctly implementing the regulatory requirements, based on subsequent file reviews of updated data:  ADE/ESS specialists conducted follow-up on-site visits and/or desk audits after the monitoring to verify correction of all instances of noncompliance, including child specific, and to ensure that Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 102 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 regulatory requirements were being implemented based on subsequent file reviews of updated data.  ADE/ESS specialists again reviewed the child specific files from the recent monitoring to determine that the evaluation was completed within 60 calendar days from the date of written notification of noncompliance.  ADE/ESS specialists reviewed updated data from subsequent files and conducted interviews with the special education administrators during follow-up visits and/or desk audits to determine if all instances of noncompliance, including child specific, were corrected and to ensure ongoing sustainability with the implementation of the regulatory requirements regarding initial evaluations. Correction of Remaining FFY 2007 Findings of Noncompliance Not applicable. Correction of Any Remaining Findings of Noncompliance from FFY 2006 or Earlier Not applicable. Additional Information Required by the OSEP APR Response Table for this Indicator Not applicable. Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed in FFY 2009 Primary Activity (GOAL) 1) Revise ADE/ESS monitoring process and system Sub-Activities (Objectives or Action Steps) a) ADE/ESS Monitoring Team will revise monitoring process and system Timeline Complete Projected Activity completed. 5/1/08 – 12/31/09 b) Field test revised monitoring system Activity completed 1/1/10 – 6/30/10 c) Revise monitoring system based on results from field test Activity completed by 7/1/10. 7/1/10 – 9/30/10 The ADE/ESS monitoring team revised the monitoring system based on field test. d) Implementation of fully revised system and process 10/1/10 Resources (Planned) ADE/ESS Monitoring Team MPRRC DAC ADE/ESS Monitoring Team ADE/ESS Monitoring Team MPRRC DAC ADE/ESS Monitoring Team Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 103 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 2) Develop and disseminate a tool for PEAs to track 60day evaluation timelines e) Collect and analyze data from revised monitoring system a) Develop evaluation tracking system b) Disseminate evaluation tracking system c) Provide technical assistance to PEAs using evaluation tracking system 3) Decrease the number of unfilled positions for speech language pathologists (SLP) in Arizona a) Collect and analyze data on unfilled positions in PEAs through the Annual Special Education Data Collection 10/1/10 – 6/30/11 Activity completed. ADE/ESS Monitoring Team MPRRC ADE/ESS Directors ADE/ESS Specialists SEAP ADE/ESS Directors ADE/ESS Specialists Activities completed from 7/1/09 to 6/30/10. 9/1/08 – 6/30/10 ADE/ESS specialists distributed the tracking form to the PEAs during site visits or via e-mail. The Sped Timeline Tracking Form was available on the ADE/ESS Web site at http://www.ade.az.gov/ ess/ under Resources>Forms. Activities completed from 7/1/09 to 6/30/10. 9/1/08 – 6/30/11 ADE/ESS specialists provided information and training with regard to evaluation timelines during file reviews with staff and as formal presentations. Activities completed from 7/1/09 to 6/30/10. ADE/ESS Directors ADE/ESS Specialists 7/1/09 – 6/30/11 ADE/ESS CSPD Data were collected through Annual Special Education Data Collection and analyzed by CSPD staff. ADE/ESS Data Management Specialist 88% of Master’s level speech pathologist positions were filled during FFY 2008. 89% of Master’s level speech pathologists positions (SLP) were filled during FFY 2009. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 104 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 b) Recruit at national ASHA conference c) Recruit at national CEC conference 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 The number of unfilled (open) speech pathologist positions decreased by 1% from FFY 2008 to FFY 2009. Recruitment is planned for the ASHA Schools Conference during FFY 2010. Activities completed from 7/1/09 to 6/30/10. Attended national CEC conference April 22-24, 2010 in Nashville, TN. Interacted with 285 special educators and graduate students regarding Arizona Department of Education recruitment resources and available positions. Activities completed from 7/1/09 to 6/30/10. 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 Great Arizona TeachIn took place on May 15, 2010. There were 759 participants. 600 jobs were posted by 63 PEA exhibitors. 138 letters of intent were given to job seekers. Activities completed from 7/1/09 to 6/30/10. ESS sponsors the Arizona Education Employment Board (AEEB), online at www.arizonaeducation jobs.com. 71 SLP positions were posted on the AEEB by Arizona schools in all 4 geographic zones. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 105 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 18% of SLP positions posted were filled using the AEEB. 4) Decrease the number of unfilled positions for school psychologists in Arizona 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 b) Recruit at national CEC conference c) Conduct annual Arizona Teach-In, a statewide recruitment fair for Arizona education employers 193 PEAs posted various positions on the AEEB. Activity discontinued as of 6/30/10. 7/1/09 – 6/30/11 ADE/ESS CSPD Tuition assistance may be provided by PEAs for Professional Enhancement Program (PEP) and Summer’s Only students. Activities completed 7/1/09 to 6/30/10. 7/1/09 – 6/30/11 ADE/ESS CSPD 96% of school psychologist positions were filled in FFY 2009 (baseline data). Activities completed 7/1/09 to 6/30/10. 7/1/09 – 6/30/11 ADE/ESS Data Management Specialist ADE/ESS CSPD Attended national CEC conference April 22-24, 2010 in Nashville, TN. Interacted with 285 special educators and graduate students regarding Arizona Department of Education recruitment resources and available positions. Activities completed from 7/1/09 to 6/30/10. 7/1/09 – 6/30/11 ADE/ESS CSPD Great Arizona TeachIn took place on May 15, 2010. There were 759 participants. 600 jobs were posted by 63 PEA exhibitors. 138 letters of intent were given to job seekers. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 106 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 d) Sponsor the Arizona Education Employment Board, a free statewide employment board for employers and prospective employees Activities completed from 7/1/09 to 6/30/10. 7/1/09 – 6/30/11 ADE/ESS CSPD 1/1/09 – 6/30/09 ADE/ESS Deputy Associate Superintende nt and Directors ADE/ESS Deputy Associate Superintende nt, Directors, and Specialists ESS sponsors the Arizona Education Employment Board (AEEB), online at www.arizonaeducation jobs.com. 42 school psychologist positions were posted on the AEEB by Arizona schools in all 4 geographic zones. 31% of school psychologist positions posted were filled using the AEEB. 5) Revise ADE/ESS AZTAS Evaluation and Eligibility document used for technical assistance (AZTAS is the Arizona Technical Assistance System) a) ADE/ESS will rewrite the AZTAS Evaluation and Eligibility document b) Disseminate the AZTAS Evaluation and Eligibility document to the PEAs electronically and via ESS specialist 193 PEAs posted various positions on the AEEB. Activity completed. Activities completed from 7/1/09 to 6/30/10. 7/1/09 – 6/30/10 The revised AZTAS Evaluation and Eligibility document was posted on the ADE-ESS Web site and distributed by ESS specialists during on-site visits. Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources for FFY 2010 The following are proposed targets for FFY 2011 and FFY 2012 for the revised SPP. FFY Measurable and Rigorous Targets 2011 (2011–2012) 100% Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 107 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 2012 (2012–2013) 100% The following are new improvement activities for FFY 2010, and for FFY 2011 and 2012 for the revised SPP, to improve compliance with Indicator 11. 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 3) Review the ADE/ESS AZTAS Evaluation and Eligibility technical assistance document and revise, as necessary Sub-Activities (Objectives or Action Steps) a) Create flyer with Arizona Administrative Code 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 evaluation and IEP monitoring line items a) Review the AZTAS Evaluation and Eligibility document to determine if current with statute and regulations 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 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 Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 108 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 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 for Part B eligibility determination. b. # of those referred determined to be NOT eligible and whose eligibilities were determined prior to their third birthdays. c. # of those found eligible who have an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthdays. d. # of children for whom parent refusal to provide consent caused delays in evaluation or initial services 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. Target Data for FFY 2009 FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target FFY 2009 100% Actual Target Data for FFY 2009 98% Arizona did not meet the target. Data Data Source The data for Indicator 12 are reported annually by all PEAs in Arizona that have children who transition from Part C to Part B. Data are included for the entire reporting year, from July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2010. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 109 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 Data Collection The data are collected through the Annual Special Education Data Collection, an ADE Web-based data collection system. Valid and Reliable Data The ADE/ESS assures the validity and reliability of the data as it is collected, maintained, and reported through internal edit checks. Training is provided to school personnel by the ESS Data Management Unit regarding the operation of the data system and interpretation of the questions that are components of the measurement. The State requires an assurance from the PEAs through the submission of a signed form attesting to the validity of the data. Random verification checks require that a selected district submit a copy of the front page of the IEP that shows the date of the IEP and the child’s birthday for children that transitioned from early intervention service or a Prior Written Notice (PWN) of children found ineligible by the child’s third birthday. Definition of Finding A finding of noncompliance for Indicator 12 is defined as the number of PEAs with noncompliance. The finding of noncompliance is a written notification to the PEA by the State that the PEA is noncompliant. Actual State Data (Numbers) a. # of children who have been served in Part C and referred to Part B for Part B eligibility determination 2653 b. # of those referred determined to be NOT eligible and whose eligibility was determined prior to third birthday 351 c. # of those found eligible who have an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthdays 2129 d. # for whom parent refusals to provide consent caused delays in evaluation or initial services or to whom exceptions under 34 CFR § 300.301(d) applied 88 e. # of children who were referred to Part C less than 90 days before their third birthdays 42 # in a but not in b, c, d, or e 43 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 Percent = [(c) / (a-b-d-e)] * 100 98% FFY 2009 Noncompliance Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 110 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 # findings of noncompliance # of findings corrected prior to one-year timeline as of 1/15/11 15 15 Arizona made 15 findings of noncompliance in FFY 2009. Although the PEAs have one year to correct the noncompliance, all 15 findings have been corrected as of January 15, 2011. Account for Children Included in a, but not in b, c, d, or e — Reasons for Delays Late referrals from Part C 39 Failed hearing or vision screening 4 Total 43 Thirty-nine children were late referrals from AzEIP. School districts are asked to submit an alert to the ADE/ECSE any time they receive a late referral from AzEIP who was not in category d (parent refusals to provide consent caused delays in evaluation or initial services) or category e (children who were referred to Part C less than 90 days before their third birthdays). Each late referral from AzEIP to a district is reported to the State AzEIP office. The State AzEIP office provides technical assistance and follow up to the local service providing agency. Similarly, if a local service providing agency is reporting difficulty with a school district, the local agency issues an alert to the State AzEIP office. The ADE/ECSE provides technical assistance and follow up to the school district. The ADE/ECSE and AzEIP maintain a shared database to track resolution of the alerts. Range of Days beyond Third Birthday Range of days 1 - 108 The 108 days beyond the third birthday was due to a late referral from AzEIP. The school district sent an alert to the ADE/ECSE for follow up by the State AzEIP office, which provided technical assistance to the local service providing agency. The ADE/ECSE verified the correction of the child specific noncompliance and that FAPE was provided to the child. Follow-up desk audits by the ECSE and ESS specialists verified that IEPs are being developed and implemented by children’s third birthdays. Explanation of Progress that Occurred for FFY 2009 Arizona gained five percentage points from FFY 2008 (93%) to FFY 2009 (98%). The State continued to refine data collection questions, provide technical assistance, and use the alert system to improve the transition process for families. Each instance of late referrals from AzEIP was followed by the ADE/ECSE, and systemic issues were identified and corrected. The continued collaboration between AzEIP and ECSE also contributed to positive outcomes. Additionally, the ADE/ESS specialists reviewed files during their annual site visits, provided technical assistance, and alerted ECSE of any problems during the year. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 111 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 Correction of FFY 2008 Findings of Noncompliance (if State reported less than 100% compliance in its FFY 2008 APR) Level of compliance (actual target data) State reported for FFY 2008 for this indicator: 93% 1. Number of findings of noncompliance the State made during FFY 2008 (the period from July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2009) 8 2. Number of FFY 2008 findings the State verified as timely corrected (corrected within one year from the date of notification to the LEA of the finding) 8 3. Number of FFY 2008 findings not verified as corrected within one year [(1) minus (2)] 0 Correction of FFY 2008 Findings of Noncompliance Not Timely Corrected (corrected more than one year from identification of the noncompliance) 4. Number of FFY 2008 findings not timely corrected (same as the number from (3) above) 0 5. Number of FFY 2008 findings the State has verified as corrected beyond the oneyear timeline (―subsequent correction‖) 0 6. Number of FFY 2008 findings not verified as corrected [(4) minus (5)] 0 The eight PEAs submitted to ECSE the policies and procedures for early intervention transitions that were mutually agreed upon with the AzEIP service coordinators. The ADE/ECSE specialists reviewed the child specific files from the PEAs to determine that the IEPs were developed and implemented, although late, unless the child was no longer within the PEA. The ADE/ESS specialists conducted follow-up on-site visits and/or desk audits and reviewed updated data based on subsequent student files to verify that each PEA was correctly implementing the regulatory requirements (i.e., achieved 100% compliance) in conformity with 34 CFR § 300.124 (b). Actions Taken if Noncompliance Not Corrected All FFY 2008 noncompliance has been corrected, and Arizona has verified correction for all FFY 2008 findings. When findings of noncompliance are made, Arizona works in a collaborative process with school districts and AzEIP to identify the root causes of continuing noncompliance through individual interviews with all agency staff. When noncompliance is not corrected within one year, the ADE/ECSE interrupts 619 funds until full compliance is demonstrated. Verification of Correction (either timely or subsequent) As specified in OSEP’s June 1, 2010 FFY 2008 SPP/APR Response Table, Arizona verified that each PEA with noncompliance reflected in the data: 1) is correctly implementing 34 CFR § 300.124 (b) (i.e., achieved 100% compliance) based on a review of updated data such as data subsequently collected through on-site monitoring; and Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 112 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 2) has developed and implemented the IEP, although late, for any child for whom implementation of the IEP was not timely, unless the child is no longer within the jurisdiction of the LEA, consistent with OSEP Memorandum 09-02, dated October 17, 2008. Specific Actions Taken to Verify the Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified in FFY 2008 The specific methods Arizona used to verify that PEAs corrected all instances of noncompliance, including child-specific noncompliance, and were correctly implementing the regulatory requirements, based on subsequent file reviews of updated data:  The ADE/ECSE specialists reviewed the written process and procedures for the PEAs’ early intervention transitions.  The ADE/ESS specialists and/or ADE/ECSE specialists reviewed student files during subsequent on-site visits and/or desk audits of updated data to determine if the PEAs corrected all instances of noncompliance, including child specific, and to ensure ongoing sustainability with the implementation of the regulatory requirements. Correction of Remaining FFY 2007 Findings of Noncompliance Not applicable. All findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2007 were corrected in a timely manner. 1. Number of remaining FFY 2007 findings noted in OSEP’s June 2010 FFY 2008 APR response table for this indicator 0 2. Number of remaining FFY 2007 findings the State has verified as corrected 0 3. Number of remaining FFY 2007 findings the State has NOT verified as corrected [(1) minus (2)] 0 Verification of Correction of Remaining FFY 2007 Findings Not applicable. Arizona verified correction for all FFY 2007 findings. Specific Actions Taken to Verify the Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified in FFY 2007 Not applicable. Correction of Any Remaining Findings of Noncompliance from FFY 2006 or Earlier Not applicable. Additional Information Required by the OSEP APR Response Table for this Indicator Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 113 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 Not applicable. Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed for FFY 2009 These improvement activities have been completed, discontinued, and/or revised due to consolidation with new improvement activities. Refer to the new and/or revised improvement activities in separate section below. Primary Activity (GOAL) 1) Conduct joint ADE/AzEIP ―Transition 101‖ trainings annually for new Arizona Early Intervention Program for Infants and Toddlers (AzEIP) and PEA staff 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 Timeline Complete Activities completed from 7/1/09 to 6/30/10. Projected 7/1/086/30/11 ADE/ECSE Staff AzEIP Staff PEA Staff 7/1/086/30/11 ADE/ECSE Staff AzEIP Staff 7/1/086/30/11 ADE/ECSE Staff AzEIP Staff 7/1/086/30/11 ADE/ECSE Staff Sessions were held at the Directors Institute in September 2009. This activity completed and revised (refer to new improvement activities). Activities completed from 7/1/09 to 6/30/10. Resources (Planned) The IGA and other training materials are in the production process based on 12/1/09 OSEP FAQ guidance document. This activity completed and revised (refer to new improvement activities). Activities completed from 7/1/09 to 6/30/10. Materials were updated and maintained on Web site and new information related to OSEP FAQ guidance document distributed via 2/26/10 ECE Alert. 2) Implement Alert System between Part C and Part B to examine and resolve systemic issues a) Maintain database to track the number of alerts reported to both ECSE and AzEIP This activity completed and revised (refer to new improvement activities). Activities completed from 7/1/09 to 6/30/10. Database has been maintained by ADE/ECSE and AzEIP to track the alerts. A shared secure site was Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 114 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 developed to allow coordinated tracking efforts between AzEIP and ADE. b) Maintain database to track the number of days for issues to be resolved between AzEIP and PEAs and intervene in a timely manner c) Maintain database to track the reasons an alert was issued and intervene to resolve systemic issues 3) Conduct targeted technical assistance to PEAs found to be noncompliant a) Provide phone and e-mail consultation to PEAs found to be noncompliant b) Review noncompliant PEAs’ policies, procedures, and practices via desk audits and monthly review of data 4) Improve data collection system to ensure reliability and validity of data a) Modify the ESS Annual Special Education Data Collection This activity completed and revised (refer to new improvement activities). Activities completed from 7/1/09 to 6/30/10. 7/1/086/30/11 ADE/ECSE Staff 7/1/086/30/11 ADE/ECSE Staff 7/1/086/30/11 ADE/ECSE Staff 7/1/086/30/11 ADE/ECSE Staff 1/1/103/1/10 ADE/ESS/ ECSE Database tracks days taken to resolve issues within a reasonable time. This activity completed and revised (refer to new improvement activities). Activities completed from 7/1/09 to 6/30/10. Shared database tracks reasons for alerts and intervention by appropriate state office takes place when necessary. This activity completed and revised (refer to new improvement activities). Activities completed from 7/1/09 to 6/30/10. ADE/ECSE staff provided consultations via phone, email, and site visits to provide technical assistance. This activity completed and revised (refer to new improvement activities). Activities completed from 7/1/09 to 6/30/10. ADE/ECSE staff reviewed policies, procedures, and practices through desk audits. This activity completed and revised (refer to new improvement activities). Activities completed from 7/1/09 to 6/30/10. Modification to data collection Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 115 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 completed 4/15/10. 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 Activities completed from 7/1/09 to 6/30/10. 3/1/106/1/10 Annual Data Collection trainings were held between 4/28/10 and 5/14/10. Activities completed from 7/1/09 to 6/30/10. ADE/ESS Data Manageme nt 1/1/106/30/10 AzEIP Staff Modification to IFSP form to indicate date of referral to AzEIP completed 2/1/10. Activities completed from 7/1/09 to 6/30/10. 11/1/093/1/10 ADE/ECSE ECSE process was modified. 2/26/10 ECSE Alert was sent to PEAs indicating changes to process for verification and correction of noncompliance. Activities completed from 7/1/09 to 6/30/10. 1/1/106/30/11 ADE/ECSE AzEIP ECSE Alert sent 2/26/10 indicating changes to data collection, reporting, and verification. This activity completed and discontinued. Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources for FFY 2010 The following are proposed targets for FFY 2011 and FFY 2012 for the revised SPP. FFY Measurable and Rigorous Targets 2011 (2011–2012) 100% 2012 (2012–2013) 100% The following are new and/or revised improvement activities for FFY 2010, and for FFY 2011 and FFY 2012 for the revised SPP to improve compliance with Indicator 12. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 116 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 1) Implement new series of transition trainings regarding 2010 IGA 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 ADE/ECSE Web site a) Post ―I’m Turning 3: What’s Next for Me‖ on ECSE Web site 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 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 2) Post training materials to ADE/ECSE Web site 3) Promote and support ―I’m Turning 3: What’s Next for Me‖ parent trainings Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 117 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 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 in effect for the 2009-2010 school year. 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. Baseline Data for FFY 2009 (using 2009-2010 data) Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 118 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 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 69 Arizona made 87 findings of noncompliance in FFY 2009. Although the PEAs have one year to correct the noncompliance, 69 findings have been corrected as of January 15, 2011. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 119 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 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 requirements 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 revised (see new Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 120 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 related to Indicator 13 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 Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 121 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 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 Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 122 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 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 to June 2010. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 123 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 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 Health and the Office for Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 124 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 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.  181 PEA participants Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 125 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 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 the Mountain Plains Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 126 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 Regional Resource Center.  At the state level, ADE/ESS collaborates with RSA/VR, DDD, Arizona Department of Behavioral Health (ADBH), and the Office for Children with Special Health Care Needs (OCSHCN) monthly through the Arizona Community of Practice for Transition (AZCoPT). In FFY 2009, AZCoPT completed a presentation for use statewide through RSA/VR and ADBH 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 meetings; at least Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 127 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 c) On an annual basis, create and disseminate information through a variety of sources: annual statewide conference, monitoring alerts, Web site and listserv announcements 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 from NSTTAC, IDEA Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 128 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 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 practices 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 Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 129 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 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 Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 130 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 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 Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 131 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 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, to ensure compliance with the secondary transition requirements. Primary Activity (GOAL) Sub-Activities (Objectives or Action Steps) Timeline Complete Projected Resources (Planned) Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 132 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 1) Revise, implement, and 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 a) On an annual basis, identify PEAs in Years 2 and 3 of the monitoring cycle through collaboration with ESS specialists 7/1/106/30/13 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 ADE/ESS Transition 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 Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 133 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 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 response to the changes made to Indicator 14, the ADE/ESS developed a new baseline, new targets, and improvement activities. Additionally, the ADE/ESS implemented a new Post-School Outcomes (PSO) Survey, data collection process, and measurement for designated PEAs to use in the collection of postschool outcome data. All revisions to survey questions and measurement align with guidance and technical assistance provided by the National Post-School Outcomes (NPSO) Center and approved by OSEP. Over the course of the State Performance Plan (SPP), PEAs have been asked to collect and report postschool outcome data during the second year of the six-year monitoring cycle. The monitoring cycle is a representative sample of Arizona’s districts and charter schools, including the geographic and ethnic diversity of the State. Although states were not required to report Indicator 14 in the FFY 2008 APR, ESS elected to collect data to ensure all PEAs were included in the data collection efforts at least once during the FFY 2005-2010 SPP. Post-school outcome data collected during FFY 2008 were reported only to PEAs. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 134 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 In order to participate in the post-school data collection, PEAs gather contact information on exiting students and either input the data into the online PSO data collection system or maintain contact information locally. Exiting students include those who have graduated with a regular diploma, left school early (i.e., dropped out, expelled, status unknown, absence), or aged out of school. The following year, between July and September, PEAs contact the respondents (which could include the youth or their designated family member) to complete a PSO Survey. The PSO data collection system uses a secure application as part of the ADE Common Logon. Updates to the application include 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. This improvement to the data collection system provides increased ability to analyze data, including the ability to evaluate data at a State, PEA, and individual school level, when appropriate. Technical assistance is provided to PEAs with inadequate or unrepresentative data. Definitions The following definitions are utilized by the ADE/ESS in the data collection for Indicator 14: 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. Higher education includes youth who have been enrolled on a full- or part-time basis in a community college, or a college/university for at least one complete term, at any time in the year since leaving high school. 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. 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. Response Rate and Representativeness As shown in Table 14.1, Response Rate Calculation, 2003 youth exited PEAs during the 2008-2009 school year. Interviews were conducted with 1350 youth or their family members. The response rate was 67.4%. Table 14.1 Response Rate Calculation Number of leavers in the cohort 2003 Number of completed surveys 1350 Response rate (1350/2003) 67.4% The ADE/ESS used the Response Calculator (Table 14.2) provided by the NPSO Center to calculate representativeness of the respondent group on the characteristics of disability type, ethnicity, gender, and dropout to determine whether the youth who responded to the interviews were similar to, or different from, the total population of youth in the cohort with an IEP who exited school in 2008-2009. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 135 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 According to the NPSO Response Calculator, differences between the Respondent Group and the Cohort Leaver Group of +/- 3% are important. Negative differences indicate an under representation of the group and positive differences indicate over representation. In Table 14.2, bolded text is used to indicate a difference exceeding the +/- 3% interval. Table 14.2 NPSO Response Calculator Representativeness Cohort Leaver Totals Response Totals Overall LD ED MR AO Female Minority ELL Dropout 2003 1308 214 196 285 683 311 106 454 1350 868 134 133 215 459 186 68 214 65.30% 10.68% 9.79% 14.23% 34.10% 15.53% 5.29% 22.67% 64.30% 9.93% 9.85% 15.93% 34.00% 13.78% 5.04% 15.85% -1.01% -0.76% 0.07% 1.70% -0.10% -1.75% -0.26% -6.81% Cohort Leaver Representation Respondent Representation Difference As displayed in Table 14.2, Arizona was under represented in the category Dropout only and was not over represented in any category. Selection Bias The under representation of youth in the category of Dropout could be attributed to the fact that youth who have dropped out, in general, are difficult to contact. The lack of representation between the respondents and the cohort in the Dropout category will be addressed in the improvement activities. Missing Data Table 14.3 Missing Data Number of leavers in the cohort 2003 Number of leavers for whom outcome information is missing 653 Percentage of leavers for whom outcome information is missing 32.6% Table 14.3 shows that post-school outcome information is missing for 32.6% (n = 653) of former students in the sample. In the current data collection method, PEAs are unable to provide reasons for failure to collect survey information. To address missing information and allow for future trend analysis, an additional improvement activity is proposed to explore modification of the PSO data collection system to capture reasons for failure to collect survey information. An additional improvement activity will target increasing the rate of response for all cohort leaver youth and youth who have dropped out. Baseline Data from FFY 2009 Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 136 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 As shown in Figure 14.1, Arizona PSO Survey FFY 2009 Cohort, 2007-2008 School Year Exiters, 13.8% (n = 186) of Arizona’s respondent leavers from school year 2008-2009 were engaged in higher education; 34.6% (n = 467) were engaged in competitive employment; 12.2% (n = 165) reported being involved in some other postsecondary education or training program; 10% (n = 135) were engaged in some other employment; and 29.4% (n = 397) were considered not engaged. Figure 14.1 Arizona PSO Survey FFY 2009 Cohort 2007-2008 School Year Exiters Segment 1: Enrolled in higher education (186), 13.8% Segment 5: Not engaged (397), 29.4% Segment 2: Competitive employment (467), 34.6% Segment 4: Some other employment (135), 10% Segment 3: Enrolled in other postsecondary education or training (165), 12.2% Figure 14.1 Measurement A 13.8% Equals Segment 1 Measurement B 48.4% Equals Segments 1 + 2 Measurement C 70.6% Equals Segments 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 Discussion of Baseline Data As shown in Figure 14.1, Arizona’s baseline data for the three measures A, B, and C are as follows:    Measurement A = 13.8% of respondent leavers enrolled in higher education within one year of leaving high school; Measurement B = 48.4% of respondent leavers enrolled in higher education or competitively employed within one year of leaving high school; Measurement C = 70.6% of respondent leavers were 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. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 137 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 To understand further the post-school outcomes of youth in Arizona, the NPSO Data Use Toolkit was used to identify two areas requiring further analysis. The first area involved outcomes by ethnicity and the second, outcomes by disability category. As shown in Figure 14.2, Post-School Outcomes for 2008-2009 Exiters by Ethnicity, a large percentage of American Indian or Alaskan Native respondents were categorized as not engaged (41.9%), compared against the overall statewide respondents percentage of non-engaged youth (29.4%). Arizona needs to refine the PSO data collection survey and system to explore collection of additional data about non-engaged youth, as well as conduct root cause analyses at the regional level to better understand what is happening with American Indian or Alaskan Native leavers. Further, Arizona will explore collecting geographic information (i.e., urban, rural, and remote) to better understand if geographic location is affecting engagement rates for students in the state. Figure 14.2 Post-School Outcomes for 2008-2009 School Year Exiters Respondents by Ethnicity 100 80 60 40 20 0 Not engaged Some other employment Statewide Respond. (n=1350) American Indian/ Alaskan Native (n=86) Asian/ Pacific Islander (n=7) Black/ AfricanAmerican (n=93) Hispanic/ Latino (n=409) White (Not Hispanic) (n=755) 29.4 41.9 42.9 23.7 31.1 27.7 10 10.5 28.6 9.7 10.3 9.7 Enrolled in other postsecondary education or training 12.2 10.5 0 12.9 13 12.1 Competitive employment 34.6 27.9 14.3 32.3 33 36.7 Enrolled in higher education 13.8 9.3 14.3 21.5 12.7 13.9 The second area of analysis involves the post-school outcomes survey by disability category. As evidenced in Figure 14.3, Post-School Outcomes for 2008-2009 Exiters by Type of Disability, a large percentage of respondents with emotional disabilities (41.8%) met the definition of not engaged, compared against the statewide respondents’ percentage of non-engaged youth (29.4%). Again, review and revision of the PSO survey and data collection system in Arizona to explore collection of additional data about non-engaged youth would help the State and PEAs better understand what is happening with youth with emotional disabilities who are leaving school. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 138 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 Figure 14.3 Post-School Outcomes for 2008-2009 School Year Exiters Respondents by Type of Disability 100 80 60 40 20 0 Statewide Respondents (1350) All Other Disabilities (215) Emotional Disturbance (134) Mental Retardation (133) Specific Learning Disability (868) 29.4 28.4 41.8 50.4 24.5 10 10.7 7.5 16.5 9.2 Enrolled in other postsecondary education or training 12.2 12.1 6 14.3 12.9 Competitive employment 34.6 28.4 30.6 14.3 39.9 Enrolled in higher education 13.8 20.5 14.2 4.5 13.5 Not engaged Some other employment Based on the baseline post-school outcomes data, Arizona set the following measurable and rigorous targets for measurements A, B, and C. FFY Measurable and Rigorous Targets 2009 (2009–2010) Baseline: A = 13.8%; B = 48.4%; C = 70.6% 2010 (2010–2011) Target: A = 14.05%; B = 48.65%; C = 71.1% 2011 (2011–2012) Target: A = 14.3%; B = 48.9%; C = 71.6% 2012 (2012–2013) Target: A = 14.55%; B = 49.15%; C = 72.1% Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources In examining Arizona’s Indicator 14 baseline data, three areas of improvement were identified. First, although the overall response rate was 67.4%, youth categorized in the Dropout category continue to be under represented in the respondents. Arizona needs to increase the number of youth identified as dropped out who respond to the PSO survey. Next, respondents categorized as American Indian or Alaskan Native, as well as those identified as emotionally disabled, were much more likely to report being non-engaged compared to the overall statewide respondent total. Arizona needs to explore revision of the PSO survey and data collection Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 139 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 system and conduct root cause analyses to understand why these particular groups were less likely to be reported in outcomes considered engaged. Based on these needs, Arizona has identified two updated improvement activities for FFY 2010, and for FFYs 2011 and 2012 for the revised SPP. These activities are described in the section for new improvement activities. 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 during FFY 2008 (Arizona did not report on Indicator 14 in the FFY 2008 APR). Sub-activities #1 (a) and (b) and #2 (a), (b), and (c) were completed and revised. Sub-activities #2 (d) and (e) were discontinued. Revisions to the improvement activities for goal #1 were necessary to include activities related to the changes to Indicator 14 outlined by OSEP in Spring 2009. Additionally, updates/discontinuations to the improvement activities for goal #2 were necessary due to the redesign of the Community Transition Team capacity building grant, which incorporated Indicator 13 and 14 components and became the Secondary Transition Mentoring Project capacity building grant in FFY 2009. Primary Activity (GOAL) 1) Provide targeted technical assistance to PEAs on the Post School Outcomes (PSO) Survey Sub-Activities (Objectives or Action Steps) a) Use existing data to identify training needs to improve data collection statewide b) Use existing data analysis to identify specific technical assistance needed by a specific PEA to improve their data collection of the Post School Outcomes Survey Timeline Complete Activities completed from 1/1/09 to 6/30/09. Projected Resources (Planned) 1/1/0910/1/09 ESS Transition Specialists 1/1/0910/1/09 ESS Transition Specialists ADE Research & Policy Analyst ADE/ESS transition specialists maintained regular communication with the 50 PEAs in the designated cohort group via telephone and e-mail. Technical assistance was provided as needed to facilitate participation in PSO data collection. This activity completed and discontinued. Activities completed from 4/1/09 to 6/30/09. ADE/ESS transition specialists monitored the PSO data collection system during the collection period to determine participation activity by designated PEAs. Designated PEAs that had not yet participated received periodic reminders to complete the PSO data collection requirement. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 140 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 2) Train Community Transition Teams (CTT) to build local capacity to improve post school outcomes through local interagency work a) Use current PSO survey data to target PEAs to receive training b) Provide a grant to complete team-building activities to facilitate interagency work This activity completed and discontinued. Activities completed from 7/1/08 to 6/30/09. 2/1/096/30/09 ESS Transition Specialists 3/1/097/1/09 ESS Leadership ADE Procureme nt A competitive, capacity building Community Transition Team (CTT) grant was offered to PEAs statewide. ESS transition specialists notified PEAs of the opportunity to apply for the CTT grant. This activity completed and revised (refer to new improvement activities). Activities completed from 7/1/08 to 6/30/09. Four PEAs received funding to participate in the Community Transition Team Training (CTT) grant, which included attendance at Arizona’s Ninth Annual Transition Conference and provided four additional days of training spread throughout the year conducted by University of Kansas/Transition Coalition coaches in collaboration with ADE/ESS transition specialists. Instruction and activities focused on identifying community needs and priorities; developing Action Plans; and the creation of sustainable community teams. PEA CTT team membership included school personnel, a parent/student representative, and community stakeholders. Teams were drawn from urban, rural, and secure care educational environments. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 141 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 c) Develop teamspecific action plans to address priorities identified through a transition needs assessment d) Use current PSO data analysis to identify technical assistance needed to increase data collection e) Use PSO data collected after participation in the CTT to show improved post school outcomes This activity completed and revised (refer to new improvement activities). Activities completed from 7/1/08 to 6/30/09. 2/1/096/30/10 All PEA Community Transition Teams (CTTs) created action plans specific to their community and based on identified needs and priorities. Review of Action Plans by University of Kansas/Transition Coalition coaches and ADE/ESS personnel indicated a 100% completion rate on activities identified in CTT team action plans. Review of CTT training evaluation form comments indicated PEAs participating in the CTT grant felt more prepared to plan and implement transition services that will lead to improved post school outcomes. This activity completed and revised (refer to new improvement activities). This activity discontinued. This activity discontinued. ESS Transition Specialists University of Kansas/ Transition Coalition 9/30/1012/31/10 3/1/116/30/11 ESS Transition Specialists MPRRC ESS Transition Specialists 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 revised Indicator 14 requirements. (Arizona did not report on Indicator 14 in the FFY 2008 APR.) Revisions to the improvement activities were necessary in order to include activities related to the changes to Indicator 14. An additional goal and activities were developed to reflect the redesign of the Community Transition Team capacity building grant, which incorporated Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 142 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 Indicators 13 and 14 components and became the Secondary Transition Mentoring Project capacity building grant in FFY 2009. 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 Projected Resources (Planned) Activities completed from 7/1/09 to 6/30/10. 7/1/096/30/10 Revision of the PSO Survey Application was completed June 2010, and utilized guidance from OSEP and NPSO received during the 2010 Secondary Transition State Planning Institute, as well as in follow-up webinars and materials provided by NPSO. Activities completed from 7/1/09 to 6/30/10. ADE/ESS Transition Specialists ADE/ IT Specialists ADE/R & E Analysts 7/1/096/30/10 ADE/ESS Transition Specialists  PEAs in the FFY 2009 PSO Survey participation cohort were identified and targeted for training.  Four trainings on Indicator 14 and the revised PSO Survey Application were provided at the annual ADE/ESS Directors Institute in August 2009 for approximately 181 participants. Review of training evaluations indicated significant increases on self-rating measures of knowledge pre- and post-training experiences. Using a scale of 1 to 5 (1 = low and 5 = high), participants reported an average growth of 0.9 points.  Two trainings on Indicator 14 and the proposed revisions to the PSO Survey Application were provided at the ADE/ESS Statewide Transition Conference in September 2009 for approximately Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 143 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 176 participants. An analysis of training evaluations was completed and results indicated a significant increase in pre-training knowledge compared to post-training knowledge as reported by session participants. Using a scale of 1 to 5 (1 = low and 5 = high), participants reported an average growth of 1.1 points.  Indicator 14 and PSO Survey Application technical assistance documents created by NPSO and ADE/ESS were made available on the ADE/ESS secondary transition Web site in June 2010. The Web address is http://www.azed.gov/ess/s pecialprojects/transition/. c) Analyze PSO training evaluations and survey results to determine effectiveness of trainings  Three webinar trainings on Indicator 14 and the revised PSO Survey Application were made available to the FFY 2009 participation cohort and all other PEAs in June 2010. Activities completed from 7/1/09 through 6/30/10. 7/1/096/30/10 ADE/ESS Transition Specialists  Review and analysis of webinar PSO participant evaluations were completed following each training and at the conclusion of FFY 2009. Participant evaluation forms showed significant increases on self-rating measures of knowledge at different times during the training experiences. Using a scale of 1 to 5 (1 = low and 5 = high), 33% of participants rated their entry level knowledge as Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 144 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 a 4 or 5, compared to 80% of participants at exit from the trainings. Additionally, 20% of participants indicated ―low‖ entry level knowledge, compared with 0% of participant’s post-webinar trainings. d) Create PSO data reports for participating PEAs to use as a measure for analyzing and improving transition practices 2) Develop, implement and sustain local community transition teams during Year 2 of the STMP capacity building team training grant a) Provide training to STMP teams on evidence-based practices in developing local community transition teams  Questions generated during webinars/trainings were retained for use in the creation of an FAQ document in FFY 2010. Activities completed 6/30/10. 7/1/096/30/10 PSO data reports for the State-level data developed using the NPSO Data Display Template in June 2010. PEA PSO data reports using the same template will be developed in FFY 2010. Activities completed from 7/1/09 to 6/30/10. ADE/ESS Transition Specialists ADE/IT Specialists ADE/R & E Analysts 7/1/096/30/10 ESS Transition Specialists  ADE/ESS, in collaboration with STMP grant coaches from the University of Kansas/Transition Coalition, created instructional materials designed to facilitate the development of local Community Transition Teams (CTTs) for 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 Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 145 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 post-school outcome data. Training materials were created in September 2009 and revised ongoing. An overview of CTTs was provided during the Spring 2010 STMP training. CTT in-depth training and activities will be implemented during FFY 2010.  FFY 2009 was the first year of the revised STMP grant and there was no Year 2 cohort. However, the final year of the CTT grant (which was phased out to create the STMP grant) included four trainings for the Year 2 CTT cohort. The CTT grant activities are described above. 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 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 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 Timeline Complete Projected 7/1/106/30/13 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 Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 146 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 Analysts 2) Develop, implement, and sustain local community transition teams during Year 2 of the STMP capacity building team training grant 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 ESS Transition Specialists 7/1/106/30/13 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 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 STMP Grant Year 2 PEAs ADE/ESS Transition Specialists 4) Work with the National PostSchool Outcomes (NPSO) Technical Assistance Center as an 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 Transition Specialists NPSO Technical Assistance Center 7/1/108/31/10 Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 147 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 ―Intensive State‖ 5) Revise Arizona’s online PSO data collection system to include missing data and enable future trend analysis 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 b) Revise PSO online data collection system to allow for the exploration of additional data related to nonengaged youth 7/1/106/30/13 5/1/116/30/13 7/1/106/30/13 ADE/ESS Transition Specialists NPSO Technical Assistance Center ADE/ESS Transition Specialists NPSO Technical Assistance Center ADE/ESS Transition Specialists ADE IT Specialists ADE/ESS Transition Specialists ADE IT Specialists Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 148 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 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. States are required to use the ―Indicator 15 Worksheet‖ to report data for this indicator. Target Data for FFY 2009 FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target FFY 2009 100% Actual Target Data for FFY 2009 95% Arizona did not meet the target. Process to Select PEAs for Monitoring The ADE/ESS conducts compliance monitoring for IDEA procedural requirements on a six-year cycle. The data for FFY 2009 included the PEAs in year 5 of the cycle; that is; those PEAs that were on a Corrective Action Plan to correct findings of noncompliance identified at an on-site review during FFY 2008. The PEAs monitored each year represent a regional balance across the State. The monitoring cycle year has a mix of elementary, unified, and union high school districts, charter schools, and other public agencies such as secure care, accommodation districts, or state institutions. Explanation of Progress that Occurred for FFY 2009 Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 149 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 The progress that was made from FFY 2008 to FFY 2009 (5.8%) can be attributed to a number of factors. The ADE/ESS continued to expand staff development for ESS program specialists to increase understanding of the validity of compliance calls. ESS mandates attendance by the specialists at a threeday summer monitoring training. Follow-up meetings and workshops are scheduled throughout the school year. This staff development is planned and presented by the Monitoring Team, a group composed of the monitoring director and veteran specialists. The ADE/ESS mentoring program is another type of staff development for new ESS program specialists. Mentors are members of the Monitoring Team. New specialists shadow the mentor on monitorings, CAP follow-up visits, all technical assistance visits, and many meetings with PEAs. The specialists and mentors also communicate about issues that may arise from regular interactions with the assigned PEA staff. The mentoring is maintained for up to one year. Another contributing factor is the ongoing involvement by the monitoring director with the Corrective Action Plans (CAPs) from the monitorings. The director reviews the CAPs on a weekly basis to check each PEA’s progress and scheduled follow-up visits and desk audits by the specialist. The director communicates with the assigned specialist for detailed updates if the CAP closeout is not progressing at a reasonable pace. Additionally, the monitoring director sends a monthly CAP Progression Report to the specialists and ESS directors that identifies timelines toward the one-year closeout for each open monitoring. This alerts specialists to the remaining days for one-year closeouts. The director asks specialists to respond if difficulties exist that may impede timely closeout. Strategies are then identified to assist the PEAs to close out the monitoring within the one-year timeline. The Monitoring Team played a crucial role in making progress with this Indicator. This established group, guided by the monitoring director, is a team of experienced ESS specialists that met monthly to evaluate the monitoring process and system. The members consulted with Mountain Plains Regional Resource Center (MPRRC) and the Data Accountability Center (DAC) for guidance to revise and improve the ADE/ESS monitoring system. In addition, the Monitoring Team members carried out their regular duties throughout the year. They reviewed and revised the monitoring manual, including forms and guide steps (an annual project); designed continuing support for program specialists; and, designed resources and support for PEA administrators, evaluators, and teachers. Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed for FFY 2009 Monitoring Improvement Activities Primary Activity (GOAL) 1) Revise ADE/ESS monitoring process and system Sub-Activities (Objectives or Action Steps) a) ADE/ESS Monitoring Team will revise monitoring process and system b) Field test revised monitoring system c) Revise monitoring system based on results from field test Timeline Complete Projected Activities completed as of 7/24/09. 5/1/08 – 12/31/09 Activities completed during school 20092010. Activities completed by 6/30/10. 1/1/10 – 6/30/10 7/1/10 – 9/30/10 Resources (Planned) ADE/ESS Monitoring Team MPRRC DAC ADE/ESS Monitoring Team ADE/ESS Monitoring Team Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 150 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 The ADE/ESS monitoring team revised the monitoring system based on field test. d) Implementation of fully revised system and process e) Collect and analyze data from revised monitoring system MPRRC DAC 10/1/10 10/1/10 – 6/30/11 ADE/ESS Monitoring Team ADE/ESS Monitoring Team Dispute Resolution Improvement Activities Primary Activity (GOAL) 1) Update procedures within the Dispute Resolution Unit to ensure noncompliance is continually corrected and verified within the one-year timeline Sub-Activities (Objectives or Action Steps) 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 Timeline Complete Projected Activities completed as of 7/1/08. Resources (Planned) ADE/ESS Director of Dispute Resolution The director updated the written procedures for the Dispute Resolution Unit. Activities completed from 8/1/08 to 6/30/09. 8/1/08 – 6/30/09 ESS Dispute Resolution Director worked with the Corrective Action Compliance Monitor (CACM) to ensure that correction of noncompliance was completed within the one-year timeline. Verification was done by CACM. Activities completed from 7/1/09 to 6/30/10. ADE/ESS Director of Dispute Resolution 7/1/09 – 6/30/10 ADE/ESS Director of Dispute Resolution The director of Dispute Resolution and the CACM analyzed system information and determined that the updated written procedures are ensuring that noncompliance identified in state administrative complaints and due process findings is corrected and verified Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 151 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 within the one-year timeline. Timely Correction of FFY 2008 Findings of Noncompliance (corrected within one year from identification of the noncompliance) 1. Number of findings of noncompliance the State made during FFY 2008 (the period from July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2009) (Sum of Column a on the Indicator B15 Worksheet) 13888 2. Number of findings the State verified as timely corrected (corrected within one year from the date of notification to the LEA of the finding) (Sum of Column b on the Indicator B15 Worksheet) 13162 3. Number of findings not verified as corrected within one year [(1) minus (2)] 726 FFY 2008 Findings of Noncompliance Not Timely Corrected (corrected more than one year from identification of the noncompliance and/or Not Corrected) 4. Number of FFY 2008 findings not timely corrected (same as the number from (3) above) 726 5. Number of FFY 2008 findings the State has verified as corrected beyond the one-year timeline (―subsequent correction‖) 726 6. Number of FFY 2008 findings not yet verified as corrected [(4) minus (5)] 0 Actions Taken if Noncompliance Not Corrected If findings of noncompliance are made, Arizona works in a collaborative process with the PEAs as the agencies identify the root causes of continuing noncompliance through drill downs in specific focus areas. When noncompliance is not corrected within one year, the ADE/ESS uses a variety of methods to ensure that all public agencies meet the requirements of State and federal statutes related to special education. The progressive enforcement actions taken by ESS for the PEAs that are unable to demonstrate compliance within one year from the date of written notification are as follows:  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.  Assignment of a special monitor.  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. Although these enforcement actions are in place, the ESS monitoring system is designed to work with the PEAs to correct the findings of noncompliance as soon as possible but no later than one year. ESS directors and specialists meet periodically throughout the year to discuss and better understand the Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 152 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 PEAs’ data pertaining to the APR indicators, student population, and other data elements. This information is used to make decisions about the type of monitoring and need for technical assistance for each PEA. The ESS specialists use the same data during their on-site visits to the education agencies to address concerns and offer resources. Another form of technical assistance offered by ESS is the annual site visits by the ESS specialists. These are designed to assist PEAs with understanding the requirements for Indicators 11, 12, and 13. Information from these visits is logged in a spreadsheet to track need for follow-up in all three areas. The ESS transition specialists also use the Indicator 13 data to target their trainings and grants. The monitoring director, facilitator, and Monitoring Team develop the monitoring manual and train the specialists throughout the year to ensure interrater reliability for compliance calls according to regulatory requirements. The ADE/ESS staff conducts on-site and regional trainings for the PEAs to enhance understanding of compliance and the monitoring process. A major component of this is the Corrective Action Plan follow-up, which includes a strict schedule after an on-site monitoring to ensure timely correction of noncompliance. The Early Childhood Special Education specialists also offer targeted technical assistance to districts that are not in compliance through individual trainings, monthly audits, and consultations. In addition, ESS specialists review files of preschool students during their annual site visits to provide assistance and resources when needed. Verification of Correction for All Findings of Noncompliance Reported in the FFY 2009 APR (either timely or subsequent) As specified in OSEP’s June 1, 2010 FFY 2008 SPP/APR Response Table, Arizona verified that each PEA with findings of noncompliance: 1) is correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirements (i.e., achieved 100% compliance) based on a review of updated data such as data subsequently collected through on-site monitoring; and 2) has corrected each individual case of noncompliance, unless the child is no longer within the jurisdiction of the PEA, consistent with OSEP Memorandum 09-02, dated October 17, 2008. Specific Actions Taken to Verify the Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified in FFY 2008 (including any revisions to general supervision procedures, technical assistance provided, and/or any enforcement actions taken) Specific Actions for Correction of FFY 2008 Findings of Noncompliance for Indicator 11 Level of compliance (actual target data) State reported for FFY 2008 for this indicator: 92% 1. Number of findings of noncompliance the State made during FFY 2008 (the period from July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2009) 59 2. Number of FFY 2008 findings the State verified as timely corrected (corrected within one year from the date of notification to the LEA of the finding) 59 3. Number of FFY 2008 findings not verified as corrected within one year [(1) minus (2)] 0 Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 153 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 Correction of FFY 2008 Findings of Noncompliance Not Timely Corrected (corrected more than one year from identification of the noncompliance) 4. Number of FFY 2008 findings not timely corrected (same as the number from (3) above) 0 5. Number of FFY 2008 findings the State has verified as corrected beyond the oneyear timeline (―subsequent correction‖) 0 6. Number of FFY 2008 findings not verified as corrected [(4) minus (5)] 0 The ADE/ESS specialists reviewed the child specific files from the monitorings to determine that the PEAs completed the evaluation for any child whose initial evaluation was not timely, unless the child was no longer within the PEA’s jurisdiction. The ESS specialists reviewed updated data from subsequent files during follow-up visits to determine that the PEAs were correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirements (i.e., achieved 100% compliance) related to the evaluation process in conformity with 34 CFR § 300.301 (c) (1). There were no revisions to general supervision procedures, technical assistance, or enforcement actions. Specific Actions for Correction of FFY 2008 Findings of Noncompliance for Indicator 12 Level of compliance (actual target data) State reported for FFY 2008 for this indicator: 93% 1. Number of findings of noncompliance the State made during FFY 2008 (the period from July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2009) 8 2. Number of FFY 2008 findings the State verified as timely corrected (corrected within one year from the date of notification to the LEA of the finding) 8 3. Number of FFY 2008 findings not verified as corrected within one year [(1) minus (2)] 0 Correction of FFY 2008 Findings of Noncompliance Not Timely Corrected (corrected more than one year from identification of the noncompliance) 4. Number of FFY 2008 findings not timely corrected (same as the number from (3) above) 0 5. Number of FFY 2008 findings the State has verified as corrected beyond the oneyear timeline (―subsequent correction‖) 0 6. Number of FFY 2008 findings not verified as corrected [(4) minus (5)] 0 The eight PEAs submitted to ECSE the policies and procedures for early intervention transitions that were mutually agreed upon with the AzEIP service coordinators. The ADE/ECSE specialists reviewed the child specific files from the PEAs to determine that the IEPs were developed and implemented, although late, unless the child was no longer within the PEA’s jurisdiction. The ADE/ESS specialists conducted follow- Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 154 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 up on-site visits and/or desk audits and reviewed updated data based on subsequent student files to verify that each PEA was correctly implementing the regulatory requirements (i.e., achieved 100% compliance) in conformity with 34 CFR § 300.124 (b). There were no revisions to general supervision procedures, technical assistance, or enforcement actions. Specific Actions for Indicator 13 Findings of Noncompliance in FFY 2008 Note: The Indicator 13 findings of noncompliance in FFY 2008 were not reported in the FFY 2008 APR. # of PEAs issued findings 44 # of findings of noncompliance # of findings of noncompliance corrected within one year 927 884 # of findings of noncompliance corrected beyond one year 1 finding corrected within 13 months 24 findings corrected within 15 months 18 findings corrected within 20 months Correction of FFY 2008 Findings of Noncompliance Related to Indicator 13 1. Number of FFY 2008 findings of noncompliance identified in Indicator 13 High School Transition 927 2. Number of remaining FFY 2008 findings of noncompliance identified in Indicator 13 High School Transition the State has verified as corrected 927 3. Number of remaining FFY 2008 findings of noncompliance identified in Indicator 13 High School Transition the State has NOT verified as corrected [(1) minus (2)] 0 All findings of noncompliance from FFY 2008 related to Indicator 13 have been corrected and verified as reported above. The ADE/ESS specialists reviewed the child specific files from the monitorings to determine that the PEAs developed and implemented IEPs that included the secondary transition regulatory requirements for any child aged 16 and above, unless the child was no longer within the PEA’s jurisdiction. The ESS specialists reviewed updated data from subsequent files during follow-up visits to determine that the PEAs were correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirements (i.e., achieved 100% compliance) related to secondary transition in conformity with IDEA requirements. There were no revisions to general supervision procedures, technical assistance, or enforcement actions. Specific Actions for Additional Related Requirements Identified Through the Monitoring System (Indicators 4, 9, 10, 11, and 13) The specific methods Arizona used to verify that PEAs corrected all instances of noncompliance identified in FFY 2008, including child-specific noncompliance, and were correctly implementing the regulatory requirements, based on subsequent file reviews of updated data were as follows. There were no revisions to general supervision procedures, technical assistance, or enforcement actions. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 155 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009  ADE/ESS specialists reviewed subsequent student files during follow-up on-site visits and/or desk audits to verify correction of all instances of noncompliance, including child specific, and to ensure that regulatory requirements were being implemented.  ADE/ESS specialists again reviewed the student files to determine if the PEAs corrected all instances of noncompliance, including child specific, and are adhering to the regulatory requirements.  ADE/ESS specialists reviewed updated data from subsequent files and conducted interviews with the special education administrators during follow-up visits and/or desk audits to determine if all instances of noncompliance, including child specific, were corrected and to ensure ongoing sustainability with the implementation of the regulatory requirements.  ADE/ESS specialists reviewed the drill down analyses completed by the PEAs in targeted areas of both compliance and results SPP/APR Indicators to determine if the PEA had conducted a genuine and thorough examination of root causes. The analysis resulted in an action plan to address systemic issues and to ensure sustainability of compliance. Specific Actions for Dispute Resolution (Indicators 16, 17, 18, and 19) The specific methods Arizona used to verify that PEAs corrected all instances of noncompliance identified in FFY 2008, including child-specific noncompliance, and were correctly implementing the regulatory requirements were as follows. The review of data did not identify systemic noncompliance; therefore, the correction was at the student level. There were no revisions to general supervision procedures, technical assistance, or enforcement actions.  The Corrective Action Compliance Monitor (CACM) maintained a database of all corrective actions and tracked timelines to ensure timely correction of noncompliance.  As direct follow-up to a child specific finding of noncompliance, the CACM reviewed the student file via desk audits to verify correction of all instances of noncompliance, including child specific, and to ensure that regulatory requirements were being implemented.  The CACM reviewed the corrective action plan documentation via desk audit to ensure that all instances of noncompliance were corrected. The corrective action plan documentation may include such actions as a written action plan, professional development, and/or a letter of assurance. Each PEA submitted all documentation evidencing that the noncompliance was corrected.  The CACM approved all corrective action plan documentation via desk audit to verify that the PEAs corrected all instances of noncompliance, including child specific, and were adhering to the regulatory requirements. Specific Actions for Additional Related Requirements for Early Childhood Transitions (Indicator 12) The specific methods Arizona used to verify that PEAs corrected all instances of noncompliance identified in FFY 2008, including child-specific noncompliance, and were correctly implementing the regulatory requirements, based on subsequent file reviews of updated data were as follows. There were no revisions to general supervision procedures, technical assistance, or enforcement actions. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 156 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009  The ADE/ECSE specialists reviewed the written process and procedures for the PEAs’ early intervention transitions.  The ADE/ESS specialists and/or ADE/ECSE specialists reviewed student files during subsequent on-site visits and/or desk audits of updated data to determine if the PEAs corrected all instances of noncompliance, including child specific, and to ensure ongoing sustainability with the implementation of the regulatory requirements. Specific Actions for Other Related Requirements pertaining to Graduation, Dropout, Assessment, School Age and Preschool LRE, Preschool Outcomes, Parent Involvement, and Post School Outcomes (Indicators 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 14) The specific methods Arizona used to verify that PEAs corrected all instances of noncompliance identified in FFY 2008, including child-specific noncompliance, and were correctly implementing the regulatory requirements, based on subsequent file reviews of updated data were as follows. There were no revisions to general supervision procedures, technical assistance, or enforcement actions.  ADE/ESS specialists reviewed subsequent student files during follow-up on-site visits and/or desk audits to verify correction of all instances of noncompliance, including child specific, and to ensure that regulatory requirements were being implemented.  ADE/ESS specialists again reviewed the student files to determine if the PEAs corrected all instances of noncompliance, including child specific, and are adhering to the regulatory requirements.  ADE/ESS specialists reviewed updated data from subsequent files and conducted interviews with the special education administrators during follow-up visits and/or desk audits to determine if all instances of noncompliance, including child specific, were corrected and to ensure ongoing sustainability with the implementation of the regulatory requirements.  ADE/ESS specialists reviewed the drill down analyses completed by the PEAs in targeted areas of both compliance and results SPP/APR Indicators to determine if the PEA had conducted a genuine and thorough examination of root causes. The analysis resulted in an action plan to address systemic issues and to ensure sustainability of compliance. Correction of Remaining FFY 2007 Findings of Noncompliance Not applicable. Although Arizona reported < 100% for this Indicator in the FFY 2008 APR, all remaining FFY 2007 findings were subsequently corrected. 1. Number of remaining FFY 2007 findings noted in OSEP’s June 2010 FFY 2008 APR response table for this indicator 0 2. Number of remaining FFY 2007 findings the State has verified as corrected 0 3. Number of remaining FFY 2007 findings the State has NOT verified as corrected [(1) minus (2)] 0 Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 157 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 Correction of Any Remaining Findings of Noncompliance from FFY 2006 or Earlier Not applicable. Additional Information Required by the OSEP APR Response Table for this Indicator State’s Response Statement from the Response Table In responding to Indicators 11 and 12, in the FFY 2009 APR, the State must report on correction of the noncompliance described in this table under those indicators. In the FFY 2009 APR, Arizona reports on the correction of noncompliance for Indicator 11 within the Indicator 11 section and within Indicator 15, and reports on the correction of noncompliance for Indicator 12 within the Indicator 12 section and within Indicator 15. In addition, in reporting on Indicator 15 in the FFY 2009 APR, the State must use the Indicator 15 Worksheet. In the FFY 2009 APR, Arizona uses the Indicator 15 Worksheet to report on Indicator 15. Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources for FFY 2010 The following are proposed targets for FFY 2011 and FFY 2012 for the revised SPP. FFY Measurable and Rigorous Targets 2011 (2011–2012) 100% 2012 (2012–2013) 100% The following are new improvement activities for FFY 2010, and for FFY 2011 and FFY 2012 for the revised SPP to improve compliance. Primary Activity (GOAL) 1) Develop and conduct webinars pertaining to the requirements for compliant evaluations and 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 Superintend ent, Directors, Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 158 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 IEPs 2) Improve the general supervision system of PEAs by enhancing internal staff development 3) Conduct Dispute Resolution presentations for PEAs and parent and Specialists 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 a) Review and revise presentation, support materials, and resources 7/1/116/30/13 7/1/106/30/13 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 ADE/ESS Dispute Resolution Director and Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 159 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 groups b) Conduct statewide presentations at various regional and statewide venues 7/1/116/30/13 Dispute Resolution Coordinator ADE/ESS Dispute Resolution Director and Complaint Investigator Required Actions / Next Steps Required by OSEP’s Arizona Part B 2009 Verification Visit Letter I. General Supervision / Critical Element 2: Correction of Noncompliance Following the FFY 2008 Part B OSEP verification visit and the clarification provided related to the verification of correction, the ADE took the following steps:  The ADE/ESS revised its guidance and practices regarding the correction of all noncompliance that was less than 100%. The ESS Monitoring Team revised the monitoring manual, which details the guidance and practices related to the need for subsequent file reviews for all identified noncompliance. The ESS program specialists were informed of the revised guidance and practices. The specialists were informed of the requirement that they 1) verify the correction of all noncompliance, including the noncompliance that was less than 100%; and 2) review updated data in subsequent files to ensure the sustainability of the implementation of specific regulatory requirements.  The ADE/ESS presented the information related to the revised guidance and practices in October 2010 at ―Talk with ADE,‖ a statewide meeting open to all PEA staff, parents, and the community. The same information was presented to the Special Education Advisory Panel (SEAP) in December 2010.  The ADE/ESS specialists verified correction of all noncompliance (all items less than 100% compliant) related to the implementation of specific regulatory requirements by reviewing updated data in subsequent files collected through on-site visits and/or desk audits to ensure that the PEA achieved 100% compliance.  The ADE/ESS specialists verified the correction of each individual case of noncompliance by reviewing a reasonable sample of the previously noncompliant files to ensure that the PEA achieved 100% compliance. A reasonable sample is established as a set of files that is fully representative of the original finding with sufficient numbers to ensure confidence that the PEA is implementing the specific regulatory requirement. I. General Supervision / Critical Element 3: Dispute Resolution Following Arizona’s November 2009 verification visit, OSEP required the State to submit data and information demonstrating the implementation of an appropriate resolution process, including the State’s monitoring of PEA’s compliance with the timely resolution meeting requirement under 34 CFR § 300.510. Arizona has taken the following measures to monitor PEA compliance with the timely resolution meeting requirement:  The director of Dispute Resolution developed a comprehensive Power Point presentation on resolution session requirements, including, among other things, the 15-day timeline requirement. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 160 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 The director of Dispute Resolution presented the information at statewide and regional trainings to PEAs and parents, and posted the presentation on the ADE/ESS Web site.  The director of Dispute Resolution and the Dispute Resolution coordinator developed a resolution session tracking form, which also includes an informational document outlining the federal requirements relating to resolution sessions. This form is sent to the PEA along with the Notice of Hearing following the filing of a due process complaint. The PEAs are required to complete the form, which includes information about the date and outcome of each resolution session held, and then provide it to the Administrative Law Judge assigned to the due process matter and the ADE/ESS director of Dispute Resolution. Data collected from the resolution session tracking form is then entered into the ADE/ESS Dispute Resolution due process hearing spreadsheet in order to facilitate accurate tracking of the 45-day due process hearing timeline for both the assigned Administrative Law Judge and director of Dispute Resolution. The resolution session tracking form must be signed by a representative of the PEA and, when the PEA and the parent agree to either waive the resolution session requirement or agree that no agreement is possible, by the parent as well.  The director of Dispute Resolution and the Dispute Resolution coordinator added an additional column to the ADE/ESS Dispute Resolution due process hearing spreadsheet so that resolution session timelines can be tracked using the information provided by PEAs on the resolution session tracking form.  Since the ADE/ESS began utilizing the resolution session tracking form and providing training on the resolution session requirements, compliance with the 15-day timeline has increased substantially. Resolution session tracking forms have been completed and timely submitted by the PEAs in all due process matters. When noncompliance with the 15-day timeline is reported in the tracking form, the director of Dispute Resolution issues a written finding of noncompliance, orders corrective action, and serves as the monitor for compliance with the corrective action order. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 161 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 INDICATOR 15 WORKSHEET NOTE: Arizona’s Indicator 15 Worksheet lists large numbers in the ―Findings‖ columns because every student file reviewed can generate multiple findings of noncompliance associated with the related requirements. Indicator/Indicator Clusters 1. Percent of youth with IEPs graduating from high school with a regular diploma. 2. Percent of youth with IEPs dropping out of high school. 14. Percent of youth who had General Supervision System Components Monitoring Activities: SelfAssessment/ Local APR, Data Review, Desk Audit, On-Site Visits, or Other # of PEAs Issued Findings in FFY 2008 (7/1/08 to 6/30/09) (a) # of Findings (individual student files) of noncompliance identified in FFY 2008 (7/1/08 to 6/30/09) Monitoring System: 90 Monitoring System: 1686 (b) # of Findings (individual student files) of noncompliance from (a) for which correction was verified no later than one year from identification Monitoring System: 1608 # of Findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2008 (7/1/08 to 6/30/09) for which correction was verified later than one year from identification. 2 corrected and verified within 13 months from identification 8 corrected and verified within 15 months from identification 24 corrected and verified within 20 months from identification 44 corrected and verified within 23 months from identification Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 162 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 Indicator/Indicator Clusters IEPs, are no longer in secondary school and who have been competitively employed, enrolled in some type of postsecondary school, or both, within one year of leaving high school. The findings of noncompliance involve large numbers because Arizona’s monitoring system generates findings associated with the related requirements. For example, 5 individual line items from the monitoring system comprise all the related requirements pertaining to these three Indicators. 3. Participation and performance of children with disabilities on statewide assessments. 7. Percent of preschool children with IEPs who demonstrated improved # of PEAs Issued Findings in FFY 2008 (7/1/08 to 6/30/09) (a) # of Findings (individual student files) of noncompliance identified in FFY 2008 (7/1/08 to 6/30/09) Dispute Resolution: Complaints, Hearings Complaints: 44 Complaints: 51 (b) # of Findings (individual student files) of noncompliance from (a) for which correction was verified no later than one year from identification Complaints: 51 Due process: 0 Due process: 0 Due process: 0 Monitoring Activities: SelfAssessment/ Local APR, Data Review, Desk Audit, On-Site Visits, or Other Monitoring System: 94 Monitoring System: 2266 Monitoring System: 2124 General Supervision System Components # of Findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2008 (7/1/08 to 6/30/09) for which correction was verified later than one year from identification. 13 corrected and verified within 13 months from identification 28 corrected and verified within 15 months from identification 28 corrected and verified within 20 months from identification 73 corrected and verified within 23 months from identification Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 163 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 Indicator/Indicator Clusters outcomes. The findings of noncompliance involve large numbers because Arizona’s monitoring system generates findings associated with the related requirements. For example, 7 individual line items from the monitoring system comprise all the related requirements pertaining to these two Indicators. 4A. Percent of districts identified as having a significant discrepancy in the rates of suspensions and expulsions of children with disabilities for greater than 10 days in a school year. # of PEAs Issued Findings in FFY 2008 (7/1/08 to 6/30/09) (a) # of Findings (individual student files) of noncompliance identified in FFY 2008 (7/1/08 to 6/30/09) Dispute Resolution: Complaints, Hearings Complaints: 3 Complaints: 3 (b) # of Findings (individual student files) of noncompliance from (a) for which correction was verified no later than one year from identification Complaints: 3 Due Process: 0 Due Process: 0 Due Process: 0 Monitoring Activities: SelfAssessment/ Local APR, Data Review, Desk Audit, On-Site Visits, or Other Monitoring System: 15 Monitoring System: 43 Monitoring System: 43 APR: 0 APR: 0 APR: 0 General Supervision System Components # of Findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2008 (7/1/08 to 6/30/09) for which correction was verified later than one year from identification. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 164 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 Indicator/Indicator Clusters 4B. 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. General Supervision System Components Dispute Resolution: Complaints, Hearings # of PEAs Issued Findings in FFY 2008 (7/1/08 to 6/30/09) (a) # of Findings (individual student files) of noncompliance identified in FFY 2008 (7/1/08 to 6/30/09) Complaints: 3 Complaints: 3 (b) # of Findings (individual student files) of noncompliance from (a) for which correction was verified no later than one year from identification Complaints: 3 Due Process: 0 Due Process: 0 Due Process: 0 # of Findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2008 (7/1/08 to 6/30/09) for which correction was verified later than one year from identification. The findings of noncompliance involve large numbers because Arizona’s monitoring system generates findings associated with the related requirements. For example, 6 individual line items from the monitoring system comprise all the related requirements pertaining to discipline. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 165 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 Indicator/Indicator Clusters 5. Percent of children with IEPs aged 6 through 21 educational placements. 6. Percent of preschool children aged 3 through 5 – early childhood placement. The findings of noncompliance involve large numbers because Arizona’s monitoring system generates findings associated with the related requirements. For example, 19 individual line items from the monitoring system comprise all the related requirements pertaining to least restrictive environments for all children. 8. 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. # of PEAs Issued Findings in FFY 2008 (7/1/08 to 6/30/09) (a) # of Findings (individual student files) of noncompliance identified in FFY 2008 (7/1/08 to 6/30/09) Monitoring Activities: SelfAssessment/ Local APR, Data Review, Desk Audit, On-Site Visits, or Other Dispute Resolution: Complaints, Hearings Monitoring System: 97 Monitoring System: 2988 Monitoring Activities: SelfAssessment/ Local APR, Data Review, Desk Audit, On-Site Visits, or Other General Supervision System Components (b) # of Findings (individual student files) of noncompliance from (a) for which correction was verified no later than one year from identification Monitoring System: 2802 # of Findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2008 (7/1/08 to 6/30/09) for which correction was verified later than one year from identification. 19 corrected and verified within 13 months from identification 16 corrected and verified within 15 months from identification 49 corrected and verified within 20 months from identification 102 corrected and verified within 23 months from identification Complaints: 16 Complaints: 18 Complaints: 18 Due Process: 0 Due Process: 0 Due Process: 0 Monitoring System: 95 Monitoring System: 3777 Monitoring System: 3616 7 corrected and verified within 13 months from identification 9 corrected and verified within 15 months from identification 12 corrected and verified within 20 months from identification 133 corrected and verified within 23 months from identification Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 166 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 Indicator/Indicator Clusters The findings of noncompliance involve large numbers because Arizona’s monitoring system generates findings associated with the related requirements. For example, 15 individual line items from the monitoring system comprise all the related requirements pertaining to parent involvement. General Supervision System Components Dispute Resolution: Complaints, Hearings # of PEAs Issued Findings in FFY 2008 (7/1/08 to 6/30/09) (a) # of Findings (individual student files) of noncompliance identified in FFY 2008 (7/1/08 to 6/30/09) Complaints: 13 Complaints: 15 (b) # of Findings (individual student files) of noncompliance from (a) for which correction was verified no later than one year from identification Complaints: 15 Due Process: 0 Due Process: 0 Due Process: 0 # of Findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2008 (7/1/08 to 6/30/09) for which correction was verified later than one year from identification. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 167 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 Indicator/Indicator Clusters 9. Percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education that is the result of inappropriate identification. 10. Percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories that is the result of inappropriate identification. General Supervision System Components Monitoring Activities: SelfAssessment/ Local APR, Data Review, Desk Audit, On-Site Visits, or Other # of PEAs Issued Findings in FFY 2008 (7/1/08 to 6/30/09) (a) # of Findings (individual student files) of noncompliance identified in FFY 2008 (7/1/08 to 6/30/09) Monitoring System: 52 Monitoring System: 284 (b) # of Findings (individual student files) of noncompliance from (a) for which correction was verified no later than one year from identification Monitoring System: 275 APR: 0 APR: 0 APR: 0 # of Findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2008 (7/1/08 to 6/30/09) for which correction was verified later than one year from identification. 5 corrected and verified within 20 months from identification 4 corrected and verified within 23 months from identification The findings of noncompliance involve large numbers because Arizona’s monitoring system generates findings associated with the related requirements. For example, 4 individual line items from the monitoring system comprise all the related requirements pertaining to disproportionality. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 168 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 Indicator/Indicator Clusters General Supervision System Components 11. 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. Dispute Resolution: Complaints, Hearings Monitoring Activities: SelfAssessment/ Local APR, Data Review, Desk Audit, On-Site Visits, or Other Dispute Resolution: Complaints, Hearings The findings of noncompliance involve large numbers because Arizona’s monitoring system generates findings associated with the related requirements. For example, 18 individual line items from the monitoring system comprise all the related requirements pertaining to not only Indicator 11, but also child find and the evaluation process. # of PEAs Issued Findings in FFY 2008 (7/1/08 to 6/30/09) (a) # of Findings (individual student files) of noncompliance identified in FFY 2008 (7/1/08 to 6/30/09) Complaints: 0 Complaints: 0 (b) # of Findings (individual student files) of noncompliance from (a) for which correction was verified no later than one year from identification Complaints: 0 Due Process: 0 Due Process: 0 Due Process: 0 Monitoring System: 91 Monitoring System: 1767 Monitoring System: 1660 # of Findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2008 (7/1/08 to 6/30/09) for which correction was verified later than one year from identification. 15 corrected and verified within 15 months from identification 38 corrected and verified within 20 months from identification 54 corrected and verified within 23 months from identification Complaints: 18 Complaints: 25 Complaints: 25 Due Process: 0 Due Process: 0 Due Process: 0 Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 169 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 Indicator/Indicator Clusters 12. 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. The findings of noncompliance involve large numbers because Arizona’s monitoring system generates findings associated with the related requirements. For example, 4 individual line items from the monitoring system comprise all the related requirements pertaining to early childhood transition. 13. Percent of youth aged 16 and above with IEP that includes coordinated, measurable, annual IEP goals and transition services that will reasonably enable student to meet the post-secondary goals. # of PEAs Issued Findings in FFY 2008 (7/1/08 to 6/30/09) (a) # of Findings (individual student files) of noncompliance identified in FFY 2008 (7/1/08 to 6/30/09) Monitoring Activities: Data Collected by Census, SelfAssessment/ Local APR, Data Review, Desk Audit, On-Site Visits, or Other Dispute Resolution: Complaints, Hearings Monitoring System: 6 Monitoring System: 26 (b) # of Findings (individual student files) of noncompliance from (a) for which correction was verified no later than one year from identification Monitoring System: 26 Indicator 12 Census (early childhood transition): 8 Indicator 12 Census (early childhood transition): 8 Indicator 12 Census (early childhood transition): 8 Complaints: 0 Complaints: 0 Complaints: 0 Due Process: 0 Due Process: 0 Due Process: 0 Monitoring Activities: SelfAssessment/ Local APR, Data Review, Desk Audit, On-Site Visits, or Other Monitoring System: 44 Monitoring System: 927 Monitoring System: 884 General Supervision System Components # of Findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2008 (7/1/08 to 6/30/09) for which correction was verified later than one year from identification. 1 corrected and verified within 13 months from identification 24 corrected and verified within 15 months from identification 18 corrected and verified within 20 months from identification Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 170 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 Indicator/Indicator Clusters The findings of noncompliance involve large numbers because Arizona’s monitoring system generates findings associated with the related requirements. For example, 7 individual line items from the monitoring system comprise all the related requirements pertaining to the secondary transition process. Other areas of noncompliance: # of PEAs Issued Findings in FFY 2008 (7/1/08 to 6/30/09) (a) # of Findings (individual student files) of noncompliance identified in FFY 2008 (7/1/08 to 6/30/09) Dispute Resolution: Complaints, Hearings Complaints: 1 Complaints: 1 (b) # of Findings (individual student files) of noncompliance from (a) for which correction was verified no later than one year from identification Complaints: 1 Due Process: 0 Due Process: 0 Due Process: 0 Monitoring Activities: SelfAssessment/ Local APR, Data Review, Desk Audit, On-Site Visits, or Other Dispute Resolution: Complaints, Hearings Monitoring System: 0 Monitoring System: 0 Monitoring System: 0 Complaints: 0 Complaints: 0 Complaints: 0 Due Process: 0 Due Process: 0 Due Process: 0 13,888 13,162 General Supervision System Components Sum the numbers down Column a and Column b # of Findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2008 (7/1/08 to 6/30/09) for which correction was verified later than one year from identification. 726 Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 171 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 # of PEAs Issued Findings in FFY 2008 (7/1/08 to 6/30/09) Indicator/Indicator Clusters General Supervision System Components Percent of noncompliance corrected within one year of identification = (column (b) sum divided by column (a) sum) times 100. (13162) / (13888) X 100 = 95% (a) # of Findings (individual student files) of noncompliance identified in FFY 2008 (7/1/08 to 6/30/09) (b) # of Findings (individual student files) of noncompliance from (a) for which correction was verified no later than one year from identification # of Findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2008 (7/1/08 to 6/30/09) for which correction was verified later than one year from identification. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 172 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B / General Supervision Indicator 16: Complaint Timelines Percent of signed written complaints with reports issued that were resolved within 60-day timeline or a timeline extended for exceptional circumstances with respect to a particular complaint, or because the parent (or individual or organization) and the public agency agree to extend the time to engage in mediation or other alternative means of dispute resolution, if available in the State. (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B)) Measurement Percent = [(1.1(b) + 1.1(c)) divided by 1.1] times 100. Target Data for FFY 2009 FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target 2009 100% Actual Target Data for FFY 2009 # of signed written complaints with reports issued within 60-day timeline or a timeline extended for exceptional circumstances with respect to a particular complaint # of signed written complaints 74 74 Actual Target Data for FFY 2009 100% (1.1(b) + 1.1(c))  (1.1)  100 = X 74 + 0  74 = 1  100 = 100% Arizona met the target. Data Data Source Data are the same as submitted under section 618, Table 7, Report of Dispute Resolution under Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Valid and Reliable Data Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 173 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 The ADE/ESS collects and maintains the dispute resolution data in its internal database and assures the accuracy, reliability, and validity of the data. The dispute resolution data are the same as reported under section 618, Dispute Resolution, Table 7. Explanation of Progress that Occurred for FFY 2009 During FFY 2009 Arizona issued 74 investigative reports. All reports were issued within the 60-day timeline. Arizona was able to maintain the 100% target as a result of ongoing communication between the director of Dispute Resolution and complaint investigators, in addition to weekly monitoring of timelines by the Dispute Resolution director and Dispute Resolution coordinator. Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed for FFY 2009 Primary Activity (GOAL) 1) Establish a system requiring complaint investigators to submit a draft Letter of Findings for review to Dispute Resolution director within seven days prior to the 60-day deadline Sub-Activities (Objectives or Action Steps) a) Revise procedures for submission by complaint investigators of draft Letter of Findings for review to Dispute Resolution director b) Implement revised procedures for submission by complaint investigators of draft Letter of Findings for review to Dispute Resolution director no more than seven days prior to the 60-day deadline Timeline Complete Activities completed as of 12/31/08. Projected 7/1/08 – 12/31/08 ADE/ESS Dispute Resolution Director ADE/ESS Dispute Resolution Coordinator 1/1/09 – 6/30/11 ADE/ESS Dispute Resolution Director ADE/ESS Dispute Resolution Coordinator Internal procedures were revised and investigators were notified. Activities completed from 7/1/09 to 6/30/10. Resources (Planned) Revised procedures were implemented. Investigators are submitting draft Letters prior to 60day deadline for timely review. Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources for FFY 2010 The following are proposed targets for FFY 2011 and FFY 2012 for the revised SPP. FFY Measurable and Rigorous Targets 2011 (2011–2012) 100% Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 174 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 2012 (2012–2013) 100% The following are new improvement activities for FFY 2011 and FFY 2012 for the revised SPP. Primary Activity (GOAL) 1) Conduct Dispute Resolution presentations for PEAs and parent groups 2) Review and revise Dispute Resolution brochure Sub-Activities (Objectives or Action Steps) a) Review and revise presentation, support materials, and resources Timeline Complete Projected 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 Complaint Investigator ADE/ESS Dispute Resolution Director and Coordinator ADE/ESS Dispute Resolution Director and Coordinator Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 175 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B / General Supervision Indicator 17: Due Process Timelines Percent of adjudicated due process hearing requests that were adjudicated within the 45-day timeline or a timeline that is properly extended by the hearing officer at the request of either party or in the case of an expedited hearing, within the required timelines. (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B)) Measurement Percent = [(3.2(a) + 3.2(b)) divided by 3.2] times 100. Target Data for FFY 2009 FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target 2009 100% Actual Target Data for FFY 2009 # of adjudicated due process hearing requests that were adjudicated within the 45-day timeline or a timeline that is properly extended by the hearing officer at the request of either party # of adjudicated due process hearing requests 7 7 Actual Target Data for FFY 2009 100% (3.2 (a) + 3.2 (b))  (3.2)  100 = X 4 + 3  7 = 1  100 = 100% Arizona met the target. Data Data Source Data are the same as submitted under section 618, Table 7, Report of Dispute Resolution under Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 176 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 Valid and Reliable Data The ADE/ESS collects and maintains the dispute resolution data in its internal database and assures the accuracy, reliability, and validity of the data. The dispute resolution data are the same as reported under section 618, Dispute Resolution, Table 7. Explanation of Progress that Occurred for FFY 2009 Arizona continues to maintain the 100% target and demonstrate compliance with this requirement. Success is attributed to a tracking system established by the Dispute Resolution Unit that monitors the 45-day timeline, in addition to ongoing communication between the director of Dispute Resolution and the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The implementation of the new resolution sessions tracking system has enabled the State to calculate the 45-day due process timeline appropriately in accordance with CFR § 300.510 (b) and (c). Required Actions / Next Steps Required by 2009 Verification Visit Letter I. General Supervision / Critical Element 3: Dispute Resolution Following Arizona’s November 2009 verification visit, OSEP required the State to submit data and information demonstrating the implementation of an appropriate resolution process, including the State’s monitoring of PEA’s compliance with the timely resolution meeting requirement under 34 CFR § 300.510. Arizona has taken the following measures to monitor PEA compliance with the timely resolution meeting requirement:  The director of Dispute Resolution developed a comprehensive Power Point presentation on resolution session requirements, including, among other things, the 15-day timeline requirement. The director of Dispute Resolution presented the information at statewide and regional trainings to PEAs and parents, and posted the presentation on the ADE/ESS Web site.  The director of Dispute Resolution and the Dispute Resolution coordinator developed a resolution session tracking form, which also includes an informational document outlining the federal requirements relating to resolution sessions. This form is sent to the PEA along with the Notice of Hearing following the filing of a due process complaint. The PEAs are required to complete the form, which includes information about the date and outcome of each resolution session held, and then provide it to the Administrative Law Judge assigned to the due process matter and the ADE/ESS director of Dispute Resolution. Data collected from the resolution session tracking form is then entered into the ADE/ESS Dispute Resolution due process hearing spreadsheet in order to facilitate accurate tracking of the 45-day due process hearing timeline for both the assigned Administrative Law Judge and director of Dispute Resolution. The resolution session tracking form must be signed by a representative of the PEA and, when the PEA and the parent agree to either waive the resolution session requirement or agree that no agreement is possible, by the parent as well.  The director of Dispute Resolution and the Dispute Resolution coordinator added an additional column to the ADE/ESS Dispute Resolution due process hearing spreadsheet so that resolution session timelines can be tracked using the information provided by PEAs on the resolution session tracking form.  Since the ADE/ESS began utilizing the resolution session tracking form and providing training on the resolution session requirements, compliance with the 15-day timeline has increased substantially. Resolution session tracking forms have been completed and timely submitted by Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 177 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 the PEAs in all due process matters. When noncompliance with the 15-day timeline is reported in the tracking form, the director of Dispute Resolution issues a written finding of noncompliance, orders corrective action, and serves as the monitor for compliance with the corrective action order. Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed for FFY 2009 Primary Activity (GOAL) 1) Establish system that requires the Administrative Law Judge to issue a minute entry th specifying the ―45 day‖ 2) Develop a formal process to track 45day hearing timelines Sub-Activities (Objectives or Action Steps) a) Revise procedures that require the Administrative Law Judge to issue a minute th entry specifying the ―45 day‖ b) Implement procedures that require the Administrative Law Judge to issue a minute th entry specifying the ―45 day‖ to improve tracking of timelines and to ensure due process hearings are completed within the required timelines a) Develop a resolution session tracking form b) Disseminate tracking form to each PEA upon the filing of a due process hearing c) Use results of tracking form to determine beginning of 45-day Timeline Complete Projected Activities completed from 7/1/08 to 12/31/08. Procedures were revised by Dispute Resolution director and Office of Administrative Hearings personnel. Activities completed from 1/1/09 to 6/30/09. ADE/ESS Dispute Resolution Director Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings 1/1/09 – 6/30/11 Procedures are implemented and Administrative Law Judges are issuing minute entries specifying the exact date. Activity completed as of 12/15/09. Form developed by Dispute Resolution director to track the effectiveness of resolution sessions. Activities completed from 12/1/09 to 6/30/10. Beginning 12/1/09, Dispute Resolution staff began disseminating a tracking form to PEAs involved in a due process hearing. Activities completed from 12/1/09 to 6/30/10. Resources (Planned) ADE/ESS Dispute Resolution Director Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings ADE/ESS Dispute Resolution Director and Coordinator 12/1/09 – 6/30/11 ADE/ESS Dispute Resolution Director and Coordinator 12/1/09 – 6/30/11 ADE/ESS Dispute Resolution Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 178 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 timeline Director Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings Following a resolution session, or following a decision by the parties to a due process hearing to participate in mediation, the PEA is responsible for sending the tracking form to both ADE/ESS and the assigned ALJ. Based on the information provided in the tracking form, the ALJ is able to determine the exact date that the 45-day timeline begins. Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources for FFY 2010 The following are proposed targets for FFY 2011 and FFY 2012 for the revised SPP. FFY Measurable and Rigorous Targets 2011 (2011–2012) 100% 2012 (2012–2013) 100% The following are new improvement activities for FFY 2011 and FFY 2012 for the revised SPP. Primary Activity (GOAL) 1) Conduct Dispute Resolution presentations for PEAs and parent groups Sub-Activities (Objectives or Action Steps) a) Review and revise presentation, support materials, and resources b) Conduct statewide presentations at various regional and statewide venues Timeline Complete Projected 7/1/116/30/13 7/1/116/30/13 Resources (Planned) ADE/ESS Dispute Resolution Director and Coordinator ADE/ESS Dispute Resolution Director and Complaint Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 179 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 Investigator 2) Review and revise Dispute Resolution brochure 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 ADE/ESS Dispute Resolution Director and Coordinator ADE/ESS Dispute Resolution Director and Coordinator Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 180 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 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. Target Data for FFY 2009 FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target 2009 70% Actual Target Data for FFY 2009 # of hearing requests that went to resolution sessions that were resolved through resolution session settlement agreements # of hearing requests that went to resolution sessions 17 38 Actual Target Data for FFY 2009 44.7% (3.1 (a)  3.1)  100 = X 17  38 = 0.447  100 = 44.7% Arizona did not meet the target. Data Data Source Data are the same as submitted under section 618, Table 7, Report of Dispute Resolution under Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Valid and Reliable Data The ADE/ESS collects and maintains the dispute resolution data in its internal database and assures the accuracy, reliability, and validity of the data. The dispute resolution data are the same as reported under Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 181 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 section 618, Dispute Resolution, Table 7. Arizona utilizes a Resolution Session Tracking Form, which is sent to each PEA, along with the Notice of Hearing, upon the filing of a due process complaint. This comprehensive form, which must be submitted to the ADE/ESS and the assigned administrative law judge, provides, among other things, information about the date and outcome of each resolution session held. Explanation of Slippage that Occurred for FFY 2009 During FFY 2009, 38 resolution meetings were held pursuant to due process hearing requests, with 17 matters (44.7%) resulting in settlement agreements. This reflects slippage from FFY 2008 (83.9%). It is possible that the nature of the disputes for matters that resulted in due process hearing requests were more complicated and/or less amenable to resolution, thus resulting in fewer resolution agreements. It is important to point out that in addition to the 17 settlement agreements that were reached during resolution meetings, nine mediations were held related to due process hearing requests and seven (77.7%) of those mediations resulted in a mediation agreement. Additionally, four matters either were settled privately outside of a resolution session or were withdrawn by the complainant for an unspecified reason, possibly due to an undocumented agreement between the parties. Thus, 28 of 45 due process filings (taking into account that 11 of the 56 due process hearing requests were still pending as of the end of the reporting period on June 30, 2010), or 62.2%, resulted in some form of settlement. This figure, combined with the fact that 83.5% of mediations held from July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2010 resulted in an agreement, indicate that the State’s dispute resolution process overall is working to resolve conflicts without the need for a fully adjudicated due process hearing. Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed for FFY 2009 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 b) Field test survey and revise if appropriate Timeline Complete Projected Activities completed from 7/1/08 to 9/1/08. Survey was developed by Dispute Resolution director. Activities completed as of 11/1/09. Survey was given to all participants in resolution sessions held during FFY 2008. Revisions considered but deemed not necessary at this time. Resources (Planned) ESS Dispute Resolution Director ESS Dispute Resolution Coordinator 9/1/08 – 6/30/09 ESS Dispute Resolution Director ESS Dispute Resolution Coordinator Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 182 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 c) Implement survey for parties that participate in a resolution session 2) Track resolution sessions to determine effectiveness a) Develop a resolution session tracking form b) Disseminate tracking form to each PEA upon the filing of a due process hearing c) Use results of tracking form to collect and report data for Dispute Resolution, Table 7 3) Train PEAs and families on resolution sessions a) Develop power point presentation for training PEAs and families Activities completed from 7/1/09 to 6/30/10. 7/1/09 – 6/30/11 Beginning 7/1/09, PEAs and parents participating in a resolution session are provided a survey for gathering data on resolution session effectiveness. Activities completed as of 12/15/09. Form developed by Dispute Resolution director to track the effectiveness of resolution sessions. Activities completed from 12/1/09 to 6/30/10. Beginning 12/1/09, Dispute Resolution staff began disseminating a tracking form to PEAs involved in a due process hearing. Activities completed from 7/1/09 to 6/30/10. Dispute Resolution staff used this form to track all resolution session data for FFY 2009 and continues to utilize the form to collect such data. Activities completed as of 1/6/10. ESS Dispute Resolution Director ESS Dispute Resolution Coordinator ESS Dispute Resolution Director 12/1/096/30/11 ESS Dispute Resolution Director ESS Dispute Resolution Coordinator 7/1/09 – 6/30/11 ESS Dispute Resolution Director ESS Dispute Resolution Director PowerPoint presentation was developed by director of Dispute Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 183 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 b) Train PEAs at various conferences throughout the year c) Work with Arizona’s PTI and ADE/ESS Parent Information Network Specialists (PINS) to train families throughout the year d) Train Administrative Law Judges on resolution sessions Resolution. Activities completed from 1/1/10 to 6/30/10. The director of Dispute Resolution gave the resolution session PowerPoint presentation at numerous regional and statewide workshops and conferences throughout the winter, spring, and summer of 2010. Activities completed from 1/1/10 to 6/30/10. The director of Dispute Resolution worked collaboratively with the PINS and Arizona’s PTI to schedule and develop a series of parent trainings on such topics as dispute resolution, including a focus on resolution sessions. Activity completed as of 12/31/09. 1/1/10 – 6/30/11 ESS Dispute Resolution Director 1/1/10 – 6/30/11 ESS Dispute Resolution Director 1/1/10 – 6/30/11 ESS Deputy Associate Superintendent ESS Dispute Resolution Director External Consultant Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources for FFY 2010 The following are proposed targets for FFY 2011 and FFY 2012 for the revised SPP. FFY Measurable and Rigorous Targets Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 184 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 2011 (2011–2012) 75.5% 2012 (2012–2013) 76.0% The following are new improvement activities for FFY 2010, and for FFY 2011 and FFY 2012 for the revised SPP, to improve resolution session effectiveness. 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 Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 185 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 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. Target Data for FFY 2009 FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target 2009 84% Actual Target Data for FFY 2009 # of mediations held that resulted in mediation agreements # of mediations 36 42 Actual Target Data for FFY 2009 85.7% (2.1 (a) (i) + 2.1 (b) (i))  (2.1)  100 = X 7 + 29  42 = 0.857  100 = 85.7% Arizona exceeded the target. Data Data Source Data are the same as submitted under section 618, Table 7, Report of Dispute Resolution under Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Valid and Reliable Data The ADE/ESS collects and maintains the dispute resolution data in its internal database and assures the accuracy, reliability, and validity of the data. The dispute resolution data are the same as reported under section 618, Dispute Resolution, Table 7. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 186 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 Explanation of Progress that Occurred for FFY 2009 Arizona experienced progress as compared to FFY 2008 (70.3%) and exceeded its target of 84% for FFY 2009. Arizona maintains a list of mediators who are required to complete a 40-hour course in mediation, have 20 hours of hands-on mediation experience, and have a background in education. As part of their ongoing training, mediators have the opportunity to participate in quarterly mediator conference calls through the Mountain Plains Regional Resource Center and are provided a one-day update training from the ADE/ESS yearly. During FFY 2009, the mediators attended a one-day interactive training developed and provided by Dispute Resolution staff on October 30, 2009. The training included legal updates and information on mediation techniques, communication, and writing mediation agreements. The mediators were able to share ideas and experiences, and learn from each other and Dispute Resolution staff. Information about Arizona’s mediation system is disseminated to PEAs through trainings, conferences, and upon request. Additionally, the director of Dispute Resolution works closely with ADE’s Parent Information Network Specialists to ensure that information on mediation is widely disseminated to parents. Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed for FFY 2009 Primary Activity (GOAL) 1) Increase response rate to mediation survey Sub-Activities (Objectives or Action Steps) a) Train mediators about purpose and distribution of survey Timeline Complete Projected Activities completed from 7/1/08 to 6/30/09. b) Analyze response rate to mediation survey Although this activity was not completed within projected timeline, mediators learned about the survey during a workshop in 10/09. Activities completed from 7/1/09 to 6/30/10. The response rate was compared between FFY 2008 and FFY 2009. The response rate for both years was high (FFY 2009=56%), but there was not an increase from year to year. Resources (Planned) 7/1/08 – 6/30/09 ESS Dispute Resolution Director ESS Dispute Resolution Coordinator 7/1/09 – 6/30/10 ESS Dispute Resolution Director ESS Dispute Resolution Coordinator Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 187 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 2) Review and revise, if appropriate, mediation survey a) Review mediation survey and results to determine participant satisfaction and feedback b) Revise mediation survey, if appropriate, based on review and analysis c) Implement revised survey Activities completed from 7/1/08 to 6/30/09. Survey was reviewed by Dispute Resolution director. Activities completed from 7/1/08 to 6/30/09. Dispute Resolution director, after review and analysis, determined that revision of survey was not necessary. Activities completed from 7/1/09 to 6/30/10. 7/1/08 – 6/30/09 ESS Dispute Resolution Director ESS Dispute Resolution Coordinator 7/1/09 – 9/1/09 ESS Dispute Resolution Director ESS Dispute Resolution Coordinator 9/1/09 – 6/30/11 ESS Dispute Resolution Director ESS Dispute Resolution Coordinator Mediation survey was distributed to all participants upon completion of the mediations. Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources for FFY 2010 The following are proposed targets for FFY 2011 and FFY 2012 for the revised SPP. FFY Measurable and Rigorous Targets 2011 (2011–2012) 85% 2012 (2012–2013) 85.5% 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 Sub-Activities (Objectives or Action Steps) a) Invite mediators to attend the ADE/ESS Directors Institute Timeline Complete Projected 7/1/106/30/13 Resources (Planned) ADE/ESS Dispute Resolution Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 188 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 2) Conduct Dispute Resolution presentations for PEAs and parent groups 3) Review and revise Dispute Resolution brochure 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 b) Disseminate brochure statewide and post on ADE/ESS Web site 7/1/116/30/13 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 Resolution Director and Coordinator ADE/ESS Dispute Resolution Director and Coordinator Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 189 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 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 (February 1 for child count, including race and ethnicity; placement; November 1 for exiting, discipline, personnel and dispute resolution; and February 1 for Annual Performance Reports and assessment); and b. Accurate, including covering the correct year and following the correct measurement. States are required to use the ―Indicator 20 Scoring Rubric‖ for reporting data for this indicator. Target Data for FFY 2009 FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target 2009 100% Actual Target Data for FFY 2009 97.7% Arizona did not meet the target. Data Data Source Arizona collects the 618 data and the SPP/APR data 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; Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 190 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009  Annual Special Education Data Collection, a Web-based system for PEAs to submit data on the personnel, exit, and discipline elements;  The preschool assessment Web-based data collection system, the method 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. Data Description Based on the Part B Indicator 20 Self-Scoring Rubric, Arizona’s results for submission of timely and accurate data were 97.7% for FFY 2009.  Child Count and Educational Environment, due February 1, 2010, was submitted on time and accurately. This data applied to Indicators 5, 6, 9, and 10.  Personnel, due November 1, 2010, was submitted on time and accurately.  Exit, due November 1, 2010, was submitted on time and accurately. This data applied to Indicators 1 and 2.  Discipline, due November 1, 2010, was not submitted on time but was submitted accurately. This data applied to Indicator 4.  Dispute Resolution, due November 1, 2010, was submitted on time and accurately. This data applied to Indicators 16, 17, 18, and 19.  Assessment, due February 1, 2011, was submitted on time and accurately. This data applied to Indicator 3.  Annual Performance Report, due February 1, 2011, was submitted on time and accurately. Explanation of Slippage that Occurred for FFY 2009 Arizona experienced slippage of 2.3% from FFY 2008 (100%) to FFY 2009 (97.7%). The slight decrease is due to a delay in full submission of Discipline Data (Table 5, Report of Children with Disabilities Subject to Disciplinary Removal). While this data was submitted on time via EDFacts, the concurrent submission via the Data Analysis System (DANS) was delayed. Steps have been put into place to ensure data are submitted concurrently as needed. The State will continue its efforts to become approved for EDFacts only submissions. Although slippage occurred, Arizona continues to make progress with regard to accurate, valid, and reliable data collection, maintenance, and reporting by means of technical assistance to local school personnel. The ADE/ESS data management staff conducts trainings in regions throughout the State and via webinars to teach participants how to use the State web-based data systems and to emphasize the importance of data accuracy and timeliness. Twenty-three training opportunities were offered during this reporting year—14 trainings focused on child count and other data topics in fall 2009 and nine trainings focused on annual data collection in spring 2010. In all, 667 attendees were trained through regional data workshops, at the annual Directors Institute, and webinars. The ADE/ESS data management Web site was used to access historical data and provide additional resources for PEA data specialists and business managers (www.ade.az.gov/ess/funding/datamanagement/DmHome.asp). Arizona has multiple validity and reliability checks in place and follows the principles of the Critical Elements document. The ADE/ESS uses the edit checks built into the data transmission sheets to ensure accuracy. The State also investigates the unusual variances identified by DAC to determine the validity of the submitted information. ESS understands the importance of timely and accurate data and improves internal processes on an ongoing basis. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 191 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed for FFY 2009 Primary Activity (GOAL) 1) Review and revision of the ADE Student Accountability Information System (SAIS) to improve timely and accurate special education data Sub-Activities (Objectives or Action Steps) a) ADE/ESS will contribute funds toward the review and revision of SAIS b) ADE/ESS will meet with Information Technology (IT) staff periodically to revise procedures as necessary and address problems c) ADE/ESS will write business rules for the SAIS revisions Timeline Complete Projected Activities completed from 10/1/08 to 6/30/09. 10/1/08 – 6/30/09 The ADE/ESS contributed to the review and revision of SAIS by supporting FTE positions, including two programming analysts and an architect/project lead. Activities completed from 7/1/09 to 6/30/10. 3/1/09 – 6/30/11 The ESS/IT Technical Review Team met monthly to address SAIS and data issues, prioritize SAIS development projects, and review timelines for data submissions. Activities completed from 7/1/09 to 6/30/10. 7/1/09 – 6/30/10 ESS collaborated with IT business analysts to develop and revise rules for SAIS revisions on an as-needed basis. d) ADE/ESS will analyze SAIS operation for timely and accurate collection and reporting of special education data 2) Refine ADE/ESS procedures for data aggregation a) ADE/ESS will review and revise internal procedures for processing and reporting special education data Activities completed from 7/1/09 to 6/30/10. 7/1/09 – 6/30/11 The ESS/IT Project Team (ESS/IT Technical Review Team’s workgroup) met monthly to address issues, prioritize SAIS development projects, and review timelines for data submission. Activities completed from 7/1/09 to 6/30/10. 3/1/09 – 6/30/10 ESS met with other ADE sections/stakeholders (School Safety & Prevention, Early Childhood Special Resources (Planned) 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 Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 192 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 b) ADE/ESS will analyze and refine internal procedures for processing and reporting special education data Education, School Finance, Office of English Language Acquisition Services, and ADE/ESS areas (Comprehensive System of Professional Development, Dispute Resolution) periodically, established and reviewed timelines and procedures, identified issues, and resolved problems that affected processing of special education data. Activities completed from 7/1/09 to 6/30/10. ADE/ESS analyzed internal procedures and timelines, identified issues, and resolved internal problems that affected processing of special education data. Coordinator IT Staff 7/1/09 – 6/30/11 ADE/ESS Deputy Associate Superintendent ADE/ESS Directors ADE/ESS Data Management Coordinator IT Staff Changes were made to the following applications: ESS Annual Data:  Modified the Preschool Transition area to be more user friendly and improve data collection requirements for Indicator 12.  Extracted and reported discipline data from the Arizona Safety and Accountability for Education (Az SAFE) software system for the Discipline report section. ESS Census/SPED Participation data (child count/environment):  Implemented new DD/SLI disability category definitions.  Revisions to data extract procedures were made to ensure consistency and enhance tracking of data. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 193 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009  Modified secure care education program special education service code mapping to ensure accurate reporting.  Developed additional technical assistance documents for PEAs, including a special education census checklist and flowchart. Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources for FFY 2010 The following are proposed targets for FFY 2011 and FFY 2012 for the revised SPP. FFY Measurable and Rigorous Targets 2011 (2011–2012) 100% 2012 (2012–2013) 100% The following are extended and new improvement activities for FFY 2010, and for FFY 2011 and FFY 2012 for the revised SPP, to ensure State reported data are timely and accurate. Primary Activity (GOAL) 1) Provide SPP/APR Indicator data to each PEA in secure format Sub-Activities (Objectives or Action Steps) a) Develop Data Profiles each federal fiscal year b) Disseminate Data Profiles each federal fiscal year Timeline Complete Projected 7/1/10 – 6/30/13 7/1/10 – 6/30/13 Resources (Planned) 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 Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 194 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 2) Review and revise the ADE Student Accountability Information System (SAIS) to improve timely and accurate special education data 3) Provide information to PEAs about data accuracy and timeliness 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 FTEs: 1) a PEA data support, and 2) an IT SAIS developer 7/1/11 – 6/30/13 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 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 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 Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 195 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 Superintende nt, Directors, and Data Management Specialist Part B - Indicator 20 Self-Scoring Rubric Part B Indicator 20 - SPP/APR Data APR Indicator Valid and Reliable 1 2 1 1 3A 3B 3C 4A 4B 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 19 1 APR Score Calculation Correct Calculation Total 1 1 1 Subtotal Timely Submission Points - If the FFY 2009 APR was submitted on time, place the number 5 in the cell on the right. Grand Total – (Sum of the subtotal and Timely Submission Points) = 2 40 5 45.00 Part B Indicator 20 - 618 Data Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 196 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 Timely Complete Data Passed Edit Check Responded to Date Note Requests Total Table 1 – Child Count Due Date: 2/1/10 1 1 1 1 4 Table 2 – Personnel Due Date: 11/1/10 1 1 1 N/A 3 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 N/A 3 0 1 1 N/A 2 1 NA NA NA 1 1 1 1 N/A 3 Subtotal 20 Table Table 3 – Ed. Environments Due Date: 2/1/10 Table 4 – Exiting Due Date: 11/1/10 Table 5 – Discipline Due Date: 11/1/10 Table 6 – State Assessment Due Date: 2/1/11 Table 7 – Dispute Resolution Due Date: 11/1/10 Grand Total (Subtotal X 2.143) = 618 Score Calculation 42.86 Indicator 20 Calculation A. APR Grand Total B. 618 Grand Total 45.00 42.86 C. APR Grand Total (A) + 618 Grand Total (B) = 87.86 0 0 90.00 Total N/A in APR Total N/A in 618 Base D. Subtotal (C divided by Base*) = E. Indicator Score (Subtotal D x 100) = 0.976 97.62 *Note any cell marked as N/A will decrease the denominator by 1 for APR and 2.143 for 618. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 197 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 Attachments The following are attachments to the FFY 2009 APR: Attachment 1  List of Acronyms Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 198 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 Attachment 1 List of Acronyms ADBH Arizona Department of Behavioral Health ADE Arizona Department of Education AIMS Arizona’s Instrument to Measure Standards AIMS A Arizona’s Instrument to Measure Standards Alternate ALJ Administrative Law Judge ARR Alternate Risk Ratio ASVL Annual Site Visit Log AT Assistive Technology AYP Adequate Yearly Progress AZCoPT Arizona Community of Practice for Transition AzEIP Arizona Early Intervention Program for Infants and Toddlers CACM Corrective Action Compliance Monitor CAP Corrective Action Plan CoP Communities of Practice CSPD Comprehensive System of Personnel Development CTE Career and Technical Education CTT Community Transition Team DAC Data Accountability Center DANS Data Analysis System DDD Division of Developmental Disabilities (Arizona) ECE Early Childhood Education ECSE Early Childhood Special Education ESEA Elementary and Secondary Education Act ESS Exceptional Student Services Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 199 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 FAPE Free Appropriate Public Education FFY Federal Fiscal Year Group B Arizona Funding Category for Significant Disabilities IDEA The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act IDEAL Integrated Data to Enhance Arizona’s Learning IEP Individualized Education Program IT Information Technology LRE Least Restrictive Environment MPRRC Mountain Plains Regional Resource Center NASDSE National Association of State Directors of Special Education 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 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 (Arizona) 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 R&E Research and Evaluation RSA/VR Rehabilitation Services of Arizona/Vocational Rehabilitation RTI Response to Intervention SAIS Student Accountability Information System Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 200 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 SEAP Special Education Advisory Panel SETT Student, Environment, Task, Technology SFY State Fiscal Year SPDG State Personnel Development Grant STMP Secondary Transition Mentoring Project SWD Students with Disabilities SW-PBIS School-wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports TA Technical Assistance WRR Weighted Risk Ratio Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 201 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009 The contents of this publication were developed with funds allocated by the U.S. Department of Education under 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 Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009 202