Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 State of Arizona Department of Education Office of John Huppenthal Superintendent of Public Instruction Arizona FFY 2010 Annual Performance Report for Special Education Highly Effective Schools Division Exceptional Student Services 1535 West Jefferson, Phoenix, AZ 85007 http://www.azed.gov/ February 1, 2012 Revised April 16, 2012 Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 1 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 Arizona FFY 2010 Annual Performance Report for Special Education Submitted to the Office of Special Education Programs United States Department of Education Highly Effective Schools Division Exceptional Student Services Joan McDonald Deputy Associate Superintendent 602-542-4013 essdesk@azed.gov http://www.azed.gov/special-education/ February 1, 2012 Revised April 16, 2012 Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 2 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 Table of Contents Overview of the Annual Performance Report Development ......................................................................... 4 Indicator 1: Graduation Rates ....................................................................................................................... 6 Indicator 2: Dropout Rates .......................................................................................................................... 18 Indicator 3: Assessments ............................................................................................................................ 29 Indicator 4A: Suspension and Expulsion .................................................................................................... 44 Indicator 4B: Suspension and Expulsion by Race or Ethnicity ................................................................... 56 Indicator 5: School Age LRE ....................................................................................................................... 63 Indicator 6: Preschool LRE ......................................................................................................................... 72 Indicator 7: Preschool Outcomes ................................................................................................................ 73 Indicator 8: Parent Involvement .................................................................................................................. 79 Indicator 9: Racial / Ethnic Disproportionality ............................................................................................. 87 Indicator 10: Racial / Ethnic Disproportionality by Disability ....................................................................... 95 Indicator 11: Evaluation Timelines ............................................................................................................ 104 Indicator 12: Early Childhood Transition ................................................................................................... 116 Indicator 13: Secondary Transition ........................................................................................................... 123 Indicator 14: Post School Outcomes ......................................................................................................... 137 Indicator 15: Effective General Supervision .............................................................................................. 157 Indicator 16: Complaint Timelines ............................................................................................................. 177 Indicator 17: Due Process Timelines ........................................................................................................ 180 Indicator 18: Resolution Session Effectiveness ........................................................................................ 184 Indicator 19: Mediation Agreements ......................................................................................................... 189 Indicator 20: State Reported Data ............................................................................................................ 192 Attachments .............................................................................................................................................. 201 Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 3 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 The Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for Special Education Federal Fiscal Year 2010 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, 2012, 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, 2012, APR gives actual target data and other responsive information for Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20. Additionally, the APR has new improvement activities for Indicators 3, 4, 5, 7, 12, 14, and 15. 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 that replies to the Arizona Part B FFY 2009 SPP/APR Response Table from the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP). All improvement activities were reviewed during FFY 2010, which led to the revision of some of the activities. Revisions for FFY 2010 were made to Arizona’s FFY 2005–2012 State Performance Plan for Special Education. The document is available on the ADE/ESS Web site at http://www.azed.gov/specialeducation/resources/ under the menu labeled State Performance Plan. Stakeholder Involvement As data and other communications became available after the close of the 2010–2011 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% compliance indicators during on-site visits, seeking information for the revision of improvement activities to increase compliance. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 4 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 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.azed.gov/special-education/resources/ under the menu labeled State Performance Plan, beginning on February 1, 2012. The title of the APR is Arizona FFY 2010 Annual Performance Report. The revised State Performance Plan (SPP) for FFY 2010 is available on the ADE/ESS Web site at http://www.azed.gov/special-education/resources/ under the menu labeled State Performance Plan, beginning on February 1, 2012. The title of the SPP is Arizona State Performance Plan FFY 2005–2012 Revised FFY 2010. The annual public reports will be available on the ADE/ESS Web site at http://www.azed.gov/specialeducation/resources/ under the menu labeled School Year 2010–11 Public Reports, within 120 days of the February 1, 2012, 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 2010 5 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 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 2010 FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target 2010 80% Arizona’s single, statewide target graduation rate is 80%. Actual Target Data for FFY 2010 # 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, home schooled, and deceased youth) 4,781 7,272 Actual Target Data for FFY 2010 65.8% 4,781  7,272  100 = 0.65745 = 65.8% Arizona did not meet the target. Data Data Source The graduation data from Arizona’s 2010 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 that reported to the U.S. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 6 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 Department of Education under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). It is the same data as that reported in Arizona’s Consolidated State Performance Report Part I, submitted December 16, 2011. 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 target graduation rate is 80%. 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, left to be home schooled, or are deceased. Students who receive a diploma prior to September 1 of the following school year following their fourth year are included as part of the graduation cohort. 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:  Complete the PEA’s requirements to receive a regular high school diploma (Arizona Revised Statutes § 15-701.01 (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)).  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 Individualized Education Program (IEP) team (Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS) § 15-701.01 (B)). Explanation of Progress That Occurred for FFY 2010 Arizona’s graduation target (80%) for FFY 2010 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 made a gain from FFY 2009 (results rose from 64.9% to 65.8%). This reflects steady improvement and a cumulative increase over the past five years of almost six percent. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 7 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 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 510 participants at 30 training sessions offered throughout the State; established 14 new 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 2010, the Secondary Transition Mentoring Project (STMP), a two-year capacity building grant opportunity, provided funding to 25 PEAs, including 14 new teams (2010–2012 cohort) and 11 returning teams (2009–2011 cohort). ADE/ESS, in collaboration with training facilitators from the University of Kansas Transition Coalition, developed and provided a series of three two-day trainings to STMP teams focused on developing strategies and products for use in their PEAs to ensure 100% compliance on Indicator 13 and to use State and local data results from Indicators 1, 2, and 14 as a tool to inform transition planning and practices. As part of the FFY 2010 STMP grant, teams reviewed their own PEA’s data in the following areas: graduation rates, dropout rates, post school outcomes data (if available), and Indicator 13 compliance. Throughout the two-year process, the STMP teams focused on identifying PEA needs and priorities and developed action plans to address the identified needs. If applicable, teams developed action plans for increasing graduation rates or reducing dropout rates for students with disabilities that included root cause analyses to determine potential barriers within their schools. Additionally, the STMP team trainings assisted local PEAs in creating sustainable community teams to engage community partners and 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 outlined in team plans. Additionally, review of training evaluation forms showed that participating PEAs felt more prepared to plan and implement transition services leading to improved postschool outcomes. Arizona’s Tenth Annual Transition Conference offered four breakout sessions specifically targeting improving graduation rates and decreasing dropout rates of students with disabilities. Sessions were led by nationally recognized experts from both the National Dropout Prevention Center-Students with Disabilities (NDPC-SD) and the National High School Center. Resources and facilitated discussions aimed at addressing graduation and dropout issues were provided. The ADE/ESS secondary transition Web site was also updated with additional resources and materials on dropout prevention. In addition to PEA training opportunities, internal and external stakeholder collaboration efforts were conducted to enhance the secondary transition planning process. During FFY 2010, 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 and to assist with preparation and progress toward successful postsecondary outcomes for students with disabilities currently enrolled in secondary education. Further, ADE/ESS transition and program specialists worked closely with PEAs to assist in data review, analysis, and training. Transition specialists analyzed data collected from on-site PEA annual site visits (technical assistance visits conducted by ESS program specialists) and targeted staff development to those PEAs most in need of training with regard to secondary transition requirements. ESS program specialists also reviewed graduation rates with PEAs on an annual basis as part of a larger data review that included performance and compliance Indicator data, PEA determinations, dispute resolution data, and annual technical assistance visit information. If a PEA had not met the State target for graduation Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 8 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 rate, then the PEA may have been required to conduct a drill down exercise that is designed to explore root causes. Finally, 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 2011. Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed for FFY 2010 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 Activity completed 8/31/10. FFY 2010 PEA list was completed August 2010. The Annual Site Visit Log (ASVL) from school year 2009–2010 was used to identify PEAs most in need of training and technical assistance (TA) for Indicator 13. Activities completed from 7/1/10 to 6/30/11. Projected 7/1/10– 6/30/13 Resources (Planned) ADE/ESS Transition Specialists ADE/ESS Program Specialists 7/1/10– 6/30/13 ADE/ESS Transition Specialists The FFY 2010 review and revision of the Strategic Plan for Statewide Transition Planning was completed July 2010. Implementation of the Transition Strategic Plan was completed from July 2010 to June 2011. The FFY 2010 Transition Strategic Plan includes seven main components: 1. Provide training to targeted PEAs and in response to requests from non-targeted PEAs on Indicator 13; 2. Organize Arizona’s Tenth 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 Directors Institute; Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 9 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 4. 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, as well as provide intensive training and support for PEAs 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 Rehabilitation Services of Arizona/Vocational Rehabilitation (RSA/VR), Division of Developmental Disabilities (DDD), Division of Behavioral Health Services (DBHS), and the Office for Children with Special Health Care Needs (OCSHCN); 7. Collaborate with other ADE sections: High School Renewal and Improvement (AZHSRI), Career and Technical Education (CTE), Dropout Prevention, and School Counselors and ADE/ESS areas: Program Support, Assistive Technology, and Parent Information Network. All components of Arizona’s FFY 2010 Strategic Plan for Statewide Transition Planning were immediately implemented upon revision, from 8/1/10 to 6/30/11. Activities completed:  484 participants from 130 targeted and non-targeted PEAs received Indicator 13 trainings from ADE/ESS transition specialists at 30 sites statewide. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 10 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 Trainings were delivered in regional or direct school locations.  Arizona’s Tenth Annual Transition Conference was held in September 2010 and offered sessions focused on improving compliance with the eight components of Indicator 13. 831 participants attended the conference, including education and agency professionals, youth, young adults, family members of youth with disabilities, and vendors/exhibitors.  Four sessions on Indicator 13 were provided by ADE/ESS transition specialists at the annual ADE/ESS Directors Institute (DI). Of the 695 in attendance at the DI, 300 participants attended sessions related to secondary transition.  26 PEAs participated in Year 1 (14 PEAs in the 2010–2012 cohort) or Year 2 (12 PEAs in the 2009–2011 cohort) team trainings of the Secondary Transition Mentoring Project (STMP) capacity building grant. Through a contract with the University of Kansas Transition Coalition and in collaboration with ADE/ESS, training was provided to achieve and sustain 100% compliance on Indicator 13. Team training included: three two-day face-toface training sessions, webinars, a Web site for project participants containing all training materials and extensive resources, an online short course for Year 1 teams, and attendance at Arizona’s Tenth Annual Transition Conference.  Collaboration with national technical assistance centers and organizations occurred throughout the year and included: participation in NPSO and NSTTAC Community of Practice Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 11 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 calls; use 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 where OSEP, NPSO, NSTTAC, and NDPC-SD provided guidance. Additionally, ADE/ESS maintained ongoing collaboration with the University of Kansas Transition Coalition and the Mountain Plains Regional Resource Center.  At the State level, ADE/ESS collaborated with RSA/VR, Division of Developmental Disabilities (DDD), Division of Behavioral Health Services (DBHS), and the Office for Children with Special Health Care Needs (OCSHCN), and met every other month with these agency stakeholders through the Arizona Community of Practice on Transition (AZCoPT). In FFY 2010, AZCoPT revised a presentation used statewide through RSA/VR and DBHS teleconferencing media to introduce participants to the supports/services available to school-aged and adult individuals with disabilities.  ADE/ESS collaboration meetings with the ADE sections of High School Renewal and Improvement, Career and Technical Education, Dropout Prevention, and School Counselors were scheduled and held approximately every three months and resulted in crosstraining 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 Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 12 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 c) On an annual basis, create and disseminate information through a variety of sources: annual statewide conference, monitoring alerts, Web site, and listserv announcements 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 the 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 8/1/10 through 6/30/11. 7/1/10– 6/30/13 ADE/ESS Transition Specialists 7/1/10– 6/30/13 ADE/ESS Transition Specialists  Four Indicator 13 presentations were offered at the ADE/ESS Directors Institute in August 2010 for approximately 300 participants.  Ninety sessions either directly or indirectly related to Indicator 13 were offered at Arizona’s Tenth Annual Transition Conference held in September 2010.  Between July 2010 and June 2011, the ADE/ESS Secondary Transition Web site was updated to include additional and/or revised Indicator 13 materials from NSTTAC, IDEA Partnership, and other secondary transition technical assistance centers. The Web address is http://www.azed.gov/specialeducation/specialprojects/secondary-transition/. Activities completed from 7/1/10 to 6/30/11. d) On an annual basis, analyze preand post-training data collected  Analysis of pre-training data found through the Annual in the ASVL was completed in Site Visit Log (ASVL) January 2011 after all ESS for each PEA to program specialists were able to determine level of complete at least one PEA annual compliance on all site visit during fall 2010. The eight required analysis showed a 76.5% average components of for compliance with the eight ADE/ESS Program Specialists Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 13 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 Indicator 13 items of Indicator 13.  Post-training data analysis of all PEAs that received a pre-training annual site visit and were trained in secondary transition during FFY 2010 showed an 81.3% average for compliance with the eight items of Indicator 13. 2) Provide a twoyear capacity building grant to PEAs to participate in the Secondary Transition Mentoring Project (STMP) Team Training a) On an annual basis, identify PEAs who meet eligibility requirements and extend invitations to them to participate in STMP trainings b) On an annual basis, provide indepth and ongoing professional development on transition requirements and best practices Through pre- and post-training analysis, an increase of 4.8% in compliance for Indicator 13 was demonstrated after training and technical assistance was provided to PEAs by transition and education program specialists. Activities completed from 1/1/10 to 7/30/10. 7/1/10– 6/30/13  Using Annual Site Visit (ASV) data for PEAs currently in Years 1 or 6 of the monitoring cycle, 22 PEAs achieving less than 100% compliance on Indicator 13 were invited to apply for a noncompetitive Secondary Transition Mentoring Project (STMP) capacity building grant.  Fourteen PEAs were accepted for participation in Year 1 of the STMP Team training in July 2010. Activities completed from 7/1/10 through 6/30/11. ADE/ESS Transition Specialists ADE/ESS Program Specialists 7/1/10– 6/30/13 ADE/ESS Transition Specialists  STMP participants attended Arizona’s Tenth Annual Transition Conference, which included a STMP team orientation and designated sessions.  Training materials and activities were designed, created, and disseminated by ADE/ESS in collaboration with the University of Kansas Transition Coalition. Trainings focused on: identifying PEA barriers to meeting transition requirements; developing an action plan to eliminate barriers; creating IEPs that meet transition requirements; implementing training to build intra-PEA Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 14 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 capacity to attain 100% compliance on secondary transition requirements; and determining improvements made and targeting areas still in need of improvement.  Team training for each cohort consisted of three two-day faceto-face trainings throughout the year. Additionally, Year 1 teams completed an online short course specially designed for STMP teams and focused on best practices in transition planning. Activity completed from 7/1/10 through 6/30/11. c) On an annual basis, analyze preand post-training data collected during  Measures to determine STMP trainings for effectiveness of STMP training each PEA that included the use of: participated to a) team process checklist; determine level of b) interrater reliability measures compliance on all for IEP file review; eight required c) training session evaluations; components of d) STMP team self-reported Indicator 13 progress toward completion of action plans; and e) feedback provided by ADE/ESS monitoring program specialists on compliance. 7/1/10– 6/30/13 ADE/ESS Transition Specialists Data from the measures are as follows: a) April 2011 trainings for both STMP cohorts included the completion of a 37-item “team process” checklist. Results from the checklist use indicated both Year 1 and Year 2 teams reported an average of 95% for the item “all team members are highly knowledgeable of transition compliance requirements” and an average of 94% for the item “STMP team collaboratively develops and implements an action plan that addresses the prioritized needs.” b) Training for both cohorts included instruction and practice activities using interrater reliability measures. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 15 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 c) All STMP training sessions during FFY 2010 included instruction, activities, and Indicator 13 file reviews. Based on a 5-point Likert scale (1 lowest and 5 highest), evaluation results indicated an average score of 4.3 across all activities for both cohorts. Additionally, all team members completed a pre-/postevaluation of their competency in meeting Indicator 13 requirements, that asked the question, “How prepared do you feel?” Based on a 5-point Likert Scale (1 equaled unprepared and 5 equaled prepared) and using a Paired Samples T-Test, all scores indicated a statistically significant increase in knowledge from the beginning to the end of the training for FFY 2010 for both cohorts (Years 1 and 2). The areas reporting the greatest increase in knowledge were transition assessments and documenting transition services and course of study that will support the student in reaching postsecondary goals. d) Review of each STMP team’s action plan indicated all teams set goals to build and sustain systems to ensure 100% compliance on Indicator 13 school- or district-wide. All teams reported progress in meeting these goals. e) During the April 2011 training, Year 2 teams met with ADE/ESS program specialists to receive informal feedback on IEPs written during the second year of the STMP training program. Feedback indicated significant improvement in PEA knowledge and compliant practices. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 16 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 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 2011 There are no revisions for FFY 2011. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 17 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 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 2010 FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target 2010 ≤ 5.10% Actual Target Data for FFY 2010 (using 2009–2010 data) # of youths with IEPs dropping out of grades 9 – 12 # of youths with IEPs in grades 9 – 12 1,702 36,504 Actual Target Data for FFY 2010 4.7% 1,702  36,504  100 = 0.0466 = 4.7% 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 2009–2010 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 the State’s data reported to the U.S. Department of Education under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Act (ESEA) and as that reported in Arizona’s Consolidated State Performance Report Part I, submitted December 16, 2011. Valid and Reliable Data Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 18 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 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 the 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 2010 Arizona met the FFY 2010 target and saw a gain of 0.1 percentage points from FFY 2009 (4.8%) to FFY 2010 (4.7%). Arizona maintains that quality transition planning for students from secondary to postsecondary education, training, and employment settings has positively affected dropout rates for students with disabilities. To this end, the ADE/ESS transition specialists provided training and technical assistance to 510 participants at 30 training sessions offered throughout the State; established 14 new 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 2010, the Secondary Transition Mentoring Project (STMP), a two-year capacity building grant opportunity, provided funding to 25 PEAs, including 14 new teams (2010–2012 cohort) and 11 returning teams (2009–2011 cohort). ADE/ESS, in collaboration with training facilitators from the University of Kansas Transition Coalition, developed and provided a series of three two-day trainings to STMP teams focused on developing strategies and products for use in their PEAs to ensure 100% compliance on Indicator 13 and to use State and local data results from Indicators 1, 2, and 14 as a tool to inform transition planning and practices. As part of the FFY 2010 STMP grant, teams reviewed their own PEA’s data in the following areas: graduation rates, dropout rates, post school outcomes data (if available), and Indicator 13 compliance. Throughout the two-year process, the STMP teams focused on identifying PEA needs and priorities and developed action plans to address the identified needs. If applicable, teams developed action plans for increasing graduation rates or reducing dropout rates for students with disabilities that included root cause analyses to determine potential barriers within their schools. Additionally, the STMP team trainings assisted local PEAs in creating sustainable community teams to engage community partners and 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 outlined in team plans. Additionally, review of training evaluation forms showed that participating PEAs felt more prepared to plan and implement transition services leading to improved post school outcomes. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 19 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 Arizona’s Tenth Annual Transition Conference offered four breakout sessions specifically targeting improving graduation rates and decreasing dropout rates of students with disabilities. Sessions were led by nationally recognized experts from both the National Dropout Prevention Center-Students with Disabilities (NDPC-SD) and the National High School Center. Resources and facilitated discussions aimed at addressing graduation and dropout issues were provided. The ADE/ESS secondary transition Web site was also updated with additional resources and materials on dropout prevention. In addition to PEA training opportunities, internal and external stakeholder collaboration efforts were conducted to enhance the secondary transition planning process. During FFY 2010, 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 and to assist with preparation and progress toward successful postsecondary outcomes for students with disabilities currently enrolled in secondary education. Further, ADE/ESS transition and program specialists worked closely with PEAs to assist in data review, analysis, and training. Transition specialists analyzed data collected from on-site PEA annual site visits (technical assistance visits conducted by ESS program specialists) and targeted staff development to those PEAs most in need of training with regard to secondary transition requirements. ESS program specialists also reviewed dropout rates with PEAs on an annual basis as part of a larger data review that included performance and compliance Indicator data, PEA determinations, dispute resolution data, and annual technical assistance visit information. If a PEA had not met the State target for dropout rate, then the PEA may have been required to conduct a drill down exercise that is designed to explore root causes. Finally, 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 2011. Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed for FFY 2010 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 Activity completed 8/31/10. FFY 2010 PEA list was completed August 2010. The Annual Site Visit Log (ASVL) from school year 2009–2010 was used to identify PEAs most in need of training and technical assistance (TA) for Indicator 13. Activities completed from 7/1/10 to 6/30/11. Projected 7/1/10– 6/30/13 Resources (Planned) ADE/ESS Transition Specialists ADE/ESS Program Specialists 7/1/10– 6/30/13 ADE/ESS Transition Specialists The FFY 2010 review and revision of the Strategic Plan for Statewide Transition Planning was completed July 2010. Implementation of the Transition Strategic Plan was completed from July 2010 to June 2011. The FFY 2010 Transition Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 20 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 Strategic Plan includes seven main components: 1. Provide training to targeted PEAs and in response to requests from non-targeted PEAs on Indicator 13; 2. Organize Arizona’s Tenth 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 Directors Institute; 4. 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, as well as provide intensive training and support for PEAs 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 Rehabilitation Services of Arizona/Vocational Rehabilitation (RSA/VR), Division of Developmental Disabilities (DDD), Division of Behavioral Health Services (DBHS), and the Office for Children with Special Health Care Needs (OCSHCN); 7. Collaborate with other ADE sections: High School Renewal and Improvement (AZHSRI), Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 21 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 Career and Technical Education (CTE), Dropout Prevention, and School Counselors and ADE/ESS areas: Program Support, Assistive Technology, and Parent Information Network. All components of Arizona’s FFY 2010 Strategic Plan for Statewide Transition Planning were immediately implemented upon revision, from 8/1/10 to 6/30/11. Activities completed:  484 participants from 130 targeted and non-targeted PEAs received Indicator 13 trainings from ADE/ESS transition specialists at 30 sites statewide. Trainings were delivered in regional or direct school locations.  Arizona’s Tenth Annual Transition Conference was held in September 2010 and offered sessions focused on improving compliance with the eight components of Indicator 13. 831 participants attended the conference, including education and agency professionals, youth, young adults, family members of youth with disabilities, and vendors/exhibitors.  Four sessions on Indicator 13 were provided by ADE/ESS transition specialists at the annual ADE/ESS Directors Institute (DI). Of the 695 in attendance at the DI, 300 participants attended sessions related to secondary transition.  26 PEAs participated in Year 1 (14 PEAs in the 2010–2012 cohort) or Year 2 (12 PEAs in the 2009–2011 cohort) team trainings of the Secondary Transition Mentoring Project (STMP) capacity building grant. Through a contract with the University of Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 22 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 Kansas Transition Coalition and in collaboration with ADE/ESS, training was provided to achieve and sustain 100% compliance on Indicator 13. Team training included: three two-day face-toface training sessions, webinars, a Web site for project participants containing all training materials and extensive resources, an online short course for Year 1 teams, and attendance at Arizona’s Tenth Annual Transition Conference.  Collaboration with national technical assistance centers and organizations occurred throughout the year and included: participation in NPSO and NSTTAC Community of Practice calls; use 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 where OSEP, NPSO, NSTTAC, and NDPC-SD provided guidance. Additionally, ADE/ESS maintained ongoing collaboration with the University of Kansas Transition Coalition and the Mountain Plains Regional Resource Center.  At the State level, ADE/ESS collaborated with RSA/VR, Division of Developmental Disabilities (DDD), Division of Behavioral Health Services (DBHS), and the Office for Children with Special Health Care Needs (OCSHCN), and met every other month with these agency stakeholders through the Arizona Community of Practice on Transition (AZCoPT). In FFY 2010, AZCoPT revised a presentation used statewide through RSA/VR and DBHS teleconferencing media to introduce participants to the supports/services available to Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 23 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 school-aged and adult individuals with disabilities.  ADE/ESS collaboration meetings with the ADE sections of High School Renewal and Improvement, Career and Technical Education, Dropout Prevention, and School Counselors were scheduled and held approximately every three months and resulted in crosstraining for conferences sponsored by each ADE section on the topic of secondary transition. c) On an annual basis, create and disseminate information through a variety of sources: annual statewide conference, monitoring alerts, Web site, and listserv announcements  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. Activities completed from 8/1/10 through 6/30/11. 7/1/10– 6/30/13 ADE/ESS Transition Specialists  Four Indicator 13 presentations were offered at the ADE/ESS Directors Institute in August 2010 for approximately 300 participants.  Ninety sessions either directly or indirectly related to Indicator 13 were offered at Arizona’s Tenth Annual Transition Conference held in September 2010.  Between July 2010 and June 2011, the ADE/ESS Secondary Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 24 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 Transition Web site was updated to include additional and/or revised Indicator 13 materials from NSTTAC, IDEA Partnership, and other secondary transition technical assistance centers. The Web address is http://www.azed.gov/specialeducation/specialprojects/secondary-transition/. Activities completed from 7/1/10 to 6/30/11. d) On an annual basis, analyze preand post-training data collected  Analysis of pre-training data found through the Annual in the ASVL was completed in Site Visit Log (ASVL) January 2011 after all ESS for each PEA to program specialists were able to determine level of complete at least one PEA annual compliance on all site visit during fall 2010. The eight required analysis showed a 76.5% average components of for compliance with the eight Indicator 13 items of Indicator 13. 7/1/10– 6/30/13 ADE/ESS Transition Specialists ADE/ESS Program Specialists  Post-training data analysis of all PEAs that received a pre-training annual site visit and were trained in secondary transition during FFY 2010 showed an 81.3% average for compliance with the eight items of Indicator 13. 2) Provide a twoyear capacity building grant to PEAs to participate in the Secondary Transition Mentoring Project (STMP) Team Training a) On an annual basis, identify PEAs who meet eligibility requirements and extend invitations to them to participate in STMP trainings Through pre- and post-training analysis, an increase of 4.8% in compliance for Indicator 13 was demonstrated after training and technical assistance was provided to PEAs by transition and education program specialists. Activities completed from 1/1/10 to 7/30/10.  Using Annual Site Visit (ASV) data for PEAs currently in Years 1 or 6 of the monitoring cycle, 22 PEAs achieving less than 100% compliance on Indicator 13 were invited to apply for a noncompetitive Secondary Transition Mentoring Project (STMP) capacity building grant. 7/1/10– 6/30/13 ADE/ESS Transition Specialists ADE/ESS Program Specialists  Fourteen PEAs were accepted for participation in Year 1 of the STMP Team training in July 2010. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 25 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 b) On an annual basis, provide indepth and ongoing professional development on transition requirements and best practices Activities completed from 7/1/10 through 6/30/11. 7/1/10– 6/30/13 ADE/ESS Transition Specialists 7/1/10– 6/30/13 ADE/ESS Transition Specialists  STMP participants attended Arizona’s Tenth Annual Transition Conference, which included a STMP team orientation and designated sessions.  Training materials and activities were designed, created, and disseminated by ADE/ESS in collaboration with the University of Kansas Transition Coalition. Trainings focused on: identifying PEA barriers to meeting transition requirements; developing an action plan to eliminate barriers; creating IEPs that meet transition requirements; implementing training to build intra-PEA capacity to attain 100% compliance on secondary transition requirements; and determining improvements made and targeting areas still in need of improvement.  Team training for each cohort consisted of three two-day faceto-face trainings throughout the year. Additionally, Year 1 teams completed an online short course specially designed for STMP teams and focusing on best practices in transition planning. Activity completed from 7/1/10 through 6/30/11. c) On an annual basis, analyze preand post-training data collected during  Measures to determine STMP trainings for effectiveness of STMP training each PEA that included the use of: participated to a) team process checklist; determine level of b) interrater reliability measures compliance on all for IEP file review; eight required c) training session evaluations; components of d) STMP team self-reported Indicator 13 progress toward completion of action plans; and e) feedback provided by ADE/ESS monitoring program specialists on compliance. Data from the measures are as Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 26 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 follows: a) April 2011 trainings for both STMP cohorts included the completion of a 37-item “team process” checklist. Results from the checklist use indicated both Year 1 and Year 2 teams reported an average of 95% for the item “all team members are highly knowledgeable of transition compliance requirements” and an average of 94% for the item “STMP team collaboratively develops and implements an action plan that addresses the prioritized needs.” b) Training for both cohorts included instruction and practice activities using interrater reliability measures. c) All STMP training sessions during FFY 2010 included instruction, activities, and Indicator 13 file reviews. Based on a 5-point Likert scale (1 lowest and 5 highest), evaluation results indicated an average score of 4.3 across all activities for both cohorts. Additionally, all team members completed a pre-/postevaluation of their competency in meeting Indicator 13 requirements, which asked the question, “How prepared do you feel?” Based on a 5-point Likert Scale (1 equaled unprepared and 5 equaled prepared) and using a Paired Samples T-Test, all scores indicated a statistically significant increase in knowledge from the beginning to the end of the training for FFY 2010 for both cohorts (Years 1 and 2). The areas reporting the greatest increase in knowledge were transition assessments and documenting transition services and course of study that will support the student in reaching postsecondary goals. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 27 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 d) Review of each STMP team’s action plan indicated all teams set goals to build and sustain systems to ensure 100% compliance on Indicator 13 school- or district-wide. All teams reported progress in meeting these goals. e) During the April 2011 training, Year 2 teams met with ADE/ESS program specialists to receive informal feedback on IEPs written during the second year of the STMP training program. Feedback indicated significant improvement in PEA knowledge and compliant practices. 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 2011 There are no revisions for FFY 2011. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 28 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 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 the State’s data reported to the U.S. Department of Education under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Arizona’s alternate assessment, AIMS A, is based on alternate academic achievement standards. The AIMS A is not based on grade level academic achievement standards and is not based on modified academic achievement standards. The AIMS and AIMS A data were used for determining AYP and for reporting participation and performance. The grades tested for FFY 2010 were grades 3 through 8 and grade 10. The State uses four categories for the proficiency status: Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 29 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010  Falls Far Below the Standard (F)  Approaches the Standard (A)  Meets the Standard (M)  Exceeds the Standard (E) 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 follow internal processes to ensure valid, reliable, and accurate data. The ADE Standards and Assessment Division/Assessment Section ensures its assessments adhere to the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Indicator 3A — AYP Target Data for FFY 2010 FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target FFY 2010 25.5% Indicator 3A — Actual AYP Target Data for FFY 2010 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 2010 Percent of PEAs FFY 2010 (2010– 2011) 593 72 1 1.39% Arizona did not meet the target for Indicator 3A for AYP. Indicator 3B — Target Data for Mathematics and Reading Participation for FFY 2010 FFY 2010 Measurable and Rigorous Targets Mathematics 95% Reading 95% Indicator 3B — Actual Target Data for Mathematics Participation for FFY 2010 Mathematics Assessment Participation for FFY 2010 Total Number Total Percent Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 30 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 a Children with IEPs enrolled 72,296 b Children with IEPs participating in regular assessment with no accommodations 33,062 45.7% c Children with IEPs participating in regular assessment with accommodations 31,654 43.8% 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 5,663 7.8% g Students with IEPs participating (b+c+d+e+f) 70,379 97.3% 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. 1,917 2.7% Arizona exceeded the target for Indicator 3B for the mathematics participation rate. Indicator 3B — Actual Target Data for Reading Participation for FFY 2010 Reading Assessment Participation for FFY 2010 Total Number Total Percent a Children with IEPs enrolled 72,429 b Children with IEPs participating in regular assessment with no accommodations 37,764 52.1% c Children with IEPs participating in regular assessment with accommodations 27,093 37.4% 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 5,666 7.8% g Students with IEPs participating (b+c+d+e+f) 70,523 97.4% Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 31 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 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. 1,906 2.6% Arizona exceeded the target for Indicator 3B for the reading participation rate. Mathematics and Reading Participation Data The mathematics and reading participation data are the same as the State’s data used for accountability reporting under Title I of the ESEA and were reported in Arizona’s Consolidated State Performance Report Part I, submitted December 16, 2011. 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 for the different grades. Mathematics and reading assessments were given to all students in grades 3 through 8 on April 11, 2011. The mathematics assessment was given to students in grade 10 on April 5, 2011. The reading assessment was given to students in grade 10 on March 2, 2011. Indicator 3C — Target Data for Mathematics and Reading Proficiency for FFY 2010 FFY 2010 Measurable and Rigorous Targets Grades 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 Mathematics 65% 63% 58% 57% 58% 58% 61% Reading 71.9% 67% 65.9% 67% 69.4% 65.5% 61.4% The mathematics and reading proficiency targets are the same as the State’s ESEA targets, as reported in Arizona’s Accountability Workbook, revised February 8, 2011. Indicator 3C — Actual Target Data for Mathematics Proficiency for FFY 2010 FFY 2010 Grades Total enrolled Mathematics Assessment Proficiency 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11,155 11,435 11,295 10,686 10,045 9,537 8,143 Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 32 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 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 9,788 9,987 9,832 9,312 8,584 8,140 6,749 3,975 3,509 2,930 2,137 2,005 1,461 1,420 40.6% 35.1% 29.8% 22.9% 23.4% 17.9% 21.0% Arizona did not meet the target for Indicator 3C for mathematics proficiency in any of the assessed grades 3 through 8 and grade 10. Indicator 3C — Actual Target Data for Reading Proficiency for FFY 2010 FFY 2010 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 11,155 11,435 11,295 10,686 10,045 9,536 8,277 9,780 9,976 9,831 9,312 8,588 8,150 6,916 4,214 4,260 4,138 3,825 3,718 2,325 2,695 43.1% 42.7% 42.1% 41.1% 43.3% 28.5% 39.0% Arizona did not meet the target for Indicator 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 the State’s data reported under Title I of the ESEA in Arizona’s Consolidated State Performance Report Part I, submitted December 16, 2011. 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 2010 A slippage of 1.31 percentage points occurred for Indicator 3A (from 2.70% in FFY 2009 to 1.39% in FFY 2010) and the target was not met. The Arizona Annual Measurable Objectives increase every year, which may be affecting the results for AYP. Minor slippage (1.2 percentage points) occurred for Indicator 3B for both mathematics and reading participation, although both targets were met. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 33 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 Progress occurred for Indicator 3C for mathematics and reading proficiency in all grades assessed except for grade 8 mathematics, where there was a minor slippage of 0.1 percentage points. Although none of the targets was met for Indicator 3C, increases in proficiency rates were achieved from FFY 2009 to FFY 2010, as shown in the two tables below. Mathematics Proficiency Rates from FFY 2009 to FFY 2010 Grades 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 FFY 2010 40.6% 35.1% 29.8% 22.9% 23.4% 17.9% 21.0% FFY 2009 34.8% 29.8% 24.0% 19.0% 17.9% 18.0% 16.9% 5.8 5.3 5.8 3.9 5.5 -0.1 4.1 Increase in percentage points Reading Proficiency Rates from FFY 2009 to FFY 2010 Grades 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 FFY 2010 43.1% 42.7% 42.1% 41.1% 43.3% 28.5% 39.0% FFY 2009 36.3% 34.1% 30.3% 33.2% 31.0% 26.7% 31.0% 6.8 8.6 11.8 7.9 12.3 1.8 8.0 Increase in 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. Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed for FFY 2010 Primary Activity (GOAL) 1) By the end of Year 1, teams will increase mathematics proficiency rates 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 Activities completed 9/1/10 to 6/30/11. 100% of the nine schools represented in the ASAMA Year 1 cohort completed the training with emphasis on number operations, structure, and logic. Activity discontinued. Projected Resources (Planned) 9/1/09– 6/30/11 Comprehe nsive System of Personnel Developme nt (CSPD) Staff 9/1/09– 6/30/11 CSPD Staff The data was not collected due to the changes made by the Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 34 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 2) By the end of Year 2, teams will increase mathematics proficiency rates for students with IEPs, as determined by third grade AIMS data 3) By the end of Years 1 and 2, teams will increase mathematics proficiency rates 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 a) Provide training in the use of the SETT Process (Student, Environment, Task, Tools) 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 project specialist and the presenter to meet the needs of the participants. Activities completed 9/1/10 to 6/30/11. 9/1/09– 6/30/11 CSPD Staff 9/1/09– 6/30/11 CSPD Staff 9/1/09– 6/30/11 CSPD Staff 9/1/09– 6/30/11 CSPD Staff 100% of the 14 schools represented in the ASAMA Year 2 cohort completed the training with emphasis on data analysis/probability/discre te math strand, algebra/patterns/functions strand, geometry/measurement strand, and structure/logic strand. Activity discontinued. The data was not collected due to the changes made by the project specialist and the presenter to meet the needs of the participants. Activities discontinued and completed from 9/1/10 to 6/30/11. SETT was discontinued from the ASAMA training due to the trainings being offered by the ESS Assistive Technology Unit. 100% of the 23 schools received training in the use of the Star Model to improve the accessibility of mathematics and enhance mathematics instruction. Activities completed 9/1/10 to 6/30/11. Professional Learning Community training was eliminated from ASAMA and replaced with Team Building and Professional Development Strategies. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 35 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 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 rates to 50% for children with IEPs as determined by third grade AIMS data a) Provide reading training through the Systemic Change in Reading grant 100% of the 23 schools received training in the new process and received the new team meeting and professional development forms for planning to make schoolwide change in mathematics instruction. Activities completed 9/1/10 to 6/30/11. 9/1/09– 6/30/11 CSPD Staff 95% Group 100% of the 25 schools represented in the Systemic Change in Reading (SCR) grant received and completed training. Year 2 Teams reviewed phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary and comprehension strategies for struggling readers. Teams continued to provide staff development and completed documentation for their implementation portfolios. b) Collect and analyze third grade AIMS reading data Year 1 teams began the process of analyzing the needs on their campuses while beginning to provide staff development to specific members of their staffs. Documentation was completed for their implementation portfolios. Activities completed 9/1/10 to 6/30/11. 9/1/09– 6/30/11 CSPD Staff 95% Group The 25 schools represented in the SCR grant are made up of two cohorts: Year 2 has 13 teams and Year 1 has 12 teams. The FFY 2010 AIMS results for Year 2 teams show: Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 36 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 Nine of 13 schools increased the percentage of third-grade students attaining proficiency on the AIMS reading test. Three of 13 schools met the target of 50% or more students with IEPs achieving proficiency in reading as measured by AIMS. 5) By the end of Year 2, the Systemic Change in Reading teams will increase reading proficiency rates 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 rates in comprehension and vocabulary (Strands 2 and 3) for students with IEPs as determined by third grade AIMS data a) Provide reading training for comprehension and vocabulary strands through the Systemic Change in Reading grant The FFY 2010 AIMS results for Year 1 teams show: Seven of 12 schools increased the proficiency rate for all third-grade students. Three of 12 schools met the target of 50% or more students with IEPs achieving proficiency in reading as measured by AIMS. Activities completed 9/1/10 to 6/30/11. 9/1/09– 6/30/11 CSPD Staff 95% Group 100% of the 25 schools represented in the Systemic Change in Reading (SCR) Year 2 cohort completed the training with emphasis on phonemic awareness, phonics, and fluency strategies. Activities completed 9/1/10 to 6/30/11. 9/1/09– 6/30/11 CSPD Staff 95% Group AIMS data is not available for analysis at the strand level. Activities completed 9/1/10 to 6/30/11. 9/1/09– 6/30/11 CSPD Staff 95% Group 100% of the 13 schools represented in the Systemic Change in Reading (SCR) grant completed the training with emphasis on comprehension and vocabulary strategies. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 37 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 b) Collect and analyze third grade comprehension and vocabulary data on the AIMS 7) Increase opportunities for training in mathematics strategies to public education agency (PEA) special education personnel and distribute resource information in reading 8) Increase opportunities for training in reading strategies to public education agency (PEA) special education personnel and distribute resource information in reading a) Conduct mathematics strategy trainings annually at the Directors Institute for special education personnel from school districts and charter schools b) Compile mathematics strategy and resource information c) Disseminate mathematics strategy and resource information through the Arizona Promising Practices Web site, the ESS listserv, and ESS/CSPD trainings a) Represent ESS at the Response to Intervention (RTI) meetings with other ADE divisions Activities completed 9/1/10 to 6/30/11. 9/1/09– 6/30/11 CSPD Staff 95% Group AIMS data is not available for analysis at the strand level. Activities completed 7/1/10 to 6/30/11. 7/1/11– 6/30/13 CSPD Staff 7/1/11– 6/30/13 CSPD Staff 7/1/11– 6/30/13 CSPD Staff 7/1/10– 6/30/13 CSPD Staff ESS collaborated with the K–12 Literacy, Math Standards, School Improvement, Office of English Language Acquisition, Title I, Highly Qualified, Certification, and Early Childhood divisions on:  statewide literacy plan  document for HR personnel providing guidance on certification requirements for staff providing interventions  RTI trainings and conferences  statewide RTI Web site  interagency training to discuss common language and information to be used Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 38 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 when working with PEAs or providing professional development b) Conduct reading strategy trainings annually at the Directors Institute for special education personnel from school districts and charter schools c) Compile reading strategy and resource information d) Disseminate reading strategy and resource information through the Arizona Promising Practices Web site, the ESS listserv, and ESS/CSPD trainings 7/1/11– 6/30/13 CSPD Staff 7/1/11– 6/30/13 CSPD Staff 7/1/11– 6/30/13 CSPD Staff Public Reporting Information The location (URL) of public reports of assessment results conforming to 34 CFR § 300.160 (f) is http://www.azed.gov/research-evaluation/aims-assessment-results/. The FFY 2010 Annual Performance Report (APR) gives information about the participation of students with IEPs. The APR is located on the ADE/ESS Web site at http://www.azed.gov/specialeducation/resources/ under the menu labeled State Performance Plan. 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 2011 The following are new improvement activities to target mathematics and reading proficiency. Primary Activity (Goal) 1) By the end of FFY 2012, teams will increase their content knowledge of scientifically based strategies for Sub-Activities (Objectives or Action Steps) a) Teams will learn and use a cyclical process of screening, content strategies, data analysis, and collaboration of student need and will implement Timeline Complete Projected 9/1/11– 6/30/13 Resources (Planned) CSPD Staff Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 39 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 mathematics instruction for grades K–2 students with IEPs through Special Education Using Mathematics for School Improvement Project (SUMS) 2) By the end of FFY 2012, teams will increase their content knowledge of scientifically based strategies for mathematics instruction for students with IEPs grades 3–5 through Special Education Achieving Success in Mathematics (SEAS-Math) student-specific strategies Measurement will be team effectiveness data. (Each team will have a coach during the training sessions to assist with the team processes.) b) Apply the 2010 Arizona mathematics standards using the mathematics processes that enable students with IEPs to become fluent in mathematics as reflected in classroom observation protocol visits and various assessments c) Track and analyze data of students with IEPs over time using AIMS data and other assessment data provided by the schools d) Analyze teacher pre- and post-assessment data to determine continuity of learning and instruction a) Teams will learn and use a cyclical process of screening, content strategies, data analysis, and collaboration on student need and will implement student-specific strategies Measurement will be team effectiveness data. (Each team will have a coach during the training sessions to assist with the team processes.) b) Apply the 2008 Arizona mathematics standards and make connections to the 2010 Arizona mathematics standards using the mathematics processes that enable students with IEPs to become more fluent in mathematics as reflected in classroom observation protocol visits and various assessments c) Track and analyze data of 9/1/11– 6/30/13 CSPD Staff 9/1/11– 6/30/13 CSPD Staff 9/1/11– 6/30/13 CSPD Staff 9/1/11– 6/30/13 CSPD Staff 9/1/11– 6/30/13 CSPD Staff 9/1/11– CSPD Staff Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 40 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 3) By the end of FFY 2012, teams will increase their content knowledge of scientifically based strategies for mathematics instruction for students with IEPs grades 7–12 through Dimensions of Algebra 4) Middle school teams participating in Passages: Achieving Success in Reading training will receive training that when implemented will result in an increased proficiency rate of eighth-grade students with IEPs students with IEPs over time using AIMS data and other assessment data provided by the schools d) Analyze teacher pre- and post-assessment data to determine continuity of learning and instruction a) Provide training in algebraic strategies for students with IEPs that will enable them to access mathematics from a concrete model to an abstract model b) Apply data analysis processes from various types of assessments to differentiate instruction for students with IEPs c) Provide a networking format for middle school and high school teachers to meet the transitional needs of students with IEPs as they move from middle school to high school d) Track and analyze data of students with IEPs over time using AIMS data and other assessment data provided by the schools e) Analyze teacher pre- and post-assessment data to determine continuity of learning and instruction a) Conduct Passages training for special education teachers and reading specialists 6/30/13 9/1/11– 6/30/13 CSPD Staff 9/1/11– 6/30/13 CSPD Staff 9/1/11– 6/30/13 CSPD Staff 9/1/11– 6/30/13 CSPD Staff 9/1/11– 6/30/13 CSPD Staff 9/1/11– 6/30/13 CSPD Staff 10/1/11– 6/30/13 CSPD capacity building grants for qualifying schools and CSPD staff CSPD reading specialist Presenter for “Passages” Research on improving reading for students with IEPs in middle school Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 41 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 5) High school teams participating in Passages: Achieving Success in Reading training will receive training that when implemented will result in an increased proficiency rate of 10th grade students with IEPs b) Provide training on assessing and diagnosing student needs to guide instruction/intervention c) Provide instructional strategy training in the areas of word study, vocabulary, and comprehension d) Provide site-based technical assistance to participating schools to offer feedback and support in implementation of new strategies e) Collect progress monitoring student data throughout training to determine effectiveness of strategies f) Provide capacity building coaching support to each team to increase team effectiveness during training sessions a) Conduct Passages training for special education teachers and reading specialists 10/1/11– 6/30/13 CSPD capacity building coaches Same 10/1/11– 6/30/13 Same 10/1/11– 6/30/13 Same 10/1/11– 6/30/13 Same 10/1/11– 6/30/13 Same 10/1/11– 6/30/13 CSPD capacity building grants for qualifying schools and CSPD staff CSPD reading specialist Presenter for “Passages” Research on improving reading for high school students with IEPs b) Provide training on assessing and diagnosing student needs to guide instruction/intervention c) Provide instructional 10/1/11– 6/30/13 10/1/11– CSPD capacity building coaches Same Same Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 42 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 strategy training in the areas of word study, vocabulary, and comprehension d) Provide site-based technical assistance to participating schools to offer feedback and support in implementation of new strategies e) Collect progress monitoring student data throughout training to determine effectiveness of strategies f) Provide capacity building coaching support to each team to increase team effectiveness during training sessions 6/30/13 10/1/11– 6/30/13 Same 10/1/11– 6/30/13 Same 10/1/11– 6/30/13 Same Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 43 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 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.” Overview of Issue / Description of System or Process Data Source The 2009–2010 data were reported by the PEAs through the Arizona Safety Accountability for Education (AZ SAFE) application. The data are the same as the data reported under section 618, Table 5 (Report of Children with Disabilities Subject to Disciplinary Removal) for school year 2009–2010, due November 1, 2010. The October 1, 2009, Child Count data are the same as the State’s data reported under section 618, Table 1, Report of Children with Disabilities Receiving Special Education Under Part B of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. Note that the source of this data is from FFY 2009. The total number of PEAs in Arizona vary from year to year due to the number of charter schools that may open and close from year to year. Valid and Reliable Data The ADE/ESS assures the validity and reliability of the AZ SAFE data through the Annual Special Education Data Collection, which uses internal edit checks. The State requires an assurance from the PEAs through the submission of a signed verification form attesting to the validity of the data. Definition of Significant Discrepancy and Methodology Arizona uses Statistical Analysis Software (SAS) to calculate rates of suspension and expulsion for children with IEPs. Arizona uses the state bar method to determine significant discrepancy. The State rate of suspensions/expulsions greater than 10 days for all students with IEPs is 0.65%. The State bar, 5.65%, is five percentage points greater than the State rate. A district or charter school has significant discrepancy when its suspension/expulsion rate greater than 10 days for students with IEPs is 5.65% or greater. There must be at least 50 students in the denominator of a suspension/expulsion rate for that district or charter school to be flagged as having significant discrepancy. The denominator represents the overall special education enrollment at the district or charter school. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 44 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 Previously, Arizona used a minimum “n” size of 10 students in the numerator. In other words, at least 10 students with IEPs had to be suspended/expelled for greater than 10 days for a PEA to be identified as having significant discrepancy. However, due to new guidance from the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) and the Data Accountability Center (DAC) in the September 2011 technical assistance guide, Arizona decided to use a minimum “n” size in the denominator and, as a result, exclude fewer PEAs from the calculation. Using the minimum “n” size of 50 students for overall special education enrollment, Arizona excluded 18 PEAs from the calculation (excluded 18 from 581) and used the total number of PEAs (581) in the State in the denominator. 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. Target Data for FFY 2010 (using 2009–2010 data) FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target FFY 2010 (using 2009– 2010 data) 1.30% Indicator 4A — Actual Target Data for FFY 2010 (using 2009–2010 data) 0.34% Arizona met 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 2010 (using 2009–2010 data) 581 2 0.34% *Arizona included the total number of PEAs in the denominator. Review of Policies, Procedures, and Practices for FFY 2010 (using 2009–2010 data) The State reviewed the PEAs’ suspension/expulsion data and identified two PEAs with a significant discrepancy. The PEAs reviewed their policies, procedures, and practices relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards to determine if these contributed to the significant discrepancy. 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 Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 45 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 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 assessments to validate the decisions made by the PEAs during the file reviews. Upon the completion of this review, Arizona determined that the two PEAs were in compliance with IDEA requirements that pertain to the development and implementation of IEPs, use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards. 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). Explanation of Progress That Occurred for FFY 2010 For the past three years, the Indicator 4A rate has been below 0.55%. The FFY 2010 rate of 0.34% represents minor improvement over FFY 2009 (0.51 percentage points) and represents minor slippage from FFY 2008 (0.18 percentage points). Arizona will continue to encourage PEAs to reduce their suspension and expulsion rates. 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 emphasized through data collection and reporting with the use of an Implementation Portfolio. To increase fidelity, a staff development protocol is a component of the Implementation Portfolios. In addition, the AHAA coordinator and presenter include training on the sustainability of the strategies and implementation models. Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed for FFY 2010 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 School- Sub-Activities (Objectives or Action Steps) a) Between baseline data collection and the end of the second year of PBISAz training, PBISAz Year 2 teams will decrease office discipline referrals by 10% for 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 Projected 8/1/09– 6/30/10 Resources (Planned) PBISAz Coordinato rs AZ Implement ation Checklist Quarterly Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 46 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (SW-PBIS) with fidelity as measured by a score of 80% on the Arizona Implementation Checklist 2) Arizona High Achievement for All (AHAA) Year 1 Siete schools will complete all tasks to establish the solid basis for the decrease of suspension/expulsio n rates to less than 5% all students and 5% for students with IEPs as measured by the final PBISAz Quarterly Report data b) Between baseline data collection and the end of the second year of PBISAz training, PBISAz Year 2 teams will decrease suspensions/expulsi ons by 15% for all students and 5% for students with IEPs as measured by end-of-year data submitted to ADE c) Between baseline data collection and the end of the second year of PBISAz training, PBISAz Year 2 teams will decrease suspensions/expulsi ons over 10 days by 15% for all students and 5% for students with IEPs as measured by end-ofyear data submitted to ADE a) Collect ending data on suspensions/expulsi ons for all students and students with disabilities for Siete Year 1 teams by 6/30/10 b) Collect ending data on office referrals for all students and students with disabilities for Siete Year 1 teams by 6/30/10 team’s level of implementation. 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. Activities completed from 9/1/09 to 6/30/10. Reports 8/1/09– 6/30/10 Year 2 teams demonstrated a decrease in suspensions/expulsions of 50% for all students and a decrease in suspensions/expulsions of 67% for students with IEPs. Activities completed from 9/1/09 to 6/30/10. AZ Implement ation Checklist ADE data 8/1/09– 6/30/10 100% of the Year 2 teams reported no students, including students with IEPs, receiving suspensions/expulsions over 10 days. Activities completed from 9/1/09 to 6/30/10. 100% of the nine teams in AHAA Year 1 submitted data on office referrals. PBISAz Coordinato rs AZ Implement ation Checklist ADE data 9/1/09– 6/30/10 CSPD Staff School Principals 100% of the nine teams in AHAA Year 1 submitted data on suspensions/expulsions. Activities completed from 9/1/09 to 6/30/10. PBISAz Coordinato rs 9/1/08– 6/30/10 CSPD Staff School Principals Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 47 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 c) Analyze and report aggregated and disaggregated data collected for all students and students with disabilities on the impact of the AHAA project on suspensions/expulsi ons and office referrals for Siete Year 1 teams by 6/30/11 Activities completed from 7/1/10 to 6/30/11. The following data express the percentages of the 12 Year 1 teams* that decreased suspension/expulsion rates and office referrals for students with IEPs:  nine of 10 schools had zero suspensions > 10 days, one school had one suspension > 10 days**  36% decreased in-school suspensions  90% decreased out-ofschool suspensions  40% decreased suspensions > 10 days and 50% maintained zero suspensions > 10 days**  100% maintained zero expulsions  27% decreased office referrals and one school showed no change *One team did not maintain data for students with IEPs **One team did not collect data for students with IEPs who were suspended > 10 days 9/1/08– 6/30/11 CSPD Staff School Teams The following data express the percentages of the 12 Year 1 teams that decreased suspension/expulsion rates and office referrals for general education students:  three schools maintained zero suspensions > 10 days*  11 of 11 schools had a rate less than 5% for suspensions > 10 days*  41% decreased in-school suspensions  90% decreased out-ofschool suspensions  54%* decreased suspensions > 10 days and 27% maintained zero suspensions > 10 days Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 48 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 d) All Siete Year 1 school teams will complete Team Implementation Portfolios to document continuous, on-site team activities to train staff with AHAA materials, implement differential reinforcement (check in/check out), and plan accommodations for diverse learners, including students with IEPs by reporting 6/30/11  8% decreased expulsions and 75% maintained zero expulsions  41% decreased office referrals *One team did not maintain the data Activities completed from 7/1/10 to 6/30/11. Each Year 1 team has a Team Implementation Portfolio which includes:  Documentation of staff development with analysis by the team providing reflection on content, presentation, and evaluation  Charts of monthly behavior data along with the team’s reflection on progress and areas of need  Documentation of team meetings where teams analyzed data, planned trainings, and planned for implementation of differentiated interventions for both students with IEPs and general education students  Constructive comments obtained during the subsequent training session  Review of all activities that assisted with support and guidance for both general education and students with IEPs  Training content, which was differentiated by the presenter to address elementary, middle school, and high school teams  Materials that serve as a resource for future activities, planning, and problem solving  Training content that includes strategies such as: 10/7/09– 6/30/11 CSPD Staff School Teams AHAA Director Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 49 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 3) AHAA Year 2 Seis schools will decrease the suspension/ expulsion rate greater than 10 days for students with disabilities to less than 5% a) Collect ending data on suspensions/expulsi ons for all students and students with disabilities for Seis Year 2 teams by 6/30/10 b) Collect ending data on office referrals for all students and students with disabilities for Seis Year 2 teams by 6/30/10 c) Analyze and report aggregated and disaggregated data collected for all students and students with disabilities on the impact of the AHAA project on suspensions/expulsi ons and office referrals for Seis Year 2 teams by 6/30/11 o Check In/Check Out o 10 Grid o Proactive Classroom Management o I Do, You Do, We Do Activities completed from 9/1/09 to 6/30/10. 9/1/08– 6/30/10 School Principals 100% of the seven teams in AHAA Year 2 submitted data on suspensions/expulsions. Activities completed from 9/1/09 to 6/30/10. 9/1/08– 6/30/10 The following data are the percentages of the eight second-year teams* that decreased suspension/expulsion rates and office referrals for students with IEPs:  five of eight schools had zero suspensions > 10 days; six of eight schools had a rate less than 5% for suspensions > 10 days; one school had a rate of 7% suspensions > 10 days*  28% decreased in-school suspensions and one school showed no change  57% decreased out-ofschool suspensions  28% decreased suspensions > 10 days and four schools maintained zero suspensions > 10 days  100% maintained zero expulsions  57% decreased office referrals *One team was not included CSPD Staff School Principals 100% of the seven teams in AHAA Year 2 submitted data on office referrals. Activities completed from 7/1/10 to 6/30/11. CSPD Staff 9/1/08– 6/30/11 CSPD Staff School Teams Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 50 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 because data was collected for a partial year d) All Seis Year 2 school teams will complete Team Implementation Portfolios and report on 6/30/11 to document continuous, on-site team activities to train staff with AHAA materials, implement differential reinforcement (check in/check out), and plan accommodations for diverse learners, including students with IEPs The following expresses the percentages of the eight Year 2 teams* that decreased suspension/expulsion rates and office referrals for general education students:  four of seven schools had zero suspensions > 10 days; five of seven schools had a rate less than 5% for suspensions > 10 days*  28% decreased in-school suspensions  85% decreased out-ofschool suspensions  42% decreased suspensions > 10 days, and 42% maintained zero suspensions > than 10 days  28% decreased expulsions, and 71% maintained zero expulsions  57% decreased office referrals *One team was not included because data was collected for a partial year Activities completed from 7/1/10 to 6/30/11. Each Year 2 team has a Team Implementation Portfolio that includes:  Documentation of staff development with analysis by the team that provides reflection on content, presentation, and evaluation  Charts of monthly behavior data along with the team’s reflection on progress and areas of need  Documentation of team meetings in which teams analyzed data, planned trainings, and planned for implementation of differentiated interventions 10/7/09– 6/30/11 CSPD Staff School Teams AHAA Director Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 51 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010      4) Conduct trainings related to the discipline process for students with disabilities 5) Provide support for PEAs that are flagged as at risk for significant discrepancy, defined a) Conduct semiannual 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) On an annual basis, analyze data to flag PEAs that are at risk for significant discrepancy for both students with IEPs and general education students Constructive comments obtained during the subsequent training session Review of all activities that assist with support and guidance for both general education and students with IEPs Training content, which was differentiated by the presenter to address elementary, middle school, and high school teams Materials that serve as a resource for future activities, planning, and problem solving Training content that includes strategies such as: o Check In/Check Out o 10 Grid o Proactive Classroom Management o I Do, You Do, We Do o Pathway Charting o Classroom Environmental Observation o Behavior Support Plan Development Activities completed from 7/1/10 to 6/30/11. Data were reviewed by ESS directors and PEAs were 7/1/11– 6/30/13 CSPD Staff 7/1/11– 6/30/13 CSPD Staff 7/1/10– 6/30/13 ADE/ESS Directors and Program Specialists Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 52 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 as those PEAs that suspend or expel five or more students with IEPs for more than 10 days and those suspended or expelled students were greater than 3% of its special education population flagged that were determined to be at risk for significant discrepancy. At risk was defined as those PEAs that suspended/expelled five or more students with IEPs for more than 10 days and those suspended or expelled students were greater than 3% of its special education population. b) On an annual basis, notify PEAs that are flagged as at risk for significant discrepancy c) Provide assessment tools and resources to PEAs that are flagged as at risk to conduct root cause analyses 6) 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 a) On an annual basis, notify PEAs that are flagged for significant discrepancy This activity was discontinued and revised due to new definition of significant discrepancy. Activities completed from 7/1/10 to 6/30/11. ADE/ESS Data Manageme nt Specialist 7/1/10– 6/30/13 ADE/ESS Directors and Program Specialists 7/1/10– 6/30/13 ADE/ESS Directors and Program Specialists 7/1/10– 6/30/13 ADE/ESS Directors and Program Specialists ESS program specialists notified PEAs that were at risk during on-site visits, and data was reviewed and discussed. This activity was discontinued and revised due to new definition of significant discrepancy. Activities completed from 7/1/10 to 6/30/11. ESS program specialists gave resources to PEAs at risk for significant discrepancy and assisted with drill downs to analyze root causes. This activity was discontinued and revised due to new definition of significant discrepancy. Activities completed from 7/1/10 to 6/30/11. There were no PEAs flagged for significant discrepancy. This activity was discontinued and revised due to new definition of significant discrepancy. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 53 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 those suspended or expelled students were greater than 5% of its special education population b) Provide technical assistance to PEA staff during their review of policies, procedures, and practices Activities completed from 7/1/10 to 6/30/11. 7/1/10– 6/30/13 There were no PEAs flagged for significant discrepancy. ADE/ESS Directors and Program Specialists This activity was discontinued and revised due to new definition of significant discrepancy. Correction of FFY 2009 Findings of Noncompliance Arizona did not make any findings of noncompliance in FFY 2009 as a result of the review of policies, procedures, and practices required by 34 CFR 300.170 (b). Actions Taken if Noncompliance Not Corrected Arizona did not make any findings of noncompliance in FFY 2009. Verification of Correction (either timely or subsequent) Arizona did not make any findings of noncompliance in FFY 2009. Correction of Remaining FFY 2008 Findings of Noncompliance Not applicable. Correction of Any Remaining Findings of Noncompliance from FFY 2007 or Earlier Not applicable. 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 2011 The following are revised improvement activities due to the new definition of significant discrepancy. Primary Activity (GOAL) 1) Provide support for PEAs that are flagged as at risk Sub-Activities (Objectives or Action Steps) a) On an annual basis, analyze data to flag PEAs that are at risk Timeline Complete Projected 7/1/11– 6/30/13 Resources (Planned) Suspensio n/expulsion Data Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 54 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 for significant discrepancy 2) Provide support for PEAs that are flagged for significant discrepancy for significant discrepancy b) On an annual basis, notify PEAs that are flagged as at risk for significant discrepancy 7/1/11– 6/30/13 c) Provide assessment tools and resources to PEAs that are flagged as at risk to conduct root cause analyses 7/1/11– 6/30/13 a) On an annual basis, notify PEAs that are flagged for significant discrepancy 7/1/11– 6/30/13 b) Provide technical assistance to PEA staff during their review of policies, procedures, and practices 7/1/11– 6/30/13 ADE/ESS Directors and Program Specialists ADE/ESS Directors and Program Specialists ADE/ESS Directors and Program Specialists Resource Tools and Lists ADE/ESS Directors and Program Specialists ADE/ESS Directors and Program Specialists Resource Tools and Lists Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 55 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 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 Data Source The 2009–2010 data were reported by the PEAs through the Arizona Safety Accountability for Education (AZ SAFE) application. The data are the same as the data reported under section 618, Table 5 (Report of Children with Disabilities Subject to Disciplinary Removal) for school year 2009–2010, due November 1, 2010. The October 1, 2009, Child Count data are the same as the State’s data reported under section 618, Table 1, Report of Children with Disabilities Receiving Special Education Under Part B of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. Note that the source of this data is from FFY 2009. The total number of PEAs in Arizona vary from year to year due to the number of charter schools that may open and close from year to year. Valid and Reliable Data The ADE/ESS assures the validity and reliability of the AZ SAFE data through the Annual Special Education Data Collection, which uses internal edit checks. The State requires an assurance from the PEAs through the submission of a signed verification form attesting to the validity of the data. Definition of Significant Discrepancy and Methodology Arizona uses Statistical Analysis Software (SAS) to calculate rates of suspension and expulsion by race or ethnicity for children with IEPs. Arizona uses the state bar method to determine significant discrepancy. The State rate of suspensions/expulsions greater than 10 days for all students with IEPs is 0.65%. The State bar, 5.65%, is five percentage points greater than the State rate. Any district or charter school that suspends or expels 5.65% or more of its students with IEPs of a given race/ethnicity for more than 10 days is flagged for significant discrepancy. There must be at least 50 students in the denominator of a suspension/expulsion rate for that district or charter school to be flagged Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 56 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 as having significant discrepancy. The denominator represents the special education enrollment at the district or charter school for a given race/ethnicity. Previously, Arizona used a minimum “n” size of 10 students in the numerator. In other words, at least 10 students with IEPs of a particular racial/ethnic group had to be suspended/expelled for greater than 10 days for a PEA to be identified as having significant discrepancy. However, due to new guidance from the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) and the Data Accountability Center (DAC) in the September 2011 technical assistance guide, Arizona decided to use a minimum “n” size in the denominator and, as a result, exclude fewer PEAs from the calculation. Using the minimum “n” size of 50 students for a given race/ethnicity enrollment, Arizona excluded 23 PEAs from the calculation (excluded 23 from 581) and used the total number of PEAs (581) in the State in the denominator. Arizona compares the rates of suspension and expulsion of greater than 10 days in a school year for students with IEPs among PEAs in the State. Target Data for FFY 2010 (using 2009–2010 data) FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target FFY 2010 (using 2009– 2010 data) 0.0% Indicator 4B — Actual Target Data for FFY 2010 (using 2009–2010 data) 0.0% Arizona met the target. 4B (a) PEAs with Significant Discrepancy, by Race or Ethnicity, in Rates of Suspension and Expulsion Year Total Number of PEAs* Number of PEAs That Have Significant Discrepancies by Race or Ethnicity Percent of PEAs FFY 2010 (using 2009–2010 data) 581 4 0.69% *Arizona included the total number of PEAs 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 Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 57 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 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 2010 (using 2009–2010 data) 581 0 Percent of PEAs 0.00% *Arizona included the total number of PEAs in the denominator Review of Policies, Procedures, and Practices for FFY 2010 (using 2009–2010 data) The State reviewed the PEAs’ suspension/expulsion data by race or ethnicity and identified four PEAs with a significant discrepancy. The PEAs reviewed their policies, procedures, and practices relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards to determine if these contributed to the significant discrepancy. 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 assessments to validate the decisions made by the PEAs during the file reviews. Upon the completion of this review, Arizona determined that the four PEAs were in compliance with IDEA requirements that pertain to the development and implementation of IEPs, use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards. 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). Explanation of Progress That Occurred for FFY 2010 The FFY 2010 rate of 0.0% is the same as that achieved in FFY 2009. Arizona will continue to encourage PEAs to reduce their suspension and expulsion rates by race/ethnicity. The ESS directors and program specialists examine the APR data and other information for all the PEAs in the State on an annual basis. Following these daylong meetings, the specialists visit their assigned Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 58 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 PEAs to discuss each agency’s results, the SPP/APR targets, and strategies to achieve compliance and improve results. The suspension/expulsion data is reviewed to identify the agencies at risk for a significant discrepancy by race/ethnicity. Resources and technical assistance are provided to the PEAs that are at risk. Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed for FFY 2010 Primary Activity (GOAL) 1) Conduct trainings related to the discipline process for students with disabilities 2) Provide support for PEAs that are flagged as at risk for significant discrepancy for race or ethnicity, defined as those PEAs that suspend or expel five or more students with IEPs for more than 10 days and those suspended or expelled students were greater than 3% of its special education population 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) On an annual basis, analyze data to flag PEAs that are at risk for significant discrepancy for race or ethnicity b) On an annual basis, notify PEAs that are flagged as at risk for significant discrepancy for Timeline Complete Activities completed from 7/1/10 to 6/30/11. Projected 7/1/11– 6/30/13 CSPD Staff 7/1/11– 6/30/13 CSPD Staff 7/1/10– 6/30/13 ADE/ESS Directors Data were reviewed by ESS directors and PEAs were flagged that were determined to be at risk for significant discrepancy for each racial/ethnic group. “At risk” was defined as those PEAs that suspended/expelled five or more students with IEPs for more than 10 days and those suspended or expelled students were greater than 3% of its special education population. This activity was discontinued and revised due to new definition of significant discrepancy. Activities completed from 7/1/10 to 6/30/11. ESS program Resources (Planned) ADE/ESS Program Specialists ADE/ESS Data Manageme nt Specialist 7/1/10– 6/30/13 ADE/ESS Directors ADE/ESS Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 59 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 race or ethnicity c) Provide assessment tools and resources to PEAs that are flagged as at risk to conduct root cause analyses 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 a) On an annual basis, notify PEAs 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 specialists notified PEAs at risk during on-site visits, and data were reviewed and discussed as they pertained to race or ethnicity. This activity was discontinued and revised due to new definition of significant discrepancy. Activities completed from 7/1/10 to 6/30/11. Program Specialists 7/1/10– 6/30/13 ESS program specialists gave resources to PEAs at risk for significant discrepancy by race or ethnicity and assisted with drill downs to analyze root causes. This activity was discontinued and revised due to new definition of significant discrepancy. Activities completed from 7/1/10 to 6/30/11. ADE/ESS Program Specialists 7/1/10– 6/30/13 There were no PEAs flagged for significant discrepancy. This activity was discontinued and revised due to new definition of significant discrepancy. Activities completed from 7/1/10 to 6/30/11. There were no PEAs flagged for significant discrepancy. ADE/ESS Directors ADE/ESS Directors ADE/ESS Program Specialists 7/1/10– 6/30/13 ADE/ESS Directors ADE/ESS Program Specialists This activity was discontinued and revised due to new definition of significant discrepancy. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 60 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 Correction of FFY 2009 Findings of Noncompliance Arizona did not make any findings of noncompliance in FFY 2009 as a result of the review of policies, procedures, and practices required by 34 CFR 300.170 (b). Actions Taken if Noncompliance Not Corrected Arizona did not make any findings of noncompliance in FFY 2009. Verification of Correction (either timely or subsequent) Arizona did not make any findings of noncompliance in FFY 2009. 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 2011 The following are revised improvement activities due to the new definition of significant discrepancy. Primary Activity (GOAL) 1) Provide support for PEAs that are flagged as at risk for significant discrepancy by race or ethnicity Sub-Activities (Objectives or Action Steps) a) On an annual basis, analyze data to flag PEAs that are at risk for significant discrepancy by race or ethnicity b) On an annual basis, notify PEAs that are flagged as at risk for significant discrepancy by race or ethnicity c) Provide assessment tools and resources to PEAs that are flagged as at risk by race or ethnicity to conduct root cause analyses Timeline Complete Projected 7/1/11– 6/30/13 7/1/11– 6/30/13 7/1/11– 6/30/13 Resources (Planned) Suspensio n/expulsion Data ADE/ESS Directors and Program Specialists ADE/ESS Directors and Program Specialists ADE/ESS Directors and Program Specialists Resource Tools and Lists Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 61 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 2) Provide support for PEAs that are flagged for significant discrepancy by race or ethnicity a) On an annual basis, notify PEAs that are flagged for significant discrepancy by race or ethnicity b) Provide technical assistance to PEA staff during their review of policies, procedures, and practices 7/1/11– 6/30/13 7/1/11– 6/30/13 ADE/ESS Directors and Program Specialists ADE/ESS Directors and Program Specialists Resource Tools and Lists Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 62 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 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. Indicator 5A, 5B, and 5C — Target Data for FFY 2010 FFY 2010 Measurable and Rigorous Targets Indicator 5A ≥ 80% Indicator 5B < 40% Indicator 5C Separate 54% 14.5% 1.7% Indicator 5A, 5B, and 5C — Actual Target Data for FFY 2010 Indicator 5A ≥ 80% Indicator 5B < 40% Indicator 5C Separate # of children 66,434 16,457 2,895 % of children 60% 14.8% 2.6% # of students aged 6–21 with IEPs 111,060 Arizona exceeded the target for Indicator 5A. Arizona did not meet the target for Indicator 5B. Arizona did not meet the target for Indicator 5C. Data Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 63 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 Data Source The data were collected through the October 1, 2010, Child Count report and are the same as the State’s data reported under section 618, Table 3, Part B, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Implementation of FAPE Requirements. Valid and Reliable Data The ADE/ESS assures the validity and reliability of the data because ESS collected, maintained, and reported the October 1, 2010, child count data and the February 1, 2011, placement data using internal edit checks. The State requires PEAs to assure their data is accurate and reliable by having them submit signed verification letters. Explanation of Progress That Occurred for FFY 2010 Arizona exceeded the target for Indicator 5A, but did not meet the targets for Indicators 5B and 5C. Progress was made from FFY 2009 on Indicator 5A, from 58.6% to 59.8%. Slight slippage occurred on Indicator 5B, from 14.6% to 14.8%. Slight progress was made on Indicator 5C, from 2.65% to 2.61%. The ADE/ESS continued to sponsor the AHAA Institute (Arizona High Achievement for All) during FFY 2010. The Institute is designed for schools having data that does not meet State targets for Indicator 5. During a two-year time span, AHAA offers various sessions to school teams, which are 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 data generated by the schools with AHAA teams showed that the trainings and activities made positive changes for students with IEPs. There was a decrease in the number of students placed in separate settings; a decrease in suspension/expulsion rates; and a decrease in office referrals (see the improvement activities below). The AHAA presenter and Exceptional Student Services emphasized accountability through data collection and reporting. An Implementation Portfolio completed by the teams ensures that participants implement the new strategies learned at the Institute with fidelity. In addition to the AHAA Institute, the ADE/ESS program specialists review least restrictive environment (LRE) data with school administrators at each PEA in the State on an annual basis. If a PEA’s data does not meet State targets for LRE, then the concern is discussed with the administrator. If a PEA is in Year 4 of the monitoring cycle, then a self assessment in this area may be one of the monitoring activities. Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed for FFY 2010 Primary Activity (GOAL) 1) Arizona High Achievement for All (AHAA) Year 1 Siete schools will complete all tasks to improve decision making in placing students Sub-Activities (Objectives or Action Steps) a) Collect ending data on suspensions/expulsio ns for all students and students with disabilities for Siete Year 1 teams by 6/30/10 Timeline Complete Activities completed from 9/1/09 to 6/30/10. 100% of the nine teams in AHAA Siete submitted data on suspensions/expulsions. Projected 9/1/08– 6/30/10 Resources (Planned) Comprehe nsive System of Personnel Developme nt (CSPD) Staff Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 64 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 with disabilities in the least restrictive environment School Principals b) Collect ending data on office referrals for all students and students with disabilities for Siete Year 1 teams c) Analyze and report aggregated and disaggregated data collected for all students and students with disabilities on the impact of the AHAA project on suspensions/expulsio ns, office referrals, and placement in the least restrictive environment for Siete Year 1 teams by 6/30/11 Activities completed from 9/1/09 to 6/30/10. 9/1/08– 6/30/10 School Principals 100% of the nine teams in AHAA Siete submitted data on office referrals. Activities completed from 7/1/10 to 6/30/11. The following data express percentages of Year 1 teams* that decreased suspension/expulsion rates, office referrals, and students placed in separate settings (students with IEPs):  36% decreased in-school suspensions  90% decreased out-ofschool suspensions  40% decreased suspensions > 10 days and 50% maintained zero suspensions > 10 days**  100% maintained zero expulsions  27% decreased office referrals with one school showing no change  16% decreased the number of students going to a separate setting  75% of schools maintained zero placement of students in separate settings from 2009-2010 to 2010-2011 *One team did not maintain data for students with IEPs **One team did not collect data for suspensions > 10 days for students with IEPs CSPD Staff 9/1/08– 6/30/11 CSPD Staff School Teams The following express percentages of Year 1 teams that decreased Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 65 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 d) All Siete Year 1 school teams will complete Team Implementation Portfolios by 6/30/11 to document continuous, on-site team activities to train staff with AHAA materials, implement differential reinforcement (check in/check out), and plan accommodations for diverse learners, including students with IEPs. suspension/expulsion rates, office referrals, and students placed in separate settings (general education students):  41% decreased in-school suspensions  90% decreased out-ofschool suspensions  54%* decreased suspensions > 10 days and 27% maintained zero suspensions > 10 days  8% decreased expulsions with 75% maintaining zero expulsions  41% decreased office referrals  83% of schools maintained zero placement of students in separate settings from 2009–2010 to 2010–2011  8% of schools decreased the number of students going to separate settings *One team did not maintain the data Activities completed from 7/1/10 to 6/30/11. Each Year 1 team has a Team Implementation Portfolio that includes:  Documentation of staff development with analysis by the team providing reflection on content, presentation, and evaluation  Charts of monthly behavior data along with the team’s reflection on progress and areas of need  Documentation of team meetings in which teams analyzed data, planned trainings, and planned for differentiated implementation of interventions for both students with IEPs and general education students  Constructive comments obtained during the subsequent training session  Review of all activities that 10/7/09– 6/30/11 CSPD Staff School Teams AHAA Director Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 66 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 2) Arizona High Achievement for All (AHAA) Year 2 Seis schools will complete all tasks to improve decision making involving placing students with disabilities in the least restrictive environment a) Collect ending data on suspensions/expulsio ns for all students and students with disabilities for Seis Year 2 teams by 6/30/10 b) Collect ending data on office referrals for all students and students with disabilities for Seis Year 2 teams by 6/30/10 c) Analyze and report aggregated and disaggregated 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 by 6/30/11 assisted with support and guidance for both general education students and students with IEPs  Training content, which was differentiated by the presenter to address elementary, middle school, and high school teams  Materials that serve as resources for future activities, planning, and problem solving  Training content that includes strategies such as: o Check in/Check out o 10 Grid o Proactive Classroom Management o I Do, You Do, We Do Activities completed from 9/1/09 to 6/30/10. 9/1/08– 6/30/10 School Principals 100% of the seven teams in AHAA Seis submitted data on suspensions/expulsions. Activities completed from 9/1/09 to 6/30/10. 9/1/08– 6/30/10 The following data express percentages of Year 2 teams* that decreased suspension/expulsion rates, office referrals, and students placed in separate settings (students with IEPs):  28% decreased in-school suspensions with one school showing no change  57% decreased out-ofschool suspensions  28% decreased suspensions > 10 days with four schools maintaining zero CSPD Staff School Principals 100% of the seven teams in AHAA Seis submitted data on office referrals. Activities completed from 7/1/10 to 6/30/11. CSPD Staff 9/1/08– 6/30/11 CSPD Staff School Teams Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 67 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 suspensions > 10 days  100% maintained zero expulsions  57% decreased office referrals  42% decreased number of students going to separate settings  42% of schools maintained zero placement of students in separate settings from 2009–2010 to 2010–2011 *One team was not included because data was collected for a partial year d) All school teams will complete Team Implementation Portfolios by 6/30/11 to document continuous, on-site team activities to train The following data express percentages of Year 2 teams that decreased suspension/expulsion rates, office referrals, and students placed in separate settings (general education students):  28% decreased in-school suspensions  85% decreased out-ofschool suspensions  42% decreased suspensions > 10 days and 42% maintained zero suspensions > than 10 day  28% decreased expulsions and 71% maintained zero expulsions  57% decreased office referrals  28% of school decreased number of students going to separate settings  71% of schools maintained zero placement of students in separate settings from 2009–2010 to 2010–2011 *One team was not included because data was collected for a partial year Activities completed from 7/1/10 to 6/30/11. Each Year 2 team has a Team Implementation Portfolio that includes:  Documentation of staff 10/7/09– 6/30/11 CSPD Staff School Teams AHAA Director Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 68 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 staff with AHAA materials, implement differential reinforcement (check in/check out), and plan accommodations for diverse learners, including students with IEPs. 3) Conduct interviews with special education directors and site administrators about available service delivery models and LRE data as a a) Gather data from interview responses and supporting documentation of placement decisions and service delivery models for students with IEPs development with analysis by the team providing reflection on content, presentation, and evaluation  Charts of monthly behavior data along with the team’s reflection of progress and areas of need  Documentation of team meetings in which teams analyzed data, planned trainings, and planned for differentiated implementation of interventions for both students with IEPs and general education students  Constructive comments obtained during the subsequent training session  Review of all activities that assisted with support and guidance for both general education students and students with IEPs  Training content, which was differentiated by the presenter to address elementary, middle school, and high school teams  Materials that serve as a resource for future activities, planning, and problem solving  Training content that includes strategies such as: o Check in/Check out o 10 Grid o Proactive Classroom Management o I Do, You Do, We Do o Pathway Charting o Classroom Environmental Observation o Behavior Support Plan Development Activity completed 6/1/11. Interviews were conducted with special education and site administrators during all on-site monitorings to discuss service delivery models. Results of the interviews and the supporting documentation will be analyzed. 10/1/10– 6/30/11 ADE/ESS Directors and Specialists Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 69 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 component of all on-site monitorings (documentation requires individualized decision-making process for placement). b) Revise interview questions and documentation requirements based on results related to LRE targets c) Conduct revised interviews and gather supporting documentation 7/1/11– 6/30/12 ADE/ESS Directors and Specialists 7/1/12– 6/30/13 ADE/ESS Directors and Specialists 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 2011 The following is a new improvement activity designed to affect decision-making abilities by PEA teams pertaining to least restrictive environments. Primary Activity (GOAL) 1) Provide autism training to school teams designed to improve teams’ ability to make LRE decisions that will maintain or increase the amount of time students with autism are served in general education settings Sub-Activities (Objectives or Action Steps) a) Collect baseline data (FFY 2009 service codes) for students with autism enrolled in schools that participate in autism training b) Provide training that, if implemented, can increase teams’ decision-making abilities to maintain or increase the amount of time students with autism are served in a general education settings by giving teams the:  knowledge of traits and characteristics of students with autism  ability to apply instructional supports and practices consistent with the needs of students with autism  skills to decrease ineffective behaviors of students with Timeline Complete Projected Resources (Planned) 7/1/11– 6/30/13 PEAs’ FFY 2009 service code data 7/1/11– 6/30/13 CSPD Staff Team Training Materials School Administrator General Education Teacher(s) Special Education Teacher(s) Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 70 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 autism c) Provide capacity building coaching support to each team to increase team effectiveness during training 7/1/11– 6/30/13 CSPD Coaching Coordinator Coaching Refresher Training Coaching Presenter d) Provide training that, if implemented, would give teams the necessary processes to plan, execute, and evaluate the effectiveness of their activities e) Collect FFY 2010 and FFY 2011 census data for students with autism enrolled in schools that participate in autism training f) Aggregate and disaggregate service code data for students with autism enrolled in schools that participate in autism training 7/1/11– 6/30/13 Coaching Materials CSPD Staff Implementati on Portfolios 7/1/11– 6/30/13 7/1/11– 6/30/13 CSPD staff PEAs’ FFY 2010 and FFY 2011 census data CSPD Staff PEA Staff Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 71 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 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  The Arizona Part B FFY 2009 SPP/APR Response Table says that the State is not required to report on this Indicator in the FFY 2010 APR, due February 1, 2012. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 72 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 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 category (d)] times 100. Summary Statement 2: The percent of preschool children who were functioning within age expectations Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 73 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 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 2010 Measurable and Rigorous Targets FFY 2010 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. 76.38% 68.97% 77.45% 2. Percent of children who were functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers by the time they exited. 59.80% 47.86% 57.90% Actual Target Data for Preschool Children Exiting in FFY 2010 FFY 2010 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. 79.76% 72.60% 80.16% 2. Percent of children who were functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers by the time they exited. 69.98% 60.41% 69.74% Six of the six targets were met. Table 7.1 Number and Percentage of Children in Each Progress Category and Summary Statement Calculations for Preschool Children Exiting in FFY 2010 FFY 2010 Positive SocialEmotional Skills # of children a. Children who did not improve functioning b. Children who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same age peers c. Children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it % of children Acquiring and Using Knowledge and Skills # of children % of children Taking Appropriate Action to Meet Needs # of children % of children 75 2.26% 99 2.98% 84 2.53% 347 10.44% 564 16.97% 325 9.78% 576 17.33% 653 19.65% 597 17.96% Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 74 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 d. Children who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers 1,087 32.70% 1,104 33.21% 1,056 31.77% e. Children who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers 1,239 37.27% 904 27.20% 1,262 37.97% Total 3,324 100.0% 3,324 100.0% 3,324 100.0% 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. 79.76% 72.60% 80.16% 2. Percent of children who were functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers by the time they exited. 69.98% 60.41% 69.74% 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 Showing Results Over Time 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. Positive Social-Emotional Skills Acquiring and Using Knowledge and Skills Taking Appropriate Action to Meet Needs 2008-09 3,334 2009-10 3,284 2010-11 3,324 2008-09 3,334 2009-10 3,284 2010-11 3,324 2008-09 3,334 2009-10 3,284 2010-11 3,324 75.88% 81.39% 79.76% 68.47% 75.54% 72.60% 76.95% 82.02% 80.16% 59.30% 70.13% 69.98% 47.36% 61.85% 60.41% 57.50% 69.76% 69.74% Table 7.2 (above) compares the baseline data established in FFY 2008 to the results for FFY 2009 and FFY 2010. Data Data Source PEAs report assessment data using a Web-based data collection system that is integrated with the ADE Student Accountability Information System (SAIS). Biannual 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 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) Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 75 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 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 the specific instrument publishing companies in summer and fall 2006. Ongoing technical assistance for SAIS, including the early childhood assessment component, is provided by ADE’s 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. Prior to FFY 2008, “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 that this standard of performance is too stringent because students who score below a 50th percentile score also are typically defined as “at age level.” In fact, the Early Childhood Outcomes (ECO) Center recommends that “comparable to same-aged peers” be defined at the 10th 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 roughly equated to a 10th to 15th percentile score. In addition, slight statistical modifications in the scores were made in order to equate the results across the four assessments. This definition for “comparable to same-aged peers” has been consistent since FFY 2008. Note that in FFY 2010, the ADE selected one assessment (Teaching Strategies GOLD) that all preschools will use to measure student progress in these three outcome areas. This will allow “comparable to same-aged peers” to be tied to a standard score and a percentile score. Results from the one assessment will be reported for the first time in the FFY 2011 APR. 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 Slippage That Occurred for FFY 2010 All six targets were met, but scores decreased by small percentages in all areas from FFY 2009 to FFY 2010. However, for each of the three outcomes areas, more than 72% of exiting children increased their rate of growth by the time they exited. Further, for each of the three outcome areas, over 60% of exiting children were functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers at the time they exited. The decrease in scores from FFY 2009 to FFY 2010 may be attributed to the continual refinement of the assessment process as implemented by districts. ADE anticipated a fluctuation in scores as district staffs increased their professional knowledge and experience in conducting child assessment using the four State-approved instruments. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 76 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed for FFY 2010 Primary Activity (GOAL) 1) Implement new preschool assessment (Teaching Strategies GOLD) statewide Sub-Activities (Objectives or Action Steps) a) Identify and implement ADE infrastructure modifications b) Provide regional trainings on the use of Teaching Strategies GOLD 2) Provide professional development activities around quality assessment practices 3) Increase the percentage of PEAs that collect and report timely preschool assessment data a) Provide professional development “How to Improve the Quality of your Ongoing Progress Monitoring Data” within areas of need as identified through the Early Childhood Quality Improvement Practices Process (ECQUIP) process and upon request of districts a) Crosscheck child count data with district preschool assessment data b) Notify districts if preschool assessment data are not submitted Timeline Complete Activities completed from 7/1/10 to 6/30/11. ADE Information Technology is working with Early Childhood Special Education and Teaching Strategies to determine data requirements and processes for importing State-level data to ADE Student Accountability and Information System. Activities completed from 7/1/10 to 6/30/11. Twenty-one trainings reaching over 400 early childhood educators and administrators were held in various regions throughout Arizona. Activities completed from 7/1/10 to 6/30/11 Projected 7/1/10– 6/30/12 Resources (Planned) ADE/ECSE Director and Specialist ADE IT 1/1/11– 6/30/12 ADE/ECSE Teaching Strategies GOLD 7/1/10– 6/30/13 ADE/ECSE Director and Specialist Activities completed from 7/1/10 to 6/30/11. 7/1/10– 6/30/13 ADE/ECSE Director and Specialist Child count data was crosschecked with district preschool assessment data— 34 districts needed to submit assessment data. Activities completed from 7/1/10 to 6/30/11. 7/1/10– 6/30/13 ADE/ECSE Director and Twenty-two trainings pertaining to ongoing progress monitoring were provided to districts statewide. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 77 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 on time Thirty-four districts received notification about submitting data within timelines. All 34 districts submitted and implemented improvement plans within one year. Specialist Additional Information Required by the OSEP APR Response Table for This Indicator Statement from the Response Table The State must report progress data and actual target data for FFY 2010 with the FFY 2010 APR. State’s Response In the FFY 2010 APR, Arizona reported progress data and actual target data for Indicator 7 for FFY 2010. Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources for FFY 2011 The following are new improvement activities related to Teaching Strategies GOLD (new preschool assessment) for FFY 2011. Primary Activity (GOAL) 1) Establish an Early Childhood Data Collaborative (ECDC) 2) Develop and disseminate publications statewide to serve as ongoing guidance and communication Sub-Activities (Objectives or Action Steps) a) Obtain stakeholder input at quarterly meetings during transition to Teaching Strategies GOLD b) Use stakeholder input to guide development of Statelevel policies and procedures related to implementation of Teaching Strategies GOLD a) Develop ADE Early Childhood Assessment Manual (guidance document) and disseminate statewide b) Develop monthly bulletins to alert PEAs about updates and new guidance for preschool assessment instrument Timeline Complete Projected 7/1/11– 6/30/13 7/1/11– 6/30/13 Resources (Planned) ADE/ECSE EC Data Collaborati ve ADE/ECSE EC Data Collaborati ve 7/1/11– 6/30/13 ADE/ECSE 7/1/11– 6/30/13 ADE/ECSE Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 78 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 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 2010 FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target 2010 50% Actual Target Data for FFY 2010 # 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 1,609 2,821 Actual Target Data for FFY 2010 57% 1,609  2,821  100 = 0.57 = 57% Arizona exceeded the target. Data Data Source The data are taken from the Arizona Parent Involvement 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 2010 79 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 The Arizona Parent Involvement 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 in large font in both languages. 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) that had < 10% response rate in the prior survey year. 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. Thus, within the cohort, a census of parents is given the opportunity to complete the survey. ADE/ESS ensures all newly opened PEAs (typically, charter schools) are included in a cohort and administer the parent 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/Alaskan Native 142 5.23% 8,503 6.76% Asian/Pacific Islander 37 1.36% 2,000 1.59% Black/African-American 166 6.11% 8,365 6.65% Hispanic/Latino 1,151 42.38% 50,887 40.45% White/Caucasian 1,086 39.99% 54,099 43.00% Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 80 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 Multi-racial 134 Total 2,716 4.93% 1,962 1.56% 125,816 Note: 105 respondents did not indicate the race/ethnicity of their child. 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 all racial/ethnic populations. In FFY 2009, the response rate from Asian parents (1.48%) was lower than State special education population data for the same ethnic group (7.17%). The rise in the response rate for this group in FFY 2010 may be attributed to efforts of the Parent Information Network (PIN) specialists to boost parent participation as part of Improvement Activity #1. 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 3–5 378 14.09% 14,756 11.73% Ages 6–13 1,632 60.83% 72,556 57.67% Ages 14–22 673 25.08% 38,504 30.60% Total 2,683 125,816 Note: 138 respondents did not indicate the age of their child. Table 8.2 shows the parents of students ages 3–13 are slightly more likely to respond than parents of students ages 14–22. It should be noted that responses for the 14–22 age group increased from 17.01% (30.07% of special education population) in FFY 2009 to 25.08% (30.60% of special education population) in FFY 2010. 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 2010 Arizona exceeded the target for FFY 2010; however, there was a decrease in the percentage of parents reporting that schools facilitated parent involvement as a means of improving services (from 85% in FFY 2009 to 57% in FFY 2010). This change may be attributed to the framework of participating PEAs in FFY 2009, which was a different cohort compared to the group that completed the survey in FFY 2010 and included many newly opened charter schools. 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 Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 81 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 assistance to families and schools throughout Arizona. Analysis of the requests for assistance during FFY 2010 shows an increase in the use of PIN services by educators and families. Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed for FFY 2010 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 participating PEAs of effective communication strategies with families about the importance of survey feedback via bimonthly phone, e-mail, and/or on-site consultation 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 Timeline Completed Activities completed from 7/1/10 to 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 7/1/10 to 6/30/11. Projected 9/1/08– 6/30/11 9/1/08– 6/30/11 138 workshops and events were held to explain or demonstrate the survey to parents and educators (approximately 2,212 attendees). Activities completed from 7/1/10 to 6/30/11. A parent survey announcement was emailed to 58 Enhancing Arizona’s Parent Networks (EAPN) groups. ADE/ESS PIN Coordinator and PIN Specialists ADE/ESS Program Specialists ADE/ESS PIN Coordinator and PIN Specialists Arizona Parent Involvement Survey data collection system 10 monthly response rate tallies were emailed to participating PEAs, PIN specialists, and ESS program specialists. c) Develop and distribute public awareness announcements promoting the parent survey to agencies and organizations that serve families Resources (Planned) 9/1/08– 6/30/11 ADE/ESS Parent Survey public awareness Web site (http://www.azed.g ov/specialeducation/deputyassociatesuperintendent/ari zona-parentinvolvementsurvey/) ADE/ESS PIN Coordinator and PIN Specialists Enhancing Arizona’s Parent Networks A feature article in the winter/spring edition of the PIN newsletter, Network News, Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 82 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 d) Review existing technical assistance documents and/or participate in Indicator 8 technical assistance activities to augment the Arizona Parent Involvement Survey process 2) Increase awareness of training, consultation, and resources available statewide to facilitate parent involvement in the special education process a) Develop and maintain curricula to increase parent knowledge of the special education process and effective parent involvement strategies b) Use the PIN Clearinghouse—a repository of printed reported the importance of the survey, gave directions for parents to complete the survey, and listed participating PEAs. The newsletter was direct mailed and e-mailed to 3,734 families and agencies; posted on the PIN Web site at http://www.azed.gov/sp ecial-education/deputyassociatesuperintendent/parentinformation-network/ and e-mailed to PEAs and EAPN members to forward to families and staff. Activities completed from 7/1/010 to 6/30/11. 9/1/08– 6/30/11 Annual review and revision of documents was completed by PIN coordinator and the ESS IT specialist. Activities completed from 7/1/10 to 6/30/11. Mountain Plains Regional Resource Center (MPRRC) Web site and teleconferences 9/1/08– 6/30/11 Annual review and revision of curricula and supporting documents was completed by PIN coordinator and PIN specialists. Activities completed from 7/1/10 to 6/30/11. ADE/ESS PIN Coordinator Parent Technical Assistance Center Network (http://www.parent centernetwork.org/ national/aboutus.h tml) ADE/ESS PIN Coordinator and PIN Specialists Parent Technical Assistance Center Network 9/1/08– 6/30/11 National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities (www.nichy.org) ADE/ESS PIN Coordinator and PIN Specialists Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 83 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 and Web-based special education resources and training tools—to inform families about the special education process and opportunities for their involvement c) Collaborate with the Arizona Parent Training and Information Center (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 PIN Clearinghouse resources were distributed at trainings, exhibits, and consultations. Resources were also distributed via e-mail and were available on the PIN Web site. Activities completed from 7/1/10 to 6/30/11. 9/1/086/30/11 Bimonthly announcements were e-mailed to the Arizona Parent Training and Information Center (PTI) and other EAPN members promoting parent activities and/or soliciting events for the EAPN training calendar. 145 events and trainings were posted on the EAPN training calendar. Activities completed from 7/1/10 to 6/30/11. Raising Special Kids Enhancing Arizona’s Parent Networks 9/1/08– 6/30/11 PIN specialists and ESS program specialists conducted approximately 250 consultations. Activities completed from 7/1/10 to 6/30/11. ADE/ESS PIN Clearinghouse (http://www.azed.g ov/specialeducation/deputyassociatesuperintendent/do cuments/) ADE/ESS PIN Coordinator and PIN Specialists ADE/ESS PIN Coordinator and PIN Specialists ADE/ESS Program Specialists 9/1/08– 6/30/11 Arizona Parent Involvement Survey database system ADE/ESS PIN Coordinator and PIN Specialists The annual review and revision of curricula and supporting documents was completed by the PIN coordinator and PIN specialists in order to conduct parent involvement training and activities. PIN Clearinghouse Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 84 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 documents are available in print, on CD, and in downloadable format at http://www.azed.gov/sp ecial-education/deputyassociatesuperintendent/docume nts/. 4) Evaluate PEA’s feedback of the parent involvement survey process as a means of improving survey distribution to families and use of results to enhance parent involvement 5) Increase opportunities for PEAs and parents to gain knowledge about the parent involvement survey and related family involvement projects a) Develop and administer a survey to PEAs that conducted the parent involvement survey during the 2005–2011 SPP cycle 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 parent involvement survey Web site PIN specialists consulted and trained 9,232 individuals. Activities completed from 7/1/10 to 6/30/11. 7/1/10– 6/30/13 All of Arizona’s PEAs have completed the parent involvement survey. A survey tool will be administered during FFY 2011 to solicit special education directors’ feedback about the survey process. ADE/ESS PIN Coordinator and PIN Specialists ADE/ESS Program Specialists 7/1/11– 6/30/13 ADE/ESS PIN Coordinator and PIN Specialists ADE/ESS Program Specialists Activities completed from 7/1/10 to 6/30/11. 7/1/10– 6/30/13 ADE/ESS PIN Coordinator and PIN Specialists 7/1/11– 6/30/13 ADE/ESS PIN Coordinator and PIN Specialists This activity is in development. Sample forms have been created, researchbased documents have been collected, and effective projects have been identified. Additional Information Required by the OSEP APR Response Table for This Indicator Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 85 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 Not applicable. Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources for FFY 2011 There are no revisions for FFY 2011. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 86 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 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. Data Data Source The ADE/ESS collected the data from the PEAs through the October 1, 2010, Child Count report. The data are the same as the data 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. Note that the source of this data is from FFY 2010. The total number of PEAs in Arizona vary from year to year due to the number of charter schools that may open and close from year to year. Valid and Reliable Data The ADE/ESS assures the validity and reliability of the data because it collected, maintained, and reported the October 1, 2010, child count data using internal edit checks. In addition, the State requires the PEAs to assure data accuracy and reliability by submitting a signed verification letter. Definition of Disproportionate Representation Weighted Risk Ratio Minimum n Size Target Racial/Ethnic Group Minimum n Size Racial / Ethnic Groups in Special Education and Related Services Under representation ≤ 0.30 30 30 Over representation ≥ 3.00 30 30 Disproportionate Representation Methodology The data were analyzed using Statistical Analysis Software (SAS) to produce a weighted risk ratio (WRR) that identified all racial/ethnic groups for all PEAs in the State. Data for both under representation and Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 87 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 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 that met 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. Arizona included the total number of PEAs in the State (587) in the denominator. Of the 587 PEAs, 24 were eliminated from the analyses because a weighted risk ratio could not be calculated for any racial/ethnic group. 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 PEAs’ Policies and Procedures On an annual basis, Arizona requires all PEAs to have special education policies and procedures in compliance with the requirements of 34 CFR § 300.111, § 300.201, and § 300.301 through § 300.311 prior to having Part B-IDEA Basic Entitlement Grant funds approved by the ADE/ESS. Each year, if the PEA makes any changes to the policies and procedures, the PEA must resubmit them to the State for review and acceptance. Each year, if the PEA does not make any changes to the policies and procedures, the PEA must submit a Statement of Assurance that says: “The PEA has not altered or modified the policies and procedures implementing the State and Federal requirements for services to children with disabilities previously submitted to and accepted by the Arizona Department of Education, Exceptional Student Services. If the PEA proposes to alter or modify the policies and procedures previously submitted to the Exceptional Student Services, the PEA must resubmit 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 PEAs’ 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 assessments to validate the decisions made by the PEAs during the file reviews. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 88 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010  Upon completion of the self assessments, 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 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 any 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 used 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 noncompliance, including child specific, through on-site visits and/or desk audits.  The ESS specialists ensure 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. Target Data for FFY 2010 FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target FFY 2010 0% Actual Target Data for FFY 2010 0% Arizona met the target. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 89 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 PEAs with Disproportionate Representation of Racial and Ethnic Groups That Was the Result of Inappropriate Identification Year FFY 2010 (2010– 2011) Total Number of PEAs* Number of PEAs with Disproportionate Representation 587 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 denominator. 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%). Table 9.1 PEAs with Under Representation by Racial / Ethnic Group 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 Hispanic/Latino of Any Race American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Black or African American Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White 1 0 Two or More Races Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 90 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 As shown in Table 9.1, one PEA was flagged for under representation for one racial/ethnic group (White). 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 Hispanic/Latino of Any Race 1 # of PEAs found to have disproportionate representation (over representation) as a result of inappropriate identification 0 American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Black or African American Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White Two or More Races As shown in Table 9.2, one PEA was flagged for over representation for one racial/ethnic group (Hispanic). This is the same PEA that was flagged for under representation. It was determined that the PEA did not have disproportionate representation as a result of inappropriate identification. 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 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 2010. 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. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 91 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 Explanation of Progress That Occurred for FFY 2010 Arizona’s results of 0% for FFY 2010 are the same as for FFY 2009. 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. A session at the annual Directors Institute allowed participants to learn about the SPP/APR and meet with the SPP coordinator to ask questions. After the Institute, every PEA in the State received an individualized data profile electronically, which described three-year trend data and State results for all Indicators, including Indicator 9. Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed for FFY 2010 Primary Activity (GOAL) 1) Provide support for PEAs that are flagged as at risk for disproportionate representation with a WRR ≤ 0.40 for under representation and ≥ 2.5 for over representation Sub-Activities (Objectives or Action Steps) a) Analyze data on an annual basis to flag PEAs that are at risk for disproportionate representation b) On an annual basis, notify PEAs that are flagged as at risk for disproportionate representation c) On an annual basis, provide assessment tools and resources to PEAs that are flagged as at risk to conduct a root cause analysis 2) Provide support for PEAs that are flagged for disproportionate representation with a WRR ≤ 0.30 for under a) On an annual basis, notify PEAs that are flagged for disproportionate representation Timeline Complete Activities completed from 7/1/10 to 6/30/11. Projected 7/1/10– 6/30/13 Resources (Planned) ADE/ESS Directors and Program Specialists Data were reviewed by ESS directors and PEAs were flagged that were determined to be at risk for disproportionate representation for under and over representation. Activities completed from 7/1/10 to 6/30/11. 7/1/10– 6/30/13 ESS program specialists notified PEAs during on-site visits. Activities completed from 7/1/10 to 6/30/11. 7/1/10– 6/30/13 ESS program specialists provided assessment tools and resources to PEAs flagged as at risk. Activities completed from 7/1/10 to 6/30/11. ADE/ESS Directors and Program Specialists 7/1/10– 6/30/13 ADE/ESS Directors and Program Specialists ADE/ESS notified PEAs that were flagged as having disproportionate representation. ADE Research and Evaluation ADE/ESS Directors and Program Specialists Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 92 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 representation and a WRR ≥ 3.0 for over representation 3) Investigate strategies to assist PEAs that are flagged with disproportionate representation b) Provide technical assistance to PEA staff during their review of policies, procedures, and practices Activities completed from 7/1/10 to 6/30/11. 7/1/10– 6/30/13 ADE/ESS Directors and Program Specialists 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 7/1/11– 12/31/11 ADE/ESS Directors 7/1/11– 12/31/11 c) Develop new strategies to assist PEAs that are flagged with disproportionate representation d) Implement new strategies to assist PEAs that are flagged with disproportionate representation 1/1/12– 6/30/12 ADE/ESS Deputy Associate Superinten dent and Directors ADE/ESS Directors and Program Specialists ADE/ESS Directors and Program Specialists During review of the PEAs’ policies, procedures, and practices, ESS program specialists provided resources and technical assistance to all PEAs flagged as having disproportionate representation. 7/1/12– 6/30/13 Correction of FFY 2009 Findings of Noncompliance (if State did not report 0%) Level of compliance (actual target data) State reported for FFY 2009 for this indicator: 0% Arizona did not make any findings of noncompliance in FFY 2009. Actions Taken if Noncompliance Not Corrected Not applicable. Arizona did not make any findings of noncompliance in FFY 2009. Verification of Correction (either timely or subsequent) Not applicable. Arizona did not make any findings of noncompliance in FFY 2009. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 93 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 Specific Actions the State Took to Verify the Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified in FFY 2009 Not applicable. Arizona did not make any findings of noncompliance in FFY 2009. Correction of Remaining FFY 2008 Findings of Noncompliance Not applicable. Verification of Correction of Remaining FFY 2008 Findings Not applicable. Specific Actions the State Took to Verify the Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified in FFY 2008 Not applicable. Correction of Any Remaining Findings of Noncompliance from FFY 2007 or Earlier Not applicable. 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 2011 There are no revisions for FFY 2011. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 94 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 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. Data Data Source The ADE/ESS collected the data from the PEAs through the October 1, 2010, Child Count report. The data are the same as the data 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. Note that the source of this data is from FFY 2010. The total number of PEAs in Arizona vary from year to year due to the number of charter schools that may open and close from year to year. Valid and Reliable Data The ADE/ESS assures the validity and reliability of the data because it collected, maintained, and reported the October 1, 2010, child count data using internal edit checks. In addition, the State requires the PEAs to assure data accuracy and reliability by submitting a signed verification letter. Definition of Disproportionate Representation Weighted Risk Ratio Minimum n Size Target Racial / Ethnic Group Minimum n Size Racial / Ethnic Groups in Special Education and Related Services Under representation ≤ 0.30 30 30 Over representation ≥ 3.00 30 30 Disproportionate Representation Methodology The data were analyzed using Statistical Analysis Software (SAS) to produce a weighted risk ratio (WRR) that identified all racial/ethnic groups and six disability categories for all PEAs in the State. Data for both Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 95 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 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. Arizona included the total number of PEAs in the State (587) in the denominator. Of the 587 PEAs, 28 were eliminated from the analyses because a weighted risk ratio could not be calculated for any racial/ethnic group. 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 PEAs’ Policies and Procedures On an annual basis, Arizona requires all PEAs to have special education policies and procedures in compliance with the requirements of 34 CFR § 300.111, § 300.201, and § 300.301 through § 300.311 prior to having Part B-IDEA Basic Entitlement Grant funds approved by the ADE/ESS. Each year, if the PEA makes any changes to the policies and procedures, the PEA must resubmit them to the State for review and acceptance. Each year, if the PEA does not make any changes to the policies and procedures, the PEA must submit a Statement of Assurance that says: “The PEA has not altered or modified the policies and procedures implementing the State and Federal requirements for services to children with disabilities previously submitted to and accepted by the Arizona Department of Education, Exceptional Student Services. If the PEA proposes to alter or modify the policies and procedures previously submitted to the Exceptional Student Services, the PEA must resubmit 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 PEAs’ 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 assessments to validate the decisions made by the PEAs during the file reviews. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 96 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010  Upon completion of the self assessments, 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 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 any 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 used 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 noncompliance, including child specific, through on-site visits and/or desk audits.  The ESS specialists ensure 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. Target Data for FFY 2010 FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target FFY 2010 0% Actual Target Data for FFY 2010 0% Arizona met the target. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 97 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 PEAs with Disproportionate Representation of Racial and Ethnic Groups in Specific Disability Categories That Was the Result of Inappropriate Identification Year Total Number of PEAs* FFY 2010 (2010– 2011) Number of PEAs with Disproportionate Representation of Racial and Ethnic Groups in Specific Disability Categories That Was the Result of Inappropriate Identification Number of PEAs with Disproportionate Representation 587 8 0 Percent of PEAs 0.00% *Arizona included the total number of PEAs in the denominator. PEAs with Disproportionate Representation of Racial and Ethnic Groups Arizona identified eight 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%). Table 10.1 PEAs, and Cases, with Under Representation by Racial / Ethnic Group and Disability Note: The cases give a duplicated count of PEAs. Cases of Under Representation Autism Emotional Disturbance Hispanic/Latino of Any Race 2 5 Intellectual Disabilities Other Health Impairments Specific Learning Disability Speech or Language Impairment 1 American Indian or Alaska Native Asian 2 Black or African American Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 98 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 Two or More Races # of PEAs flagged for under representation 8 # 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:     Eight PEAs were flagged for under representation due to a WRR of ≤ 0.30 for a total of 10 cases (i.e., 2 + 5 + 1 + 2 = 10). Six PEAs were flagged for one racial/ethnic group (Hispanic) for three different disability categories (A, ED, and OHI). 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 eight PEAs:  The eight 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 assessments and found them to be in compliance.  Eight PEAs were flagged for more than one consecutive year, and it was determined that the eight 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 2010 and the first few months of FFY 2011 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 eight 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 of PEAs. Cases of Over Representation Autism Emotional Disturbance Intellectual Disabilities Other Health Impairments Specific Learning Disability Speech or Language Impairment Hispanic/Latino of Any Race American Indian or Alaska Native Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 99 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 Asian Black or African American Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White 1 1 Two or More Races # of PEAs flagged for over representation 1 # 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:    One PEA was flagged for over representation due to a WRR of 3.0 or above for a total of two cases (i.e., 1 + 1 = 2). The one PEA was flagged for one racial/ethnic group (White) for two different disability categories (A and ED). This accounted for the two 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 one PEA:  The one PEA 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 PEA’s self assessment and found them to be in compliance.  The one PEA was flagged for more than one consecutive year, and it was determined that the agency 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 2010 and the first few months of FFY 2011 and current monitoring data, where available. 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. Summary of Table 10.1 and Table 10.2  One PEA was flagged for both under representation and over representation with four cases, and one PEA was flagged for under representation with two cases, with a duplicated count of 12 PEAs flagged. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 100 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010  An unduplicated count gives a total of eight PEAs flagged for under representation and/or over representation. The eight PEAs involved a total of 12 cases. Explanation of Progress That Occurred for FFY 2010 The results are the same this federal fiscal year (0%) as they were for FFY 2009. 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. A session at the annual Directors Institute allowed participants to learn about the SPP/APR and meet with the SPP coordinator to ask questions. After the Institute, every PEA in the State received an individualized data profile electronically, which described three-year trend data and State results for all Indicators, including Indicator 10. Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed for FFY 2010 Primary Activity (GOAL) 1) Provide support for PEAs that are flagged as at risk for disproportionate representation with a WRR ≤ 0.40 for under representation and ≥ 2.5 for over representation Sub-Activities (Objectives or Action Steps) a) On an annual basis, analyze data to flag PEAs that are at risk for disproportionate representation b) On an annual basis, notify PEAs that are flagged as at risk for disproportionate representation c) On an annual basis, provide assessment tools and resources to PEAs that are flagged as at risk to conduct a root cause analysis 2) Provide support for PEAs that are flagged for disproportionate a) On an annual basis, notify PEAs that are flagged for disproportionate Timeline Complete Activities completed from 7/1/10 to 6/30/11. Projected 7/1/10– 6/30/13 Resources (Planned) ADE/ESS Directors and Program Specialists Data were reviewed by ESS directors and PEAs were flagged that were determined to be at risk for disproportionate representation for under and over representation. Activities completed from 7/1/10 to 6/30/11. 7/1/10– 6/30/13 ESS program specialists notified PEAs during on-site visits. Activities completed from 7/1/10 to 6/30/11. 7/1/10– 6/30/13 ESS program specialists provided assessment tools and resources to PEAs flagged as at risk. Activities completed from 7/1/10 to 6/30/11. ADE/ESS Directors and Program Specialists 7/1/10– 6/30/13 ADE/ESS Directors and Program ADE/ESS notified PEAs that ADE Research and Evaluation ADE/ESS Directors and Program Specialists Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 101 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 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 representation b) Provide technical assistance to PEA staff during their review of policies, procedures, and practices were flagged as having disproportionate representation. Activities completed from 7/1/10 to 6/30/11. Specialists 7/1/10– 6/30/13 ADE/ESS Directors and Program Specialists 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 7/1/11– 12/31/11 ADE/ESS Directors 7/1/11– 12/31/11 c) Develop new strategies to assist PEAs that are flagged with disproportionate representation d) Implement new strategies to assist PEAs that are flagged with disproportionate representation 1/1/12– 6/30/12 ADE/ESS Deputy Associate Superinten dent and Directors ADE/ESS Directors and Program Specialists ADE/ESS Directors and Program Specialists During review of the PEAs’ policies, procedures, and practices, ESS program specialists provided resources and technical assistance to all PEAs flagged as having disproportionate representation. 7/1/12– 6/30/13 Correction of FFY 2009 Findings of Noncompliance (if State reported more than 0% compliance) Level of compliance (actual target data) State reported for FFY 2009 for this Indicator: 0% Arizona did not make any findings of noncompliance in FFY 2009. Actions Taken if Noncompliance Not Corrected Not applicable. Arizona did not make any findings of noncompliance in FFY 2009. Verification of Correction (either timely or subsequent) Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 102 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 Not applicable. Arizona did not make any findings of noncompliance in FFY 2009. Specific Actions the State Took to Verify the Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified in FFY 2009 Not applicable. Arizona did not make any findings of noncompliance in FFY 2009. Correction of Remaining FFY 2008 Findings of Noncompliance Not applicable. Verification of Correction of Remaining FFY 2008 Findings Not applicable. Specific Actions the State Took to Verify the Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified in FFY 2008 Not applicable. Correction of Any Remaining Findings of Noncompliance from FFY 2007 or Earlier Not applicable. 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 2011 There are no revisions for FFY 2011. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 103 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 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 2010 FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target FFY 2010 100% Actual Target Data for FFY 2010 97% Arizona did not meet the target. Data Data Source The data for Indicator 11 are from the Arizona monitoring system. A public education agency (PEA) is selected for monitoring each fiscal year based on the results of a review of the agency’s data, including data from the SPP/APR, dispute resolution results, audit findings, and annual determinations. While Arizona has maintained a six-year monitoring cycle with assigned activities always occurring in Year 4, a PEA’s monitoring schedule can be adjusted and Year 4 monitoring activities can occur when the data reviews indicate systemic issues. Data Collection Data are collected from the PEAs during one of three types of monitorings: Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 104 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010  Data Review — PEAs review student files focusing 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 in which agency results 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 review student files, collect data through surveys and interviews, and collect data for Indicator 11. The ADE/ESS staff inputs data. Valid and Reliable Data The ADE/ESS assures the validity and reliability of the data as it is collected, maintained, and reported through the State monitoring system. Training is provided to all ESS program specialists who monitor to ensure interrater reliability on compliance calls that are based on regulatory requirements. The ADE/ESS staff conducts trainings for PEA staff who will participate in monitorings. The ESS specialists validate and verify the data through on-site visits or desk audits. Evaluation Timeline Arizona has established a 60-day timeline for initial evaluations. The Arizona Administrative Code (AAC) R7-2-401 (E) (3) states that the initial evaluation shall not exceed 60 calendar days from receipt of informed written consent. However, the 60-day evaluation period may be extended for an additional 30 days if it is 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 2010 During FFY 2010, a finding for Indicator 11 was issued when the line item for the evaluation timeline was found to be noncompliant. The finding was a written notification to the PEA by the State that the line item was noncompliant, and the finding included a description of a Federal or State statute or regulation. The source of information on which to base a finding of noncompliance was an individual student file. Children Evaluated Within 60 Days (or State-established timeline) a. Number of children for whom parental consent to evaluate was received 726 b. Number of children whose evaluations were completed within 60 days (or Stateestablished timeline) 701 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) 97% Children Included in a (above) and Not Included in b (above) FFY 2010 Noncompliance Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 105 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 # findings by incidence of noncompliance # of findings by incidence corrected prior to oneyear timeline as of 1/15/12 25 19 Arizona made 25 findings of noncompliance in FFY 2010. Although the PEAs have one year to correct the noncompliance, 19 findings have been corrected as of January 15, 2012. Correction of the remaining noncompliance will be reported in the FFY 2011 APR. Range of Days beyond the Timeline and Reasons for the Delays Table 11.1 Range of Days beyond Timeline Range of days 1–423 Mean 55.8 Median 15.5 Mode 1 The 423 days beyond the 60-day timeline occurred at a charter school. The team met within the 60-day timeline to review the existing data, but a decision was not made about the student’s eligibility. The special education administrator resigned from the charter school, and the team did not reconvene to determine the student’s eligibility. However, the evaluation was completed after the file was reviewed by the ADE/ESS specialist during an on-site visit. 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. During follow-up visits to ensure sustainability, the ESS specialist verified that new evaluations are being done within the timeline. Table 11.2 Reasons Given for Delays Lack of understanding of evaluation process 7 Lack of an adequate timeline tracking system 7 Miscalculation of 60-day timeline 4 Unavailability of required personnel (parent, general education teacher, etc.) 3 Interruption in school calendar 2 Shortage of evaluators 2 Explanation of Progress That Occurred for FFY 2010 Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 106 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 Progress occurred during the past federal fiscal year with a gain of one percentage point, from 96% in FFY 2009 to 97% in FFY 2010. The Exceptional Student Services (ESS) Division has continued to emphasize the importance of this 100% compliance indicator to the PEAs at statewide conferences, trainings, and on-site visits. 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 daylong 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, disseminate a flier with information and relevant citations, provide a tracking spreadsheet for agency use, 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 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 the specialist must enter the information into the tracking log within seven calendar days of the visit. This site visit includes informing the staff about the requirements of IDEA regarding evaluation timelines. School staff is asked to analyze their system for tracking timelines and examining files. When a 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 completed, and systemic changes are suggested by the ESS specialists to improve adherence to the timeline. Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed for FFY 2010 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 Activities completed. Projected 5/1/08– 12/31/09 Resources (Planned) ADE/ESS Monitoring Team MPRRC b) Field test revised monitoring system Activities completed. 1/1/10– 6/30/10 c) Revise monitoring system based on results from field test Activities completed 7/1/10. 7/1/10– 9/30/10 d) Implement fully revised system and process The ADE/ESS monitoring team revised the monitoring system based on the field test. Activities completed 10/1/10. DAC ADE/ESS Monitoring Team ADE/ESS Monitoring Team MPRRC 10/1/10 DAC ADE/ESS Monitoring Team The revised monitoring Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 107 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 system was fully implemented by 10/1/10. e) Collect and analyze data from revised monitoring system 2) Develop and disseminate a tool for PEAs to track 60-day evaluation timelines a) Develop evaluation tracking system 10/1/10– 6/30/11 The ESS monitoring director analyzed monitoring results and feedback from PEA special education directors; minor updates were made to the monitoring process. Activities completed. ADE/ESS Monitoring Team MPRRC ADE/ESS Directors and Specialists b) Disseminate evaluation tracking system c) Provide technical assistance to PEAs using evaluation tracking system 3) Develop and disseminate flier to PEAs that will inform about timeline for initial evaluations Activities completed 6/30/11. a) Create flier with Arizona Administrative Code information on initial evaluation timeline b) Disseminate flier to PEAs via ESS specialists SEAP ADE/ESS Directors and 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. Activities completed from 7/1/10 to 6/30/11. 9/1/08– 6/30/11 ADE/ESS Directors and Specialists ADE/ESS specialists provided information and training about evaluation timelines during file reviews with staff and as formal presentations. Activities completed 11/30/10. 10/1/10– 11/30/10 ADE/ESS Directors Monitoring director developed flier with citations and explanations of evaluation timeline. Activities completed 1/1/11 to 6/30/11. 12/1/10– 6/30/11 ADE/ESS Directors and Specialists ESS specialists disseminated flier during TA visits and regional meetings with special education administrators. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 108 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 4) Develop and conduct webinars pertaining to the requirements for compliant evaluations and IEPs 5) Review the Arizona Technical Assistance System (AZTAS) Evaluation and Eligibility document and revise, as necessary a) Develop webinar trainings for evaluation and IEP requirements 12/1/10– 6/30/11 ADE/ESS Directors and Specialists 7/1/11– 12/31/11 ADE/ESS Directors and Specialists 1/1/12– 4/30/12 ADE/ESS Directors and Specialists ADE/ESS Directors and Specialists Monitoring director and monitoring team created webinars to train PEAs on evaluation process and timelines. 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 it is current with statutes and regulations b) Revise the AZTAS Evaluation and Eligibility document, if appropriate c) Disseminate revised AZTAS Evaluation and Eligibility document via ESS Web site and ESS specialists 6) Decrease the number of unfilled positions for speech language pathologists (SLPs) in Arizona Activities completed 12/1/10 to 6/30/11. a) Collect and analyze data on unfilled positions in PEAs through the Annual Special Education Data Collection 5/1/12– 6/30/12 Activities completed 7/1/11 to 6/30/11. 7/1/11– 12/31/11 ESS reviewed AZTAS document for current requirements. Activities completed by 6/30/11. 1/1/12– 6/30/12 ESS made revisions to the AZTAS document. Activities completed by 6/30/11. 7/1/12– 6/30/13 ESS disseminated the revised AZTAS document. Activities completed from 7/1/10 to 6/30/11. 7/1/09– 6/30/11 Data from the Annual Special Education Data Collection shows an increase of master’s level speech pathologist positions filled throughout the three-year period.  88% of master’s level speech pathologist positions were filled during FFY 2008  89% of master’s level ADE/ESS Deputy Associate Superintende nt and Directors ADE/ESS Deputy Associate Superintende nt, Directors, and Specialists ADE/ESS Directors and Specialists ADE/ESS CSPD ADE/ESS Data Management Specialist Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 109 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 speech pathologist positions were filled during FFY 2009  92% of master’s level speech pathologist positions were filled during FFY 2010 b) Recruit at national ASHA conference Unfilled (open) speech pathologist positions decreased from 12% in FFY 2008 to 8% in FFY 2010. Activities completed November 2010. 7/1/09– 6/30/11 ADE/ESS CSPD c) Recruit at national CEC conference ESS/CSPD personnel attended the national ASHA conference in PA in November 2010 and interacted with 49 SLPs, 201 graduate students, and 49 professors regarding Arizona Department of Education recruitment resources and available positions. Activities completed April 2011. 7/1/09– 6/30/11 ADE/ESS CSPD ESS/CSPD personnel attended the national CEC conference in MD in April 2011 and interacted with 285 people, including 138 special educators, regarding Arizona Department of Education recruitment resources and available positions. Activities completed May 2011. 7/1/09– 6/30/11 ADE/ESS CSPD The Great Arizona Teach-In took place on May 14, 2011. There were 775 participants and 77 PEA exhibitors. 850 jobs were posted and 113 letters of intent were given to job seekers. Activities completed from 7/1/10 to 6/30/11. 7/1/09– 6/30/11 ADE/ESS CSPD d) Conduct annual Arizona Teach-In, a statewide recruitment fair for Arizona education employers e) Sponsor the Arizona Education Employment Board, a Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 110 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 free statewide employment board for employers and prospective employees ESS sponsors the Arizona Education Employment Board (AEEB), online at www.arizonaeducationjob s.com. 3,300 jobs were posted on the AEEB; there were 1,750 confirmed placements. 7) 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 State Personnel Development Grant (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 56 SLP positions were posted on the AEEB by Arizona schools; 21 SLP positions were filled. Activities discontinued as of 6/30/10. 7/1/09– 6/30/11 ADE/ESS CSPD 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 7/1/10 to 6/30/11. Data from the Annual Special Education Data Collection shows an increase of filled positions for school psychologists.  96% of school psychologist positions were filled during FFY 2009 (baseline data)  99% of school psychologist positions were filled during FFY 2010 Unfilled (open) school psychologist positions decreased from 4% in FFY 2009 to 1% in FFY 2010. Activities completed April 2011. ADE/ESS Data Management Specialist 7/1/09– 6/30/11 ADE/ESS CSPD Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 111 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 c) Conduct annual Arizona Teach-In, a statewide recruitment fair for Arizona education employers d) Sponsor the Arizona Education Employment Board, a free statewide employment board for employers and prospective employees ESS/CSPD personnel attended the national CEC conference in MD in April 2011 and interacted with 285 people, including 138 special educators, regarding Arizona Department of Education recruitment resources and available positions. Activities completed May 2011. 7/1/09– 6/30/11 ADE/ESS CSPD The Great Arizona Teach-In took place on May 14, 2011. There were 775 participants and 77 PEA exhibitors. 850 jobs were posted, and 113 letters of intent were given to job seekers. Activities completed from 7/1/10 to 6/30/11. 7/1/09– 6/30/11 ADE/ESS CSPD ESS sponsors the Arizona Education Employment Board (AEEB), online at www.arizonaeducationjob s.com. 92 positions for school psychologist were posted on the AEEB by Arizona schools; 44 of those positions were filled. Correction of FFY 2009 Findings of Noncompliance (if State reported less than 100% compliance) Level of compliance (actual target data) State reported for FFY 2009 for this indicator: 96% 1. Number of findings of noncompliance the State made during FFY 2009 (the period from July 1, 2009, through June 30, 2010) 22 2. Number of FFY 2009 findings the State verified as timely corrected (corrected within one year from the date of notification to the LEA of the finding) 22 3. Number of FFY 2009 findings not verified as corrected within one year [(1) minus (2)] 0 Correction of FFY 2009 Findings of Noncompliance Not Timely Corrected (corrected more than one year from identification of the noncompliance) Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 112 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 4. Number of FFY 2009 findings not timely corrected (same as the number from (3) above) 0 5. Number of FFY 2009 findings the State has verified as corrected beyond the oneyear timeline (“subsequent correction”) 0 6. Number of FFY 2009 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., 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 2009 noncompliance has been corrected, and Arizona has verified correction for all FFY 2009 findings. When findings of noncompliance are made, Arizona works collaboratively with the PEAs as the agencies identify the root causes of their continuing noncompliance through drill downs in the specific focus area that affects 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:  Assignment of a special monitor.  Interruption of IDEA payments until adequate compliance is achieved. For charter schools not receiving IDEA funds, a request to begin withholding 10% of State funds.  For charter schools, a request to the appropriate board for a notice of intent to revoke the charter.  With Arizona State Board of Education approval, interruption of Group B weighted State aid or redirection of funds pursuant to 34 CFR § 300.227 (a).  Request to the Arizona Attorney General for legal action. Verification of Correction of FFY 2009 Noncompliance (either timely or subsequent) FFY 2009 Verification of Correction from Monitoring As specified in OSEP’s June 2011 Arizona Part B FFY 2009 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 Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 113 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 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 2009 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 those that were child specific. The specialists reviewed the child specific files 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/or conducted interviews with the special education administrators during follow-up visits and/or desk audits to determine if all instances of noncompliance, including those that were child specific, were corrected and to ensure ongoing sustainability of the implementation of the regulatory requirements regarding initial evaluations. Correction of Remaining FFY 2008 Findings of Noncompliance Not applicable. Correction of Any Remaining Findings of Noncompliance from FFY 2007 or Earlier Not applicable. Additional Information Required by the OSEP APR Response Table for This Indicator Statement from the Response Table State’s Response Because the State reported less than 100% compliance for FFY 2009, the State must report on the status of correction of noncompliance reflected in the data the State reported for this Indicator. In the FFY 2010 APR for Indicator 11 and Indicator 15, Arizona reported on the status of the correction of noncompliance (FFY 2009 data). In reporting on correction of findings of noncompliance in the FFY 2010 APR, the State must report that it verified that each PEA with noncompliance identified in FFY 2009 is (1) correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirements; and (2) has corrected each individual case of noncompliance, consistent with OSEP Memo 09-02. In the FFY 2010 APR, the State must describe the specific actions that were taken to verify the correction. In the FFY 2010 APR for Indicator 11 and Indicator 15, Arizona reported that it verified each PEA with noncompliance (FFY 2009 data), consistent with OSEP Memorandum 09-02, dated October 17, 2008. Arizona described the specific actions that were taken to verify the correction of noncompliance. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 114 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 If the State does not report 100% compliance in the FFY 2010 APR, the State must review its improvement activities and revise them, if necessary. Arizona reviewed its improvement activities for Indicator 11. Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources for FFY 2011 There are no revisions for FFY 2011. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 115 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 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 2010 FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target FFY 2010 100% Actual Target Data for FFY 2010 99% 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, 2010, through June 30, 2011. Data Collection Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 116 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 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 who transitioned from early intervention service or a copy of the prior written notice (PWN) for children who were found ineligible by the children’s’ third birthdays. 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) for FFY 2010 a. # of children who have been served in Part C and referred to Part B for Part B eligibility determination 2,644 b. # of those referred determined to be NOT eligible and whose eligibility was determined prior to third birthday 322 c. # of those found eligible who have an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthdays 2,184 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 86 e. # of children who were referred to Part C less than 90 days before their third birthdays 27 # in a but not in b, c, d, or e 25 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 99% FFY 2010 Noncompliance # findings of noncompliance # of findings corrected prior to one-year timeline as of 1/15/12 Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 117 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 8 8 Arizona made eight findings of noncompliance in FFY 2010. Although the PEAs have one year to correct the noncompliance, all eight findings have been corrected as of January 15, 2012. Account for Children Included in a, but not in b, c, d, or e — Reasons for Delays Late referrals from Part C 21 Failed hearing or vision screening 4 Total 25 Twenty-one children were late referrals from AzEIP, as compared to 39 children in FFY 2009. School districts are asked to submit an alert to the ADE/ECSE any time they receive a late referral from AzEIP of a child 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 the resolution of the alerts. Range of Days beyond Third Birthday Range of days 1–147 The 147 days beyond the third birthday was due to a district’s delays in obtaining hearing screening results. The school district followed up with medical referrals that delayed the determination of the child’s hearing status. 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 a process was established to mitigate future delays of a similar nature. Explanation of Progress That Occurred for FFY 2010 Arizona gained one percentage point from FFY 2009 (98%) to FFY 2010 (99%). The State continued to provide extensive technical assistance focused on the new Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) and used the alert system to improve the transition process for families. Each instance of a late referral from AzEIP was followed up by the ADE/ECSE Unit together with AzEIP, and systemic issues were identified and corrected. The continued collaboration between AzEIP and ECSE also contributed to continued 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. Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed for FFY 2010 Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 118 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 1) Implement new series of transition trainings regarding 2010 IGA 2) Post training materials to ADE/ECSE Web site 3) Promote and support “I’m Turning 3: What’s Next for Me?” parent trainings 4) Maintain Alert System between Part C and Part B to examine and resolve systemic and situational issues a) Provide joint professional 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 a) Respond to individual alerts at local level to resolve issues b) Maintain database to track number of alerts reported to Activities completed from 7/1/10 to 6/30/11. Fifteen regional trainings targeted every school district in Arizona, along with the corresponding service providing agency, AzEIP service coordinators, and the Head Start agency. Professional development emphasized changes to the 2010 IGA designed to improve trouble-free early intervention transitions for children and families. Activities completed from 7/1/10 to 6/30/11. Training PowerPoint and materials are posted on Web site. Changes and additions are added periodically. Activities completed from 7/1/10 to 6/30/11. 7/1/10– 6/30/13 ADE/ECSE Director and Specialist AzEIP Staff 7/1/10– 6/30/13 ADE/ECSE Director and Specialist AzEIP Staff 7/1/10– 6/30/13 ADE/ECSE AzEIP Staff The parent transition booklet, “I’m Turning 3: What’s Next for Me?” was vetted by families for readability and helpfulness. Booklet was updated and was posted on Web site. A bilingual version is under development. The training materials were updated to reflect changes in the 2010 Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA). Arizona’s PTI, Raising Special Kids/Pilot Parents of Southern Arizona, and ADE/ESS Parent Information Network Specialists (PINS) provided 36 trainings statewide (382 participants). Activities completed from 7/1/10 to 6/30/11. ECSE and AzEIP staff responded to all alerts from the field. School districts and AzEIP service coordinators were assisted with resolving issues. Activities completed from 7/1/10 to 6/30/11. PEA Staff Parent Information Network Specialists Raising Special Kids 7/1/10– 6/30/13 ADE/ECSE Director and Specialist AzEIP Staff 7/1/10– 6/30/13 ADE/ECSE Director and Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 119 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 ADE/ECSE and AzEIP 5) 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 Database was maintained to track number and sources of alerts in order to drive professional development and technical assistance decisions. Thirty alerts were filed (24 from districts and six from AzEIP). Activities completed from 7/1/10 to 6/30/11. Specialist 7/1/10– 6/30/13 Ongoing consultation was provided by ECSE staff in collaboration with AzEIP staff. Activities completed from 7/1/10 to 6/30/11. 7/1/10– 6/30/13 AzEIP Staff Noncompliant PEAs’ written policies and procedures, and practices, were reviewed. Technical assistance was provided. File reviews were completed to ensure compliance with corrective action plans. ADE/ECSE Director and Specialist AzEIP Staff ADE/ECSE Director and Specialist AzEIP Staff Correction of FFY 2009 Findings of Noncompliance (if State reported less than 100% compliance in its FFY 2009 APR) Level of compliance (actual target data) State reported for FFY 2009 for this indicator: 98% 1. Number of findings of noncompliance the State made during FFY 2009 (the period from July 1, 2009, through June 30, 2010) 15 2. Number of FFY 2009 findings the State verified as timely corrected (corrected within one year from the date of notification to the LEA of the finding) 15 3. Number of FFY 2009 findings not verified as corrected within one year [(1) minus (2)] 0 Correction of FFY 2009 Findings of Noncompliance Not Timely Corrected (corrected more than one year from identification of the noncompliance) 4. Number of FFY 2009 findings not timely corrected (same as the number from (3) above) 0 5. Number of FFY 2009 findings the State has verified as corrected beyond the oneyear timeline (“subsequent correction”) 0 6. Number of FFY 2009 findings not verified as corrected [(4) minus (5)] 0 Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 120 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 The 15 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 if the IEPs were developed and implemented, although late, unless the child was no longer within the jurisdiction of 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 2009 noncompliance has been corrected, and Arizona has verified correction for all FFY 2009 findings. When findings of noncompliance are made, Arizona works collaboratively with school districts and AzEIP to identify the root causes of continuing noncompliance through individual verification and development of written processes and procedures between districts, AzEIP service coordinators, Head Start Programs, and other programs within the district of residence. 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 2011 FFY 2009 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 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 2009 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 2008 Findings of Noncompliance Not applicable. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 121 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 Correction of Any Remaining Findings of Noncompliance from FFY 2007 or Earlier Not applicable. Additional Information Required by the OSEP APR Response Table for This Indicator Statement from the Response Table State’s Response Because the State reported less than 100% compliance for FFY 2009, the State must report on the status of correction of noncompliance reflected in the data the State reported for this Indicator. In the FFY 2010 APR for Indicator 12 and Indicator 15, Arizona reported on the status of the correction of noncompliance (FFY 2009 data). In reporting on correction of findings of noncompliance in the FFY 2010 APR, the State must report that it verified that each PEA with noncompliance identified in FFY 2009 is (1) correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirements; and (2) has corrected each individual case of noncompliance, consistent with OSEP Memo 09-02. In the FFY 2010 APR, the State must describe the specific actions that were taken to verify the correction. In the FFY 2010 APR for Indicator 12 and Indicator 15, Arizona reported that it verified each PEA with noncompliance (FFY 2009 data), consistent with OSEP Memorandum 09-02, dated October 17, 2008. Arizona described the specific actions that were taken to verify the correction of noncompliance. If the State does not report 100% compliance in the FFY 2010 APR, the State must review its improvement activities and revise them, if necessary. Arizona reviewed its improvement activities for Indicator 12 and added a new improvement activity. Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources for FFY 2011 The following is a new improvement activity, which is due to the new Part C regulations. Primary Activity (GOAL) 1) Revise the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with the Arizona Early Intervention Program (AzEIP) Sub-Activities (Objectives or Action Steps) a) Review and revise the 2010 IGA with AzEIP to align with the Part C regulations Timeline Complete Projected 7/1/11– 6/30/13 Resources (Planned) ADE/ECSE Director AzEIP Staff Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 122 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 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. Target Data for FFY 2010 FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target FFY 2010 100% Actual Target Data for FFY 2010 89.2% Arizona did not meet the target. Year Total number of youth aged 16 and above with an IEP Total number of youth aged 16 and above with an IEP that meets the requirements Percent of youth aged 16 and above with an IEP that meets the requirements FFY 2010 1,513 1,350 89.2% Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 123 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 (2010– 2011) FFY 2010 Findings of Noncompliance # of findings by incidence of noncompliance # of findings by incidence corrected prior to oneyear timeline as of 1/15/12 163 91 Arizona made 163 findings of noncompliance in FFY 2010. Although the PEAs have one year to correct the noncompliance, 91 findings have been corrected as of January 15, 2012. Data Data Source The data for Indicator 13 are from the Arizona monitoring system. A public education agency (PEA) is selected for monitoring each fiscal year based on the results of a review of the agency’s data, including data from the SPP/APR, dispute resolution results, audit findings, and annual determinations. While Arizona has maintained a six-year monitoring cycle with assigned activities always occurring in Year 4, a PEA’s monitoring schedule can be adjusted and Year 4 monitoring activities can occur when the data reviews indicate systemic issues. The National Secondary Transition Technical Assistance Center (NSTTAC) Indicator 13 Checklist was used as a guide for the eight components that comprise the monitoring line item from which the data are pulled. The eight components are:         Measurable post-secondary goals Postsecondary goals updated annually Postsecondary goals based upon age-appropriate transition assessments 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 with prior consent of parent or student who has reached the age of majority Data Collection Data are collected from the PEAs during one of three types of monitorings:  Data Review — PEAs review student files focusing on Indicator 13. The ADE/ESS specialists validate 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 reviewing files for other identified SPP/APR Indicators on which their agencies have not met the State targets. The ADE/ESS specialists validate the compliance calls. The student file forms are submitted to ESS for data entry. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 124 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010  On-Site — PEAs and the ADE/ESS teams review student files, collect data through surveys and interviews, and collect data for Indicator 13. The ADE/ESS staff inputs data. Valid and Reliable Data The ADE/ESS assures the validity and reliability of the data as it is collected, maintained, and reported through the State monitoring system. Training is provided to all ESS program specialists who monitor to ensure interrater reliability for compliance calls according to regulatory requirements. The ADE/ESS staff conducts trainings for PEA staff who will participate in monitorings. The ESS specialists validate and verify the data through on-site visits or desk audits. Definition of Finding for Monitoring for FFY 2010 During FFY 2010, a finding for Indicator 13 was issued when the line item for secondary transition was found to be noncompliant. The finding was a written notification to the PEA by the State that the line item was noncompliant, and the finding included a description of a Federal or State statute or regulation. The source of information on which to base a finding of noncompliance is an individual student file. Explanation of Slippage That Occurred for FFY 2010 The minor slippage of 0.8 percentage points from the baseline of 90% established in FFY 2009 indicates the PEAs are gaining an understanding of secondary transition requirements. Although the source of the data was a different monitoring cohort of PEAs, the small percentage of slippage is evidence of an effective monitoring system and continuing support from the ADE/ESS. The specialists who monitor 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-ups by the ADE/ESS specialists continue to focus on Indicator 13. On an annual basis, the ESS secondary transition specialists update and implement a comprehensive strategic plan that includes analysis of Indicator 13 data; staff development for PEAs; provision of capacity building grants; collaboration with national technical assistance centers and with other State agencies; and organization of a statewide transition conference (see the discussion of improvement activities below). Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed for FFY 2010 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 Timeline Complete Activities completed 8/31/10. FFY 2010 PEA list was completed August 2010. The Annual Site Visit Log (ASVL) from school year 2009–2010 was used to identify PEAs most in need of training and TA for Indicator 13. Activities completed from 7/1/10 to 6/30/11. Projected Resources (Planned) 7/1/10– 6/30/13 ADE/ESS Transition Specialist and Program Specialists 7/1/10– 6/30/13 ADE/ESS Transition Specialists The FFY 2010 review and revision Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 125 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 comprehensive training plan, emphasizing the eight required components of Indicator 13 of the Strategic Plan for Statewide Transition Planning was completed July 2010. Implementation of the Transition Strategic Plan was completed from July 2010 to June 2011. The FFY 2010 Transition Strategic Plan includes seven main components: 1. Provide training to targeted PEAs and in response to requests from non-targeted PEAs on Indicator 13; 2. Organize Arizona’s Tenth 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 Directors Institute; 4. 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, as well as provide intensive training and support for PEAs 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 Rehabilitation Services of Arizona/Vocational Rehabilitation (RSA/VR), DDD, Division of Behavioral Health Services Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 126 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 (DBHS), and the Office for Children with Special Health Care Needs; 7. Collaborate with other ADE sections: High School Renewal and Improvement (AZHSRI), Career and Technical Education (CTE), Dropout Prevention, and School Counselors and ADE/ESS areas: Program Support, Assistive Technology, and Parent Information Network. All components of Arizona’s FFY 2010 Strategic Plan for Statewide Transition Planning were immediately implemented upon revision, from 8/1/10 to 6/30/11. Activities completed:  484 participants from 130 targeted and non-targeted PEAs received Indicator 13 trainings from ADE/ESS transition specialists at 30 sites statewide. Trainings were delivered in regional or direct school locations.  Arizona’s Tenth Annual Transition Conference was held in September 2010 and offered sessions focused on improving compliance with the eight components of Indicator 13. 831 participants attended the conference, including education and agency professionals, youth, young adults, family members of youth with disabilities, and vendors/exhibitors.  Four sessions on Indicator 13 were provided by ADE/ESS transition specialists at the annual ADE/ESS Directors Institute (DI). Of the 695 in attendance at the DI, 300 participants attended sessions related to secondary transition.  26 PEAs participated in Year 1 Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 127 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 (14 PEAs in the 2010–2012 cohort) or Year 2 (12 PEAs in the 2009–2011 cohort) team trainings of the Secondary Transition Mentoring Project (STMP) capacity building grant. Through a contract with the University of Kansas Transition Coalition and in collaboration with ADE/ESS, training was provided to achieve and sustain 100% compliance on Indicator 13. Team training included: three two-day face-toface training sessions, webinars, a Web site for project participants containing all training materials and extensive resources, an online short course for Year 1 teams, and attendance at Arizona’s Tenth Annual Transition Conference.  Collaboration with national technical assistance centers and organizations occurred throughout the year and included: participation in NPSO and NSTTAC Community of Practice calls; use 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 where OSEP, NPSO, NSTTAC, and NDPC-SD provided guidance. Additionally, ADE/ESS maintained ongoing collaboration with the University of Kansas Transition Coalition and the Mountain Plains Regional Resource Center.  At the State level, ADE/ESS collaborated with RSA/VR, DDD, Division of Behavioral Health Services (DBHS), and the Office for Children with Special Health Care Needs (OCSHCN), and met every other month with these agency stakeholders through the Arizona Community of Practice on Transition (AZCoPT). In FFY 2010, AZCoPT revised a Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 128 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 presentation used statewide through RSA/VR and DBHS teleconferencing media to introduce participants to the supports/services available to school-aged and adult individuals with disabilities.  ADE/ESS collaboration meetings with the ADE sections of High School Renewal and Improvement, Career and Technical Education, Dropout Prevention, and School Counselors were scheduled and held approximately every three months and resulted in crosstraining for conferences sponsored by each ADE section on the topic of secondary transition. c) On an annual basis, create and disseminate information through a variety of sources: annual statewide conference, monitoring alerts, Web site, and listserv announcements  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. Activities completed from 8/1/10 through 6/30/11. 7/1/10– 6/30/13 ADE/ESS Transition Specialists  Four Indicator 13 presentations were offered at the ADE/ESS Directors Institute in August 2010 for approximately 300 participants.  Ninety sessions either directly or indirectly related to Indicator 13 were offered at Arizona’s Tenth Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 129 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 Annual Transition Conference held in September 2010.  Between July 2010 and June 2011, the ADE/ESS Secondary Transition Web site was updated to include additional and/or revised Indicator 13 materials from NSTTAC, IDEA Partnership, and other secondary transition technical assistance centers. The Web address is http://www.azed.gov/specialeducation/specialprojects/secondary-transition/. Activities completed from 7/1/10 to 6/30/11. d) On an annual basis, analyze preand post-training data collected  Analysis of pre-training data found through the Annual in the ASVL was completed in Site Visit Log (ASVL) January 2011 after all ESS for each PEA to program specialists were able to determine level of complete at least one PEA annual compliance on all site visit during fall 2010. The eight required analysis showed a 76.5% average components of for compliance with the eight Indicator 13 items of Indicator 13. 7/1/10– 6/30/13 ADE/ESS Transition Specialist and Program Specialists 7/1/10– 6/30/13 ADE/ESS Transition Specialist and Program Specialists  Post-training data analysis of all PEAs that received a pre-training annual site visit and were trained in secondary transition during FFY 2010 showed an 81.3% average for compliance with the eight items of Indicator 13. 2) Provide a twoyear capacity building grant to PEAs to participate in the Secondary Transition Mentoring Project (STMP) Team Training a) On an annual basis, identify PEAs who meet eligibility requirements and extend invitations to them to participate in STMP trainings Through pre- and post-training analysis, an increase of 4.8% in compliance for Indicator 13 was demonstrated after training and technical assistance was provided to PEAs by transition and education program specialists. Activities completed from 1/1/10 to 7/30/10.  Using Annual Site Visit (ASV) data for PEAs currently in Years 1 or 6 of the monitoring cycle, 22 PEAs achieving less than 100% compliance on Indicator 13 were invited to apply for a noncompetitive Secondary Transition Mentoring Project Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 130 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 (STMP) capacity building grant. b) On an annual basis, provide indepth and ongoing professional development on transition requirements and best practices  Fourteen PEAs were accepted for participation in Year 1 of the STMP Team training in July 2010. Activities completed from 7/1/10 through 6/30/11. 7/1/10– 6/30/13 ADE/ESS Transition Specialists 7/1/10– 6/30/13 ADE/ESS Transition Specialists  STMP participants attended Arizona’s Tenth Annual Transition Conference, which included a STMP team orientation and designated sessions.  Training materials and activities were designed, created, and disseminated by ADE/ESS in collaboration with the University of Kansas Transition Coalition. Trainings focused on: identifying PEA barriers to meeting transition requirements; developing an action plan to eliminate barriers; creating IEPs that meet transition requirements; implementing training to build intra-PEA capacity to attain 100% compliance on secondary transition requirements; and determining improvements made and targeting areas still in need of improvement.  Team training for each cohort consisted of three two-day faceto-face trainings throughout the year. Additionally, Year 1 teams completed an online short course specially designed for STMP teams and focusing on best practices in transition planning. Activities completed from 7/1/10 through 6/30/11. c) On an annual basis, analyze preand post-training data collected during  Measures to determine STMP trainings for effectiveness of STMP training each PEA that included the use of: participated to a) team process checklist; determine level of b) interrater reliability measures compliance on all for IEP file review; eight required c) training session evaluations; components of d) STMP team self-reported Indicator 13 progress toward completion of action plans; and Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 131 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 e) feedback provided by ADE/ESS monitoring program specialists on compliance. Data from the measures is as follows: a) April 2011 trainings for both STMP cohorts included the completion of a 37-item “team process” checklist. Results from the checklist use indicated both Year 1 and Year 2 teams reported an average of 95% for the item “all team members are highly knowledgeable of transition compliance requirements” and a average of 94% for the item “STMP team collaboratively develops and implements an action plan that addresses the prioritized needs.” b) Training for both cohorts included instruction and practice activities using interrater reliability measures. c) All STMP training sessions during FFY 2010 included instruction, activities, and Indicator 13 file reviews. Based on a 5-point Likert scale (1 lowest and 5 highest), evaluation results indicated an average score of 4.3 across all activities for both cohorts. Additionally, all team members completed a pre-/postevaluation of their competency in meeting Indicator 13 requirements, that asked the question, “How prepared do you feel?” Based on a 5-point Likert Scale (1 equaled unprepared and 5 equaled prepared) and using a Paired Samples T-Test, all scores indicated a statistically significant increase in knowledge from the beginning to the end of the training for FFY 2010 for both cohorts (Years 1 and 2). The areas reporting the greatest increase in knowledge were: transition Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 132 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 assessments and documenting transition services and course of study that will support the student in reaching postsecondary goals. d) Review of each STMP team’s action plan indicated all teams set goals to build and sustain systems to ensure 100% compliance on Indicator 13 school- or district-wide. All teams reported progress in meeting these goals. e) During the April 2011 training, Year 2 teams met with ADE/ESS program specialists to receive informal feedback on IEPs written during the second year of the STMP training program. Feedback indicated significant improvement in PEA knowledge and compliant practices. Correction of FFY 2009 Findings of Noncompliance (if State reported less than 100% compliance) Level of compliance (actual target data) State reported for FFY 2009 for this indicator: 90% 1. Number of findings of noncompliance the State made during FFY 2009 (the period from July 1, 2009, through June 30, 2010) 87 2. Number of FFY 2009 findings the State verified as timely corrected (corrected within one year from the date of notification to the LEA of the finding) 86 3. Number of FFY 2009 findings not verified as corrected within one year [(1) minus (2)] 1 Correction of FFY 2009 Findings of Noncompliance Not Timely Corrected (corrected more than one year from identification of the noncompliance) 4. Number of FFY 2009 findings not timely corrected (same as the number from (3) above) 1 5. Number of FFY 2009 findings the State has verified as corrected beyond the oneyear timeline (“subsequent correction”) 1 6. Number of FFY 2009 findings not verified as corrected [(4) minus (5)] 0 Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 133 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 The one finding of noncompliance that was not corrected within the one-year timeline was corrected and verified within 14 months. The ADE/ESS specialists reviewed the child specific files from the monitoring to determine that the PEA implemented the eight components of the secondary transition requirements for the children, unless they were no longer within the jurisdiction of 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., achieved 100% compliance) related to secondary transition in conformity with 34 CFR §§ 300.320 (b) and 300.321 (b). Actions Taken if Noncompliance Not Corrected All FFY 2009 noncompliance has been corrected, and Arizona has verified correction for all FFY 2009 findings. When findings of noncompliance are made, Arizona works collaboratively with the PEAs as the agencies identify the root causes of their continuing noncompliance through drill downs in the specific focus area that affects 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:  Assignment of a special monitor.  Interruption of IDEA payments until adequate compliance is achieved. For charter schools not receiving IDEA funds, a request to begin withholding 10% of State funds.  For charter schools, a request to the appropriate board for a notice of intent to revoke the charter.  With Arizona State Board of Education approval, interruption of Group B weighted State aid or redirection of funds pursuant to 34 CFR § 300.227 (a).  Request to the Arizona Attorney General for legal action. Verification of Correction of FFY 2009 Noncompliance (either timely or subsequent) FFY 2009 Verification of Correction from Monitoring As specified in OSEP’s June 2011 Arizona Part B FFY 2009 SPP/APR Response Table, Arizona verified that each PEA with noncompliance reflected in the data: 1) is correctly implementing 34 CFR §§ 300.320 (b) and 300.321 (b) (i.e., achieved 100% compliance) based on a review of updated data such as data subsequently collected through onsite 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 2009 Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 134 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 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 those that were child specific. The specialists reviewed the child specific files 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/or conducted interviews with the special education administrators during follow-up visits and/or desk audits to determine if all instances of noncompliance, including those that were child specific, were corrected and to ensure ongoing sustainability of the implementation of the regulatory requirements regarding initial evaluations. Correction of Remaining Findings of Noncompliance from FFY 2008 or Earlier Not applicable. Correction of Any Remaining Findings of Noncompliance from FFY 2007 or Earlier Not applicable. Additional Information Required by the OSEP APR Response Table for This Indicator Statement from the Response Table State’s Response Because the State reported less than 100% compliance for FFY 2009, the State must report on the status of correction of noncompliance reflected in the data the State reported for this Indicator. In the FFY 2010 APR for Indicator 13 and Indicator 15, Arizona reported on the status of the correction of noncompliance (FFY 2009 data). In reporting on correction of findings of noncompliance in the FFY 2010 APR, the State must report that it verified that each PEA with noncompliance identified in FFY 2009 is (1) correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirements; and (2) has corrected each individual case of noncompliance, consistent with OSEP Memo 09-02. In the FFY 2010 APR, the State must describe the specific actions that were taken to verify the correction. In the FFY 2010 APR for Indicator 13 and Indicator 15, Arizona reported that it verified each PEA with noncompliance (FFY 2009 data), consistent with OSEP Memorandum 09-02, dated October 17, 2008. Arizona described the specific actions that were taken to verify the correction of noncompliance. If the State does not report 100% compliance in the FFY 2010 APR, the State must review its improvement activities and revise them, if necessary. Arizona reviewed its improvement activities for Indicator 13. Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources for FFY 2011 Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 135 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 There are no revisions for FFY 2011. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 136 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 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. Indicator 14A, 14B, and 14C — Target Data for FFY 2010 FFY 2010 Measurable and Rigorous Targets 14A–enrolled in higher education 14B–enrolled in higher education or competitively employed 14C–enrolled in higher education or in some other postsecondary education or training program; or competitively employed or in some other employment 14.05% 48.65% 71.1% Indicator 14A, 14B, and 14C — Actual Target Data for FFY 2010 FFY 2010 14A–enrolled in higher 14B–enrolled in higher 14C–enrolled in higher Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 137 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 education education or competitively employed education or in some other postsecondary education or training program; or competitively employed or in some other employment # of respondent leavers 299 1,020 1,502 % of respondent leavers 13.6% 46.5% 68.5% # of total respondents to PSO Survey 2,194 Arizona did not meet the targets for Indicator 14A, 14B, or 14C. Outcomes for FFY 2010 There were 2,194 total respondents to the PSO Survey. Each leaver was counted only once in the highest category: 1) 299 respondent leavers were enrolled in “higher education.” 2) 721 respondent leavers were engaged in “competitive employment” (and not counted in number 1 above). 3) 301 respondent leavers were enrolled in “some other postsecondary education or training” (and not counted in numbers 1 or 2 above). 4) 181 respondent leavers were engaged in “some other employment” (and not counted in numbers 1, 2, or 3 above). Thus: 14A = 299 (#1) divided by 2,194 (total respondents) = 13.6% 14B = 299 (#1) + 721 (#2) divided by 2,194 (total respondents) = 46.5% 14A = 299 (#1) + 721 (#2) + 301 (#3) + 181 (#4) divided by 2,194 (total respondents) = 68.5% APR Development Part B Indicator 14 was considered a new indicator when it was reported in the FFY 2009 APR. The ADE/ESS developed: (a) new baseline data for the three measures (A, B, and C) using the language of the revised measurement table (May 2010), (b) new measurable and rigorous targets for measures A, B, and C, and (c) improvement activities through FFY 2012. The Indicator 14 APR was developed with stakeholder input from: (a) State and local education agencies; (b) Arizona’s special education advisory group (SEAP); and (c) the Arizona Community of Practice on Transition (AZCoPT), including representation from the Arizona Department of Economic Security (DES), Rehabilitation Services Administration/Vocational Rehabilitation, the DES/Division of Developmental Disabilities, the Arizona Department of Health Services/Division of Behavioral Health Services, and youth and young adults with disabilities. To provide context for Arizona’s improvement activities completed and explanation of slippage, ADE/ESS offers the following description of: (a) data collection methods; (b) definitions; (c) response rate and representativeness; (c) missing data; and (d) selection bias. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 138 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 Data Collection Methods The ADE/ESS used a sampling procedure to collect Post School Outcome (PSO) data. Over the course of the State Performance Plan (SPP), each PEA serving students aged 16 years old and older is asked to collect and report post school outcomes data during the second year of the six-year monitoring cycle. The monitoring cycle is a representative sample of Arizona’s districts and charter schools and the representative sample is based on the categories of disability, race, and gender. The ADE/ESS sampling plan has been approved by OSEP. Over the course of the SPP, all eligible PEAs are included in the SPP at least once. In FFY 2010,184 PEAs in Arizona were identified as not having previously participated in the PSO Survey requirement. Of this number, 67 PEAs did not report leavers who were eligible for the PSO Survey during the 2009–2010 school year. This resulted in 117 PEAs that were required to conduct the PSO Survey during FFY 2010. In order to participate in the PSO Survey, PEAs gather contact information on student leavers and either input the data into the online PSO data collection system or maintain contact information locally. The PSO data collection system uses a secure application as part of the ADE Common Logon. The application includes an auto-population of student demographic information and exit reason imported directly from the Student Accountability Information System (SAIS), a Web-based system for reporting all student-level details to the ADE. PEAs designate district or charter school personnel to contact student leavers or designated family members (i.e., parent, grandparent, or guardian), conduct phone interviews, and input survey data into the online PSO data collection system. Youth or family members were contacted between July 1 and September 30, 2011, after being out of school for at least one year. Arizona’s two PEAs with an average daily membership exceeding 50,000 are included in the data collection each year. In FFY 2010, Arizona’s PSO data collection system was enhanced to allow PEAs to report youth who were ineligible for the survey (i.e., those who had returned to school, or were deceased, or whose data was uploaded by the PEA to the SAIS system in error) and permit ADE/ESS to easily remove their information from the PSO data collection. Definitions The following definitions are used by the ADE/ESS in the data collection and reporting for Indicator 14: Higher Education includes youth who have been enrolled on a full- or part-time basis in a community college (two-year program) or a college/university (four- or more year program) for at least one complete term, at any time in the year since leaving high school. Competitive Employment includes youth who have worked for pay at or above the minimum wage in a setting with others who are nondisabled for a period of 20 hours a week for at least 90 days at any time in the year since leaving high school. This includes military employment. Other Postsecondary Education or Training includes youth enrolled on a full- or part-time basis for at least one complete term at any time in the year since leaving high school in an education or training program (e.g., Job Corps, adult education, workforce development program, or vocational technical school that is less than a two-year program). Some Other Employment includes youth who have worked for pay or been self-employed for a period of at least 90 days at any time in the year since leaving high school. This includes working in a family business (e.g., farm, store, ranching, catering services, etc.). Respondents are youth, young adults, or designated family members who answer the PSO Survey. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 139 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 Leavers are youth or young adults who left school by graduating, aging out, or leaving school early (i.e., dropped out), or who were expected to return to school and did not. Response Rate and Representativeness The response rate was 61%. As shown in Table 14.1, 3,619 youth exited school and were eligible to take the survey as part of the FFY 2010 PSO data collection, comprising the 2009–2010 school year sample. Interviews were conducted with 2,194 youth, young adults, or their family members. Table 14.1 Response Rate Calculation Number of leavers in the sample 3,891 Subtract the number of youth ineligible (those who had returned to school, or were deceased, or whose data was uploaded by the PEA to the SAIS system in error) 219 + 8 + 45 = 272 Number of youth eligible to contact 3,619 Number of completed surveys 2,194 Response rate (2,194/3,619)*100 60.6% The ADE/ESS used the NPSO Response Calculator to calculate representativeness of the respondent group on the characteristics of: (a) disability type, (b) ethnicity, (c) gender, and (d) exit status (e.g., dropout) to determine whether the youth who responded to the interviews were similar to, or different from, the total population of youth with an IEP who exited school during 2009–2010. According to the NPSO Response Calculator, differences between the Respondent Group and the Target Leaver Group +/- 3% are important. Negative differences indicate an under representativeness of the group and positive differences indicate over representativeness. In Table 14.2, bolded text is used to indicate a difference exceeding a +/- 3% interval. As shown in Table 14.2, respondents were underrepresented in the category of dropout. All other categories are deemed representative of 2009–2010 target leavers. Although the dropout category continues to be underrepresented, the difference for FFY 2010 was slightly less than in FFY 2009 (6.77% vs. -6.81%). The ADE/ESS will continue to address the lack of representativeness in the dropout category between the respondents and the sample through expanded efforts to increase response rates. Table 14.2 NPSO Response Calculator Representativeness Target Leaver Totals Response Totals Target Leaver Representation Respondent Representation Difference Overall LD ED MR AO Female Minority ELL Dropout 3,619 2,387 402 302 528 1,246 723 174 763 2,194 1,439 207 196 352 754 402 102 314 65.96% 11.11% 8.34% 14.59% 34.43% 19.98% 4.81% 21.08% 65.59% 9.43% 8.93% 16.04% 34.37% 18.32% 4.65% 14.31% -0.37% -1.67% 0.59% 1.45% -0.06% -1.66% -0.16% -6.77% Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 140 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 Missing Data Arizona’s overall response rate was 61%, meaning of the 3,619 students who left school during the 2009– 2010 school year, post school outcome information was missing for 39% (n = 1,425) of former students in the sample. An analysis of missing data indicated that the largest segment of missing data was the result of either not being able to contact leavers after three attempts (734) or having incorrect contact information (456). However, approximately 150 surveys could not be conducted because no contact information was collected by the PEA. Selection Bias The under representativeness of youth and young adults in the category of dropout could be attributed to the fact that this group of youth is a difficult population to reach, in general. To address this, the ADE/ESS has developed, implemented, and continues to refine an improvement activity designed to provide technical assistance to PEAs on strategies to reach leavers. Also, the ADE/ESS will continue to work with NPSO to identify different strategies to encourage survey responses from youth in the dropout category. Outcomes for FFY 2010 Figure 14.1, Indicator 14: Arizona’s Post-School Outcomes for 2009–2010 School Year Exiters, shows the outcome categories, including the not engaged category, the number of leavers in each category, and the percentage of leavers in each outcome category. The table below the chart shows the percentages for each measure, A, B, and C. Arizona’s largest percentage of leavers was in the outcome category competitive employment, with 32.9% (n = 721) of leavers counted in this category. The second largest percentage of leavers was the outcome category not engaged, with 31.5% (n = 692) of leavers counted in this category. The remaining categories, listed in order of largest percentage, were: enrolled in some other postsecondary education or training, 13.7% (n= 301); enrolled in higher education, 13.6% (n = 299); and some other employment, 8.2% (n = 181). Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 141 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 Figure 14. 1 Indicator 14: Arizona's Post School Outcomes for 2009–2010 School Year Exiters 1: Enrolled in higher education (299), 13.6% Not Engaged (692), 31.5% 4: Some other employment (181), 8.2% 2: Competitive employment (721), 32.9% 3: Enrolled in other postsecondary education or training (301), 13.7% SPP #14 Measurement A 14% Equals Segment 1 SPP #14 Measurement B 46% Equals Segments 1+2 SPP #14 Measurement C 68% Equals Segments 1+2+3+4 1: Enrolled in higher education 2: Competitive employment 3: Enrolled in other postsecondary education or training 4: Some other employment Not Engaged Disaggregated Outcomes by Subgroups To better understand the post school outcomes of Arizona’s youth and young adults, ADE/ESS used the NPSO Data Display Templates to further analyze data. The outcomes were examined by each subgroup: gender, disability type, ethnicity, and exit type. Results of these analyses were used to determine improvement activities, described later in this document. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 142 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 Post School Outcomes by Gender As seen in Figure 14.2, Indicator 14: Arizona’s Post School Outcomes by Gender, female leavers in Arizona had similar outcomes to males in the areas of: some other employment, enrolled in other postsecondary education or training, and enrolled in higher education. However, female leavers had much smaller percentages in the areas of competitive employment (27% vs. 36%) and engagement (65% vs. 70%) compared to their male counterparts. ADE/ESS will share this information with PEAs and assist districts and charters in analyzing root causes for these gender discrepancies. Figure 14.2 Indicator 14: Arizona's Post School Outcomes for 2009–2010 School Year Exiters 100% 80% Axis Title Respondents by Gender 60% The count of this group is zero. 40% 20% 0% Statewide Respondents n=2194 Female n=754 Male n=1440 Unknown: Gender n=0 Not Engaged 32% 35% 30% 0% 4: Some other employment 8% 8% 8% 0% 3: Enrolled in other postsecondary education or training 14% 16% 13% 0% 2: Competitive employment 33% 27% 36% 0% 1: Enrolled in higher education 14% 14% 13% 0% Post School Outcomes by Disability Category Figure 14.3, Indicator 14: Arizona’s Post School Outcomes by Disability Category, shows that individuals with a disability category of mental retardation were not engaged (60%) at nearly twice the overall State rate (32%). Additionally, these individuals were engaged in competitive employment (13%) at a much lower rate than other disability categories. Based on this information, ADE/ESS has developed an improvement activity to work collaboratively with our local and State community of practice/community Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 143 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 transition teams to develop a strategy to improve overall engagement for individuals with a disability category of mental retardation. Figure 14.3 Indicator 14: Arizona's Post School Outcomes for 2009–2010 School Year Exiters 100% 80% Axis Title Respondents by Type of Disability 60% 40% The count of this group is zero. 20% 0% Statewide Respondents n=2194 Specific Learning Disability n=1439 Emotional Disturbance n=207 Mental Retardation n=196 All Other Disabilities n=352 Unknown: Disability Type n=0 Not Engaged 32% 26% 42% 60% 32% 0% 4: Some other employment 8% 8% 10% 10% 8% 0% 3: Enrolled in other postsecondary education or training 14% 14% 15% 14% 13% 0% 2: Competitive employment 33% 39% 25% 13% 25% 0% 1: Enrolled in higher education 14% 14% 8% 4% 22% 0% Post School Outcomes by Ethnicity As seen in Figure 14.4, Indicator 14: Arizona’s Post School Outcomes by Ethnicity, there was no significant difference in outcomes for youth enrolled in higher education, except that students identified as Asian or Pacific Islander were twice as likely to enroll in higher education (31%) than any other ethnic group except students identified as Black. In the categories of some other employment and some other postsecondary education or training, all groups showed comparable outcomes. However, the greatest disparity among ethnic groups was seen in outcomes related to competitive employment. Youth and young adults identified as White, Hispanic, and Asian or Pacific Islander were employed at approximately the same rate, whereas students identified as Black and American Indian/Alaska Native were significantly less likely to be competitively employed than their peers identified in other ethnic categories. Additionally, fewer than half (48%) of the Native American youth and young adults who responded to the PSO Survey were engaged in any outcome category, which is 20% less than the statewide engagement rate. Engaging youth who are identified as American Indian/Alaska Native continues to be a concern for ADE/ESS. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 144 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 Figure 14.4 Indicator 14: Post School Outcomes for 2009–2010 School Year Exiters 100% 80% Respondents by Ethnicity The count of this group is zero. 60% 40% 20% 0% American Asian or Indian/ Pacific Alaska Native Islander n=16 n=183 Statewide Respondents n=2194 White n=958 Hispanic n=834 Black n=203 Not Engaged 32% 28% 31% 33% 19% 52% 0% 4: Some other employment 8% 9% 8% 10% 13% 5% 0% 3: Enrolled in other postsecondary education or training 14% 15% 13% 13% 0% 15% 0% 2: Competitive employment 33% 35% 36% 26% 38% 13% 0% 1: Enrolled in higher education 14% 13% 12% 19% 31% 14% 0% Unknown: Ethnicity n=0 Post School Outcomes by Type of Exit Figure 14.5, Indicator 14: Arizona’s Post School Outcomes by Type of Exit, reveals that individuals who earned a high school diploma had much better outcomes, especially in the areas of higher education and competitive employment. Only 1% of dropouts enrolled in higher education compared to 16% of graduates; similarly, only 20% were engaged in competitive employment, as compared to 35% of graduates. Not surprisingly, dropouts had a much lower rate of engagement (45%) compared to graduates (72%). Additionally, a review of the 1,425 leavers who did not respond to the survey by demographic subgroup indicates that 65% were male, 42% were Hispanic, 69% exited with a high school diploma, and 67% were individuals identified with the disability category of learning disability. This information was used to develop a new improvement activity targeted at improving response rates for leavers with these demographic characteristics. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 145 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 Figure 14.5 Indicator 14: Post School Outcomes for 2009–2010 School Year Exiters 100% Axis Title 80% Respondents by Type of Exit 60% 40% The count of this group is zero. 20% 0% The count of this group is too few to report. The count of this group is zero. Statewide Respondents n=2194 High School Diploma n=1879 Certificate or Modified Diploma n=0 Aged out n=1 Dropout n=314 Unknown: Exit Reason n=0 Not Engaged 32% 28% 0% 0% 56% 0% 4: Some other employment 8% 8% 0% 0% 7% 0% 3: Enrolled in other postsecondary education or training 14% 13% 0% 0% 17% 0% 2: Competitive employment 33% 35% 0% 0% 20% 0% 1: Enrolled in higher education 14% 16% 0% 0% 1% 0% Trend Data Using the NPSO Trend Data Display +3, ADE/ESS compared the actual target data achieved this year against the measurable and rigorous targets for FFY 2010 as established in the FFY 2009 SPP. The following figures from the Trend Data Displays for Measures A, B, and C display columns for baseline and target data. In each chart below, the black column on the left represents the baseline data and the gray column represents the target set for FFY 2010. Next year, ADE/ESS will add a trend line showing change over time in the actual target achieved. As shown in Figure 14.6, Arizona’s Trend Data, Measure A: Enrolled in Higher Education, the Indicator 14A baseline was 13.8% and the FFY 2010 target was 14.05%. The actual target data was 13.6%, which was 0.2 percentage points below Arizona’s baseline data and was 0.45 percentage points below the target. Refer to the Explanation of Slippage section for a discussion of this data. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 146 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 Figure 14.6 Arizona's Trend Data, Measure A: Enrolled in Higher Education 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Baseline & Targets for Measure A Baseline: 2008-09 Leaver Yr. (FFY 2009) Year 1: 200910 Leaver Yr. (FFY 2010) Year 2: 201011 Leaver Yr. (FFY 2011) Year 3: 201112 Leaver Yr. (FFY 2012) 13.80% 14.05% 0.00% 0.00% Annual Data for Measure A 13.60% As seen in Figure 14.7, Arizona’s Trend Data, Measure B: Enrolled in Higher Education or Competitive Employment, the baseline for Measure B was 48.4% and the measurable and rigorous target for FFY 2010 was set at 48.65%. The actual target data achieved was 46.4%, 2 percentage points below the baseline and 2.25 percentage points below the target. Therefore, in FFY 2010 Arizona did not meet the target for Measure B. The lack of progress is attributed in part to the same reasons cited for Measure A’s slippage and also to the current economic climate, which has significantly affected Arizona’s fiscal health and has also led to a decrease in school funding and staff. A further challenge facing many of our Arizona schools is the turnover in personnel. Much of Arizona is composed of very rural areas, which frequently experience very high staff turnover rates. The ability to develop and sustain evidence-based practices leading to improved post school outcomes is challenging with these conditions. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 147 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 Figure 14.7 Arizona's Trend Data, Measure B: Enrolled in Higher Education or Competitive Employment 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Baseline & Annual Data for Measure B Baseline: 200809 Leaver Yr. (FFY 2009) Year 1: 2009-10 Leaver Yr. (FFY 2010) Year 2: 2010-11 Leaver Yr. (FFY 2011) Year 3: 2011-12 Leaver Yr. (FFY 2012) 48.40% 48.65% 0.00% 0.00% Annual Data for Measure B 46.40% As seen in Figure 14.8, Arizona’s Trend Data, Measure C: Enrolled in Higher Education or Other Post Secondary Education or Competitive Employment or in Some Other Employment, the baseline for Measure C was 70.6% and the rigorous and measurable target for FFY 2010 was set at 71.1%. The actual target data achieved was 68.5%, 2.1 percentage points below the baseline and 2.6 percentage points below the target. Therefore, in FFY 2010 Arizona did not meet the target for Measure C, and this lack of progress is attributed to the same reasons cited for Measure A’s slippage. However, it is interesting to note that an increase of 1.4% in other post secondary education over the baseline was observed. This change is attributed to improved partnering efforts being made with community agencies to inform parents and families of post secondary educational opportunities within the community, which could result in engagement for students who might otherwise have been identified as “not engaged.” Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 148 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 Figure 14.8 Arizona's Trend Data, Measure C: Enrolled in Higher Education or Other Post Secondary Education or Competitive Employment or in Some Other Employment 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Baseline & Targets for Measure C Baseline: 200809 Leaver Yr. (FFY 2009) 70.60% Annual Data for Measure C Year 1: 2009-10 Year 2: 2010-11 Year 3: 2011-12 Leaver Yr. (FFY Leaver Yr. (FFY Leaver Yr. (FFY 2010) 2011) 2012) 71.10% 0.00% 0.00% 68.50% In summary, Arizona experienced slight decreases in engagement for all measures, ranging from 0.2 percentage points to 2.1 percentage points compared to the baseline, and 0.45 percentage points to 2.6 percentage points compared to the targets. Although Measure C reflects an overall decrease from the baseline and target data, the category of some other education or training actually showed a slight increase over the baseline. ADE/ESS will continue to monitor actual engagement in each of the four engagement categories and trend data results as the cohort participating in the sample decreases from 117 PEAs to approximately 55 for FFY 2011. Explanation of Slippage That Occurred for FFY 2010 Although Arizona did not meet the targets for Indicator 14A, 14B, or 14C, the data were within approximately two percentage points of meeting the targets and did show an increase in some other postsecondary education or training. As shown in Figure 14.6, Arizona’s Trend Data, Measure A: Enrolled in Higher Education, the Indicator 14A baseline was 13.8% and the FFY 2010 target was 14.05%. The actual target data was 13.6%, which were 0.2 percentage points below Arizona’s baseline data and 0.45 percentage points below the target. This slippage is attributed to the larger number of PEAs participating in the PSO Survey for FFY 2010 (117) as compared to FFY 2009 (36). This resulted in a much larger number of leavers (3,619) and respondents (2,194) in FFY 2010, versus the smaller number of leavers (2,017) and respondents (1,350) in FFY 2009. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 149 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 Additionally, in FFY 2009 Arizona showed a 67% response rate compared to 61% in FFY 2010. It should be noted that the larger PEA participation group is due to the failure of numerous PEAs to participate in the PSO Survey data collection previously in the six-year SPP cycle, requiring them to complete the data collection in the final year of the SPP cycle. The ADE/ESS plans to address this data collection participation issue in Cycle 2 of the SPP (beginning in FFY 2011) by setting a standard sample size of approximately 55 PEAs each year. Further, participation in the PSO Survey data collection in the assigned sample year will be factored into the PEA determination decisions made by the State based on each PEA’s data. Although the ADE/ESS would like to see an increase in Indicator 14A, the State does not believe that the slippage of less than one-half of a percent is significant. The ADE/ESS will continue to monitor the trend data over the next two years. Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed for FFY 2010 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 Activities completed 7/1/10 to 6/30/11. Enhancements to the online PSO Survey application were completed May 2011 and the training site was updated in June 2011 to demonstrate the online PSO application. Reasons for the survey not being collected or not being appropriate to administer were added to the online application. Activities completed 7/1/10 to 6/30/11. Projected 7/1/10– 6/30/13 Resources (Planned) ADE/ESS Transition Specialists ADE/ IT Specialists ADE/R & E Analysts 7/1/10– 6/30/13 ADE/ESS Transition Specialists  PEAs in the FFY 2010 PSO Survey participation cohort were identified and targeted for training.  Two trainings on Indicator 14 and the enhanced online PSO Survey application were provided at the annual ADE/ESS Directors Institute in August 2010. An additional two trainings on Indicator 14 and the enhanced online PSO Survey application Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 150 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 were provided at Arizona’s Tenth Annual Transition Conference in September 2010. Over 250 people attended at least one of these sessions. c) Analyze PSO training evaluations and survey results to determine effectiveness of trainings d) Create PSO data reports for participating PEAs to use as a measure for analyzing and improving transition  Five webinar trainings on Indicator 14 and the enhanced online PSO Survey application were offered to all PEAs, including the FFY 2010 reporting cohort throughout FFY 2010. Activities completed from 7/1/10 through 6/30/11. 7/1/10– 6/30/13 ADE/ESS Transition Specialists 7/1/10– 6/30/13 ADE/ESS Transition Specialists  A review and analysis of the PSO training participant evaluations was completed after each training and at the conclusion of FFY 2010. Participant evaluation forms showed significant increases on self-rating measures of knowledge from pre- to posttraining. Using a scale of 1 to 5 (1 = low and 5 = high), participants reported an average growth of 1 point.  A review and analysis of PSO webinar training participant evaluations was completed following each training and at the conclusion of FFY 2010. Participant evaluation forms showed significant increases on self-rating measures of knowledge and awareness of resources and tools to assist in data collection. Activities completed 7/1/10 to 6/30/11. PSO data reports for participating PEAs were ADE/IT Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 151 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 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 b) Participate in PSO survey and share results with local community transition teams created and made available to PEAs in the online PSO Survey application for response rates and representativeness, and results by subcategories. Activities completed 7/1/10 to 6/30/11. Specialists ADE/R & E Analysts 7/1/10– 6/30/13 ADE/ESS, in collaboration with STMP grant coaches from the University of Kansas/Transition Coalition, provided training and created instructional materials designed to facilitate the development of local Community Transition Teams (CTTs) for Year 2 STMP grant participants. The goals included: developing interagency CTTs; working across stakeholders to identify and prioritize community transition needs and challenges to attaining successful post school outcomes; developing protocols for working across stakeholders to increase employability and postsecondary participation of students as they leave high school; and improving post-school outcome data. An overview of CTTs was provided to Year 1 STMP teams. Activities completed 7/1/10 7/1/10– to 6/30/11. 6/30/13 STMP teams were provided training, reports, and materials for use with local CTT teams on State and local PSO response rates, representativeness, and outcome data. ESS Transition Specialists ADE/ESS Transition Specialists STMP Grant Year 2 PEAs Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 152 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 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 fliers 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/NPSOcreated technical assistance video “Be a Superstar—Take the Survey” YouTube video and provide a link to the video on the 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 Activities completed 7/1/10 to 6/30/11. 7/1/10– 6/30/13 ADE/ESS Transition Specialists A one-page summary of Arizona’s PSO Survey and an Arizona PSO glossary were disseminated via email and posted on the ADE/ESS Secondary Transition website: http://www.azed.gov /special-education /special-projects /secondary-transition/. These support documents were also included on the homepage of the online PSO Survey application. Activities completed 7/1/10 to 6/30/11. 7/1/10– 6/30/13 ADE/ESS Transition Specialists ADE/ESS transition specialists and STMP trainers highlighted and encouraged the use of the NPSO marketing materials and the PACER/NPSO created technical assistance video “Be a Superstar—Take the Survey” YouTube videos. A link to the videos and fliers was posted on the ADE/ESS Secondary Transition website: http://www.azed.gov /special-education /special-projects /secondary-transition/. Activities completed 7/1/10 to 6/30/11. 7/1/10– 6/30/13 ADE/ESS Transition Specialists Two sessions were offered during Arizona’s Tenth Annual Transition Conference, and two sessions were planned for Arizona’s Eleventh Annual Transition Conference. Activities completed 7/1/10 to 6/30/11. 7/1/10– 6/30/13 ADE/ESS Transition Specialists An online survey to determine use of Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 153 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 4) Work with the National PostSchool Outcomes (NPSO) Technical Assistance Center as an “intensive state” a) Submit an application for intensive technical assistance from NPSO Center 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 strategies to reach exiters was developed in FFY 2010 and will be implemented in FFY 2011. Activities completed 7/1/10 to 6/30/11. 7/1/10– 8/31/10 ADE/ESS applied for and was accepted as an “intensive state” by NPSO beginning January 2011. This activity completed and discontinued. Activities completed 7/1/10 to 6/30/11. NPSO Technical Assistance Center 1/1/11– 4/30/11 In conjunction with NPSO, ADE/ESS developed and began implementation of a comprehensive plan to improve Indicator 14 in Arizona. Components include: a logic model, a plan to increase awareness of the PSO at the local level, and a plan to improve data collection and reporting at the State and local level. This activity completed and discontinued. Activities completed 7/1/10 to 6/30/11. ADE/ESS has taken steps to implement technical assistance received from NPSO as evidenced by: enhancements made to the online PSO Survey application, updated trainings provided at conferences and via webinars to local PEAs, and incorporation of NPSO data collection and analysis tools. ADE/ESS Transition Specialists ADE/ESS Transition Specialists NPSO Technical Assistance Center 5/1/11– 6/30/13 ADE/ESS Transition Specialists NPSO Technical Assistance Center Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 154 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 5) Revise Arizona’s online PSO data collection system to include missing data and enable future trend analysis a) Revise PSO online data collection system to include reason for PEA failure to collect survey information b) Revise PSO online data collection system to allow for the exploration of additional data related to nonengaged youth Activities completed 7/1/10 to 6/30/11. The FFY 2010 online PSO Survey application was revised to indicate the reason for PEA failure to collect survey information and to allow PEAs to report youth who were ineligible for the survey (i.e., those who had returned to school, or were deceased, or whose data was uploaded by the PEA to the SAIS system in error) and permit ADE/ESS to easily remove their information from the PSO data collection. Activities completed 7/1/10 to 6/30/11. 7/1/10– 6/30/13 ADE/ESS Transition Specialists ADE/IT Specialists 7/1/10– 6/30/13 In FFY 2010, a plan for enhancing the online PSO Survey application to include data regarding nonengaged youth was discussed, although further planning and implementation of this enhancement will not occur until FFY 2011 or 2012. ADE/ESS Transition Specialists ADE/IT Specialists Additional Information Required by the OSEP APR Response Table for This Indicator Statement from the Response Table The State must report actual target data for FFY 2010 with the FFY 2010 APR, due February 1, 2012. State’s Response In the FFY 2010 APR, Arizona reported actual target data for Indicator 14 for FFY 2010. Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources for FFY 2011 The following are new improvement activities in response to the FFY 2010 actual target data. Primary Activity (GOAL) Sub-Activities (Objectives or Action Steps) Timeline Complete Projected Resources (Planned) Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 155 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 1) Increase the number of youth who respond to the post school outcomes survey from 61% (FFY 2010) to 67.5% 2) Increase the rate of engagement for students with a disability category of mental retardation from 40% (FFY 2010) to 52% a) Design and implement a marketing plan to target increased participation by male and ethnic minority youth and young adults b) Enhance the online PSO Survey application to filter and group data by size of PEA and county c) Use the NPSO response calculator to track responses during the data collection to monitor response rates a) Offer three regional trainings a year specifically designed to increase awareness of available options for postsecondary education, training, and employment for students with intellectual disabilities 1/1/12– 6/30/12 11/1/11– 6/30/12 7/1/12– 9/30/12 1/1/12– 6/30/13 ADE/ESS Transition Specialists and Parent Information Specialists ADE/ESS Transition Specialists and IT Specialists ADE/ESS Transition Specialists ADE/ESS Transition Specialists AZ Community of Practice on Transition (AZCoPT) Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 156 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 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 2010 FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target FFY 2010 100% Actual Target Data for FFY 2010 98.7% Arizona did not meet the target. Process to Select PEAs for Monitoring The ADE/ESS conducts compliance monitoring for IDEA procedural requirements. Arizona uses a sixyear cycle for monitoring with assigned activities always occurring in Year 4 of the cycle. The ADE/ESS directors and program specialists review each PEA’s data annually. The ADE/ESS can adjust a PEA’s monitoring schedule, and Year 4 monitoring activities can occur any time systemic issues arise related to the review of data. The data for FFY 2010 included the PEAs in Year 5 of the cycle; that is, data included those PEAs that were on a Corrective Action Plan to correct findings of noncompliance identified as a result of their monitoring activities during FFY 2009. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 157 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 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 and accommodation districts. Definition of Finding for Monitoring for FFY 2009 Prior to FFY 2009, each separate component in the monitoring system was an individual line item, and each individual line item could become a finding that would trigger a written notification of noncompliance to a PEA. More than 100 line items could have resulted in possible findings. With technical assistance from the Data Accountability Center (DAC) and the Mountain Plains Regional Resource Center (MPRRC), Arizona revised its monitoring system for FFY 2009 and implemented a new system to ensure continued effectiveness and in consideration of the growing number of PEAs. While maintaining the alignment of the content to the Related Requirements, the components and line items were regrouped to streamline the tabulation of all data. This led to re-defining a “finding.” In contrast to the more than 100 possible findings in the past, the FFY 2009 monitoring system had 19 line items. Each line item was comprised of multiple components that aligned to the Related Requirements document. Any one component within a line item that was found to be noncompliant generated a finding of noncompliance for that line item. If multiple components within the line item were found to be noncompliant, a single finding was made (i.e., the line item was found noncompliant) as opposed to a finding for each single component (i.e., the definition of a finding prior to FFY 2009). The following are examples of one line item and one of the components within that line item from the revised monitoring system that became effective FFY 2009:  line item—“eligibility considerations”  component—“student was assessed in all areas related to the suspected disability” If the one component was noncompliant, then the line item was noncompliant and a finding was issued. During FFY 2009, a finding was issued when any line item was less than 100% compliant based upon the review of the components within the line item. The finding was a written notification to the PEA by the State that the line item(s) was noncompliant, and each finding included a description of a Federal or State statute or regulation. Explanation of Progress That Occurred for FFY 2010 The progress (3.8 percentage points) that was made from FFY 2009 to FFY 2010 can be attributed to a number of factors. Experienced ESS program specialists trained PEAs to write measurable annual IEP goals during 14 on-site regional workshops. The PEA staff involved had opportunities to submit draft annual goals to the presenters after the first series of trainings. The ESS specialists then gave technical assistance to improve the measurability of the goals. Two webinars were presented on the same topic and participants were given a copy of the recorded webinar. The ESS monitoring/program support director maintained communication with the executive director of the Arizona State Board for Charter Schools and the ADE deputy associate superintendent for School Improvement and Intervention. This collaboration helped to facilitate the timely correction of noncompliance when the CAP closeout was not proceeding at the expected rate. The ADE/ESS provided staff development for ESS program specialists to increase understanding of the validity of compliance calls. ESS mandates attendance by the specialists at a three-day summer monitoring training (six days for newly employed specialists). 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. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 158 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 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 shadowed the mentors on monitorings, CAP follow-up visits, technical assistance visits, and periodic meetings with PEAs. The specialists and mentors also communicated about issues that arose from regular interactions with the assigned PEA staff. The mentoring was maintained for up to one year. Another contributing factor to the progress made was the ongoing involvement by the monitoring director with the Corrective Action Plans (CAPs) from the monitorings. The director reviewed 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 communicated with the assigned specialist for detailed updates if the CAP closeout was not progressing at a reasonable pace. Additionally, the monitoring director sent a monthly CAP Progression Report to the specialists and ESS directors that identified timelines toward the one-year closeout for each open monitoring. This alerted specialists to the remaining days for one-year closeouts. The director asked specialists to respond if difficulties existed that were impeding timely closeout. Strategies were 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, at a minimum, to evaluate the monitoring process and system. In addition, the Monitoring Team members carried out their regular duties throughout the year. That is, they reviewed and revised the monitoring manual, which included forms and guide steps (an annual project); planned continuing support for program specialists; and designed resources and support materials for PEA administrators, evaluators, and teachers. Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed for FFY 2010 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 Activities completed as of 7/24/09. 5/1/08– 12/31/09 b) Field test revised monitoring system Activities completed during school year 2009-2010. 1/1/10– 6/30/10 c) Revise monitoring system based on results from field test Activities completed by 6/30/10. 7/1/10– 9/30/10 d) Implementation of fully revised system and process The ADE/ESS monitoring team revised the monitoring system based on the field test. Activities completed 10/1/10. 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 The revised monitoring system was fully implemented by 10/1/10. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 159 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 e) Collect and analyze data from revised monitoring system 2) Develop and conduct webinars pertaining to the requirements for compliant evaluations and IEPs 3) Improve the general supervision system of PEAs by enhancing internal staff development Activities completed 6/30/11. 10/1/10– 6/30/11 ADE/ESS Monitoring Team The ESS monitoring director analyzed monitoring results and feedback from PEA special education directors; minor updates were made to the monitoring process. Activities completed 6/30/11. 12/1/10– 6/30/11 ADE/ESS Directors and Specialists b) Conduct statewide webinars for evaluation and IEP requirements 7/1/11– 12/31/11 c) Collect and analyze training feedback from participants 1/1/12– 4/30/12 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 5/1/12– 6/30/12 ADE/ESS Directors and Specialists ADE/ESS Directors and Specialists ADE/ESS Directors and Specialists a) Develop webinar trainings for evaluation and IEP requirements Monitoring director and monitoring team created webinars to train PEAs about evaluation process and timelines. b) Implement the ESS mentoring system for the monitoring specialists, based on demand and need Activities completed from 7/1/10 to 6/30/11. 7/1/10– 6/30/13 The ESS mentoring system was reviewed by the director of program support and the monitoring team (M Team). The mentoring system was revised to establish ongoing training for new specialists; to update the mentoring manual; and to establish a listserv for mentors, mentees, and directors. Activities completed from 7/1/10 to 6/30/11. ADE/ESS Director of Program Support and Monitoring Team 7/1/10– 6/30/13 ADE/ESS Director of Program Support and Monitoring Team The revised ESS mentoring system was implemented for all new ESS specialists who monitor. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 160 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 c) Develop three-day summer monitoring training each year for ESS monitoring specialists Activities completed by 6/1/11. 7/1/10– 6/30/13 The three-day summer monitoring training was developed by the director of program support and the monitoring team (M Team). Activities completed in July 2010. ADE/ESS Director of Program Support and Monitoring Team 7/1/10– 6/30/13 Monitoring training was provided in July 2010 to all ESS specialists who monitor. Activities completed from 7/1/10 to 6/30/11. ADE/ESS Director of Program Support and Monitoring Team 7/1/10– 6/30/13 ADE/ESS Director of Program Support and Monitoring Team a) Review and revise presentation, support materials, and resources 7/1/11– 6/30/13 b) Conduct statewide presentations at various regional and statewide venues 7/1/11– 6/30/13 ADE/ESS Dispute Resolution Director and Dispute Resolution Coordinator ADE/ESS Dispute Resolution Director and Complaint Investigator d) Implement three-day summer monitoring training each year for ESS monitoring specialists e) Provide follow-up staff development for ESS monitoring specialists periodically throughout the year 4) Conduct Dispute Resolution presentations for PEAs and parent groups Follow-up trainings and electronic communications were provided to all ESS specialists who monitor. Timely Correction of FFY 2009 Findings of Noncompliance (corrected within one year from identification of the noncompliance) 1. Number of findings of noncompliance the State made during FFY 2009 (the period from July 1, 2009, through June 30, 2010) (Sum of Column a on the Indicator B15 Worksheet) 593 2. Number of findings the State verified as timely corrected (corrected within one year from the date of notification to the PEA of the finding) (Sum of Column b on the Indicator B15 Worksheet) 585 3. Number of findings not verified as corrected within one year [(1) minus (2)] 8 FFY 2009 Findings of Noncompliance Not Timely Corrected (corrected more than one year from identification of the noncompliance and/or Not Corrected) Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 161 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 4. Number of FFY 2009 findings not timely corrected (same as the number from (3) above) 8 5. Number of FFY 2009 findings the State has verified as corrected beyond the one-year timeline (“subsequent correction”) 8 6. Number of FFY 2009 findings not yet verified as corrected [(4) minus (5)] 0 Verification of Correction for All Findings of Noncompliance Identified in FFY 2009 (either timely or subsequent) As specified in OSEP’s June 2011 Arizona Part B FFY 2009 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 2009 (including any revisions to general supervision procedures, technical assistance provided, and/or any enforcement actions taken) Specific Actions for Correction of FFY 2009 Findings of Noncompliance for Indicator 11 Level of compliance (actual target data) State reported for FFY 2009 for this indicator: 96% 1. Number of findings of noncompliance the State made during FFY 2009 (the period from July 1, 2009, through June 30, 2010) 22 2. Number of FFY 2009 findings the State verified as timely corrected (corrected within one year from the date of notification to the PEA of the finding) 22 3. Number of FFY 2009 findings not verified as corrected within one year [(1) minus (2)] 0 Correction of FFY 2009 Findings of Noncompliance Not Timely Corrected (corrected more than one year from identification of the noncompliance) 4. Number of FFY 2009 findings not timely corrected (same as the number from (3) above) 0 5. Number of FFY 2009 findings the State has verified as corrected beyond the oneyear timeline (“subsequent correction”) 0 6. Number of FFY 2009 findings not verified as corrected [(4) minus (5)] 0 Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 162 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 All findings of noncompliance from FFY 2009 related to Indicator 11 have been corrected and verified. The ADE/ESS specialists reviewed the child specific files from the monitorings to determine whether 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 2009 Findings of Noncompliance for Indicator 12 Level of compliance (actual target data) State reported for FFY 2009 for this indicator: 98% 1. Number of findings of noncompliance the State made during FFY 2009 (the period from July 1, 2009, through June 30, 2010) 15 2. Number of FFY 2009 findings the State verified as timely corrected (corrected within one year from the date of notification to the PEA of the finding) 15 3. Number of FFY 2009 findings not verified as corrected within one year [(1) minus (2)] 0 Correction of FFY 2009 Findings of Noncompliance Not Timely Corrected (corrected more than one year from identification of the noncompliance) 4. Number of FFY 2009 findings not timely corrected (same as the number from (3) above) 0 5. Number of FFY 2009 findings the State has verified as corrected beyond the oneyear timeline (“subsequent correction”) 0 6. Number of FFY 2009 findings not verified as corrected [(4) minus (5)] 0 The 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 whether 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-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 Correction of FFY 2009 Findings of Noncompliance for Indicator 13 Level of compliance (actual target data) State reported for FFY 2009 for this indicator: 90% Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 163 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 1. Number of findings of noncompliance the State made during FFY 2009 (the period from July 1, 2009, through June 30, 2010) 87 2. Number of FFY 2009 findings the State verified as timely corrected (corrected within one year from the date of notification to the PEA of the finding) 86 3. Number of FFY 2009 findings not verified as corrected within one year [(1) minus (2)] 1 Correction of FFY 2009 Findings of Noncompliance Not Timely Corrected (corrected more than one year from identification of the noncompliance) 4. Number of FFY 2009 findings not timely corrected (same as the number from (3) above) 1 5. Number of FFY 2009 findings the State has verified as corrected beyond the oneyear timeline (“subsequent correction”) 1 6. Number of FFY 2009 findings not verified as corrected [(4) minus (5)] 0 All findings of noncompliance from FFY 2009 related to Indicator 13 have been corrected and verified. The ADE/ESS specialists reviewed the child specific files from the monitorings to determine whether 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 whether 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 2009, 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 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 reviewed updated data from subsequent files and conducted interviews with 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 PEAs had conducted genuine Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 164 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 and thorough examinations of root causes. The analyses resulted in action plans 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 2009, 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 audit to verify correction of any instance 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 documentation evidencing correction of all the noncompliance.  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 2009, 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.  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 2009, 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 2010 165 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010  ADE/ESS specialists reviewed 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 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 PEAs had conducted genuine and thorough examinations of root causes. The analyses resulted in action plans to address systemic issues and to ensure sustainability of compliance. 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:  Assignment of a special monitor.  Interruption of IDEA payments until adequate compliance is achieved. For charter schools not receiving IDEA funds, a request to begin withholding 10% of State funds.  For charter schools, a request to the appropriate board for a notice of intent to revoke the charter.  With Arizona State Board of Education approval, interruption of Group B weighted State aid or redirection of funds pursuant to 34 CFR § 300.227 (a).  Request to the Arizona Attorney General for legal action. 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 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 visit by the ESS specialist. These site visits are designed to assist PEAs with understanding the requirements for Indicators 11, 12, and 13. Information from these visits is logged in a database to track the 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 a monitoring to ensure timely correction of noncompliance. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 166 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 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. Correction of Remaining FFY 2008 Findings of Noncompliance Not applicable. Although Arizona reported < 100% for this Indicator in the FFY 2009 APR, all remaining FFY 2008 findings were subsequently corrected. 1. Number of remaining FFY 2008 findings noted in OSEP’s FFY 2009 APR response table for this indicator 0 2. Number of remaining FFY 2008 findings the State has verified as corrected 0 3. Number of remaining FFY 2008 findings the State has NOT verified as corrected [(1) minus (2)] 0 Correction of Any Remaining Findings of Noncompliance Identified FFY 2007 or Earlier Not applicable. Additional Information Required by the OSEP APR Response Table for This Indicator Statement from the Response Table State’s Response In reporting on correction of findings of noncompliance in the FFY 2010 APR, the State must report that it verified that each PEA with noncompliance identified in FFY 2009 is (1) correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirements; and (2) has corrected each individual case of noncompliance, consistent with OSEP Memo 09-02. In the FFY 2010 APR, the State must describe the specific actions that were taken to verify the correction. In the FFY 2010 APR for Indicators 11, 12, 13, and 15, Arizona reported that it verified each PEA with noncompliance (FFY 2009 data), consistent with OSEP Memorandum 09-02, dated October 17, 2008. Arizona described the specific actions that were taken to verify the correction of noncompliance. In addition, in reporting on Indicator 15 in the FFY 2010 APR, the State must use the Indicator 15 Worksheet. In the FFY 2010 APR, Arizona uses the Indicator 15 Worksheet to report on Indicator 15. In addition, in responding to Indicators 11, 12, and 13, in the FFY 2010 APR, the State must report on correction of the noncompliance described in this table under those indicators. In the FFY 2010 APR, Arizona reports on the correction of noncompliance for Indicator 11 within the Indicator 11 section and within Indicator 15, reports on the correction of noncompliance for Indicator 12 within the Indicator 12 section and within Indicator 15, and reports on the correction of Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 167 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 noncompliance for Indicator 13 within the Indicator 13 section and within Indicator 15. Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources for FFY 2011 The following are new improvement activities to improve the dispute resolution database. Primary Activity (GOAL) 1) Develop dispute resolution database to improve collection, maintenance, and reporting of data Sub-Activities (Objectives or Action Steps) a) Review dispute resolution database Timeline Complete Projected 7/1/11– 6/30/12 b) Reconstruct dispute resolution database 7/1/12– 12/31/12 c) Test phase  alpha-test to debug  beta-test to ensure ease of use d) Fully implement reconstructed dispute resolution database 1/1/13– 6/30/13 7/1/13 Resources (Planned) ADE/ESS Dispute Resolution Director and Corrective Action Compliance Monitor ADE/ESS Dispute Resolution Director and Corrective Action Compliance Monitor Dispute Resolution Team Dispute Resolution Team Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 168 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 INDICATOR 15 WORKSHEET 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 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. 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 2009 (7/1/09 to 6/30/10) (a) # of findings (individual student files) of noncompliance identified in FFY 2009 (7/1/09 to 6/30/10) Monitoring Activities: SelfAssessment/ Local APR, Data Review, Desk Audit, On-Site Visits, or Other Dispute Resolution: Complaints, Hearings Monitoring System: 28 Monitoring System: 40 (b) # of findings (individual student files) of noncompliance from (a) for which correction was verified no later than one year from identification Monitoring System: 40 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: 34 Monitoring System: 34 Monitoring System: 33 General Supervision System Components # of findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2009 (7/1/09 to 6/30/10) for which correction was verified later than one year from identification 1 corrected and verified within 14 months from identification Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 169 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 Indicator/Indicator Clusters outcomes. 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. General Supervision System Components Dispute Resolution: Complaints, Hearings Monitoring Activities: SelfAssessment/ Local APR, Data Review, Desk Audit, On-Site Visits, or Other # of PEAs Issued findings in FFY 2009 (7/1/09 to 6/30/10) (a) # of findings (individual student files) of noncompliance identified in FFY 2009 (7/1/09 to 6/30/10) 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:11 Monitoring System: 11 Monitoring System: 11 APR: 0 APR: 0 APR: 0 # of findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2009 (7/1/09 to 6/30/10) for which correction was verified later than one year from identification Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 170 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 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. 5. Percent of children with IEPs aged 6 through 21 educational placements. 6. Percent of preschool children aged 3 through 5 – early childhood placement. # of PEAs Issued findings in FFY 2009 (7/1/09 to 6/30/10) (a) # of findings (individual student files) of noncompliance identified in FFY 2009 (7/1/09 to 6/30/10) Dispute Resolution: Complaints, Hearings Complaints: 3 Complaints: 4 (b) # of findings (individual student files) of noncompliance from (a) for which correction was verified no later than one year from identification Complaints: 4 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: 36 Monitoring System: 68 Monitoring System: 66 General Supervision System Components # of findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2009 (7/1/09 to 6/30/10) for which correction was verified later than one year from identification 1 corrected and verified within 14 months from identification 1 corrected and verified within 18 months from identification Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 171 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 Indicator/Indicator Clusters 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. General Supervision System Components Dispute Resolution: Complaints, Hearings Monitoring Activities: SelfAssessment/ Local APR, Data Review, Desk Audit, On-Site Visits, or Other Dispute Resolution: Complaints, Hearings # of PEAs Issued findings in FFY 2009 (7/1/09 to 6/30/10) (a) # of findings (individual student files) of noncompliance identified in FFY 2009 (7/1/09 to 6/30/10) Complaints: 21 Complaints: 40 (b) # of findings (individual student files) of noncompliance from (a) for which correction was verified no later than one year from identification Complaints: 40 Due Process: 0 Due Process: 0 Due Process: 0 Monitoring System: 35 Monitoring System: 104 Monitoring System: 104 Complaints: 21 Complaints: 31 Complaints: 31 Due Process: 0 Due Process: 0 Due Process: 0 # of findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2009 (7/1/09 to 6/30/10) for which correction was verified later than one year from identification Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 172 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 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 2009 (7/1/09 to 6/30/10) (a) # of findings (individual student files) of noncompliance identified in FFY 2009 (7/1/09 to 6/30/10) Monitoring System: 38 Monitoring System: 38 (b) # of findings (individual student files) of noncompliance from (a) for which correction was verified no later than one year from identification Monitoring System: 37 APR: 0 APR: 0 APR: 0 # of findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2009 (7/1/09 to 6/30/10) for which correction was verified later than one year from identification 1 corrected and verified within 14 months from identification Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 173 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 Indicator/Indicator Clusters 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. 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. General Supervision System Components Dispute Resolution: Complaints, Hearings Monitoring Activities: SelfAssessment/ Local APR, Data Review, Desk Audit, On-Site Visits, or Other Dispute Resolution: Complaints, Hearings Monitoring Activities: Data Collected by Census, SelfAssessment/ Local APR, Data Review, Desk Audit, On-Site Visits, or Other # of PEAs Issued findings in FFY 2009 (7/1/09 to 6/30/10) (a) # of findings (individual student files) of noncompliance identified in FFY 2009 (7/1/09 to 6/30/10) 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: 41 Monitoring System: 103 Monitoring System: 100 # of findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2009 (7/1/09 to 6/30/10) for which correction was verified later than one year from identification 1 corrected and verified within 14 months from identification 2 corrected and verified within 18 months from identification Complaints: 14 Complaints: 17 Complaints: 17 Due Process: 0 Due Process: 0 Due Process: 0 Monitoring System: 0 Monitoring System: 0 Monitoring System: 0 Indicator 12 Census (early childhood transition): 15 Indicator 12 Census (early childhood transition): 15 Indicator 12 Census (early childhood transition): 15 Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 174 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 Indicator/Indicator Clusters 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. Other areas of noncompliance: General Supervision System Components Dispute Resolution: Complaints, Hearings Monitoring Activities: SelfAssessment/ Local APR, Data Review, Desk Audit, On-Site Visits, or Other Dispute Resolution: Complaints, Hearings Monitoring Activities: SelfAssessment/ Local APR, Data Review, Desk Audit, On-Site Visits, or Other Dispute Resolution: Complaints, Hearings # of PEAs Issued findings in FFY 2009 (7/1/09 to 6/30/10) (a) # of findings (individual student files) of noncompliance identified in FFY 2009 (7/1/09 to 6/30/10) 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: 20 Monitoring System: 87 Monitoring System: 86 Complaints: 1 Complaints: 1 Complaints: 1 Due Process: 0 Due Process: 0 Due Process: 0 Monitoring System: 0 Monitoring System: 0 Monitoring System: 0 Complaints: 0 Complaints: 0 Complaints: 0 Due Process: 0 Due Process: 0 Due Process: 0 # of findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2009 (7/1/09 to 6/30/10) for which correction was verified later than one year from identification 1 corrected and verified within 2 months from identification Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 175 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 Indicator/Indicator Clusters General Supervision System Components # of PEAs Issued findings in FFY 2009 (7/1/09 to 6/30/10) Sum the numbers down Column a and Column b Percent of noncompliance corrected within one year of identification = (column (b) sum divided by column (a) sum) times 100. (b) / (a) X 100 = % (a) # of findings (individual student files) of noncompliance identified in FFY 2009 (7/1/09 to 6/30/10) (b) # of findings (individual student files) of noncompliance from (a) for which correction was verified no later than one year from identification 593 585 # of findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2009 (7/1/09 to 6/30/10) for which correction was verified later than one year from identification 585 / 593 = 0.9865 X 100 = 98.7% Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 176 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 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 2010 FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target 2010 100% Actual Target Data for FFY 2010 # 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 81 81 Actual Target Data for FFY 2010 100% (1.1(b) + 1.1(c))  (1.1)  100 = X 81 + 0  81 = 1  100 = 100% Arizona met the target. Data Data Source Data are the same as the data 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 2010 177 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 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 the data reported under section 618, Dispute Resolution, Table 7. Explanation of Progress That Occurred for FFY 2010 During FFY 2010 Arizona issued 81 investigative reports. All reports were issued within the 60-day timeline. Arizona was able to maintain the 100% target because 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 2010 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 2) Conduct dispute resolution presentations for PEAs and parent groups 3) Review and revise dispute resolution brochure 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 Projected Resources (Planned) Activities completed as of 12/31/08. 7/1/08– 12/31/08 Internal procedures were revised and investigators were notified. Activities completed from 7/1/10 to 6/30/11. ADE/ESS Dispute Resolution Director and Coordinator 1/1/09– 6/30/11 ADE/ESS Dispute Resolution Director and Coordinator a) Review and revise presentation, support materials, and resources 7/1/11– 6/30/13 b) Conduct statewide presentations at various regional and statewide venues 7/1/11– 6/30/13 ADE/ESS Dispute Resolution Director and Coordinator ADE/ESS Dispute Resolution Director and Complaint Investigator ADE/ESS Dispute Resolution Director and Coordinator a) Revise and update brochure Revised procedures were implemented in FFY 2009. Investigators are submitting draft letters prior to 60-day deadline for timely review by the Dispute Resolution director. Activities completed as of April 2011. Dispute resolution brochure was revised and updated and is currently in circulation. 7/1/11– 6/30/13 Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 178 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 b) Disseminate brochure statewide and post on ADE/ESS Web site Activities completed from 4/1/11 to 6/30/11. 7/1/11– 6/30/13 Revised and updated brochure was disseminated at local and statewide conferences and via the Parent Information Network Specialists. ADE/ESS Dispute Resolution Director and Coordinator 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 2011 There are no revisions for FFY 2011. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 179 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 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 2010 FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target 2010 100% Actual Target Data for FFY 2010 # of adjudicated due process hearing requests that were adjudicated within the 45-day timeline or a timeline that is extended by the hearing officer at the request of either party # of adjudicated due process hearing requests 6 6 Actual Target Data for FFY 2010 100% (3.2 (a) + 3.2 (b))  (3.2)  100 = X 2 + 4  6 = 1  100 = 100% Arizona met the target. Data Data Source Data are the same as the data 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 2010 180 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 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 the data reported under section 618, Dispute Resolution, Table 7. Explanation of Progress That Occurred for FFY 2010 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 45day 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 session tracking system has enabled the State to calculate and monitor the 45-day due process timeline appropriately in accordance with CFR § 300.510 (b) and (c). Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed for FFY 2010 Primary Activity (GOAL) 1) Establish system that requires the administrative law judge (ALJ) to issue a minute entry specifying the “45th day” 2) Develop a formal process to track 45-day hearing timelines Sub-Activities (Objectives or Action Steps) a) Revise procedures that require the administrative law judge to issue a minute entry specifying the “45th day” b) Implement procedures that require the administrative law judge to issue a minute entry specifying the “45th 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 when a due process hearing is filed Timeline Complete Projected Activities completed from 7/1/08 to 12/31/08. ADE/ESS Dispute Resolution Director Procedures were revised by Dispute Resolution director and Office of Administrative Hearings personnel. Activities completed from 7/1/10 to 6/30/11. 1/1/09– 6/30/11 Procedures have been implemented and administrative law judges issue minute entries specifying the exact date. Dispute Resolution staff disseminated a tracking form to PEAs involved in a due process hearing. Arizona Office of Administrati ve Hearings ADE/ESS Dispute Resolution Director Arizona Office of Administrati ve Hearings Activities completed as of 12/15/09. Form developed by Dispute Resolution director to track the effectiveness of resolution sessions. Activities completed from 7/1/10 to 6/30/11. Resources (Planned) ADE/ESS Dispute Resolution Director and Coordinator 12/1/09– 6/30/11 ADE/ESS Dispute Resolution Director and Coordinator Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 181 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 c) Use results of tracking form to determine beginning of 45-day timeline 3) Conduct dispute resolution presentations for PEAs and parent groups 4) Review and revise dispute resolution brochure Activities completed from 7/1/10 to 6/30/11. 12/1/09– 6/30/11 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. Arizona Office of Administrati ve Hearings a) Review and revise presentation, support materials, and resources 7/1/11– 6/30/13 b) Conduct statewide presentations at various regional and statewide venues 7/1/11– 6/30/13 a) Revise and update brochure b) Disseminate brochure statewide and post on ADE/ESS Web site ADE/ESS Dispute Resolution Director Activities completed as of April 2011. 7/1/11– 6/30/13 Dispute resolution brochure was revised and updated and is currently in circulation. Activities completed from 4/1/11 to 6/30/11. 7/1/11– 6/30/13 Revised and updated brochure was disseminated at local and statewide conferences and via the Parent Information Network Specialists. 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 Additional Information Required by the OSEP APR Response Table for This Indicator Not applicable. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 182 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources for FFY 2011 There are no revisions for FFY 2011. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 183 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 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 2010 FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target 2010 75% Actual Target Data for FFY 2010 # of hearing requests that went to resolution sessions that were resolved through resolution session settlement agreements # of hearing requests that went to resolution sessions 19 34 Actual Target Data for FFY 2010 56% (3.1 (a)  3.1)  100 = X 19  34 = 0.558  100 = 56% Arizona did not meet the target. Data Data Source Data are the same as the data 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 the data reported under section 618, Dispute Resolution, Table 7. Arizona uses a Resolution Session Tracking Form, which is sent to each PEA, along with the Notice of Hearing, when a due process complaint is filed. This comprehensive form, which must be submitted to the ADE/ESS and the assigned administrative law Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 184 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 judge, provides, among other things, information about the date and outcome of each resolution session held. Explanation of Progress That Occurred for FFY 2010 During FFY 2010, 34 resolution sessions were held pursuant to due process hearing requests, with 19 matters (55.8%) resulting in resolution agreements. This reflects progress from FFY 2009 (44.7%). Progress is attributed to efforts by Dispute Resolution staff to increase awareness of the resolution session requirements and the benefits of early and informal dispute resolution. It is noteworthy that of the 56 due process complaints filed:  6 resulted in a fully adjudicated hearing;  8 were pending as of June 30, 2011;  19 were resolved through a formal resolution agreement;  3 were resolved via mediation agreement;  11 were resolved through a private settlement; and  9 were dismissed or withdrawn. Thus, although Arizona did not meet its target of 75% on this indicator, of the 48 matters that were resolved by or before June 30, 2011, 33 or 68.8% were resolved by resolution agreement, mediation agreement, or a private settlement. This indicates that, overall, the State’s due process system is successful in resolving due process complaints without the need for a fully adjudicated due process hearing. Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed for FFY 2010 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 c) Implement survey for parties that participate in a resolution session Timeline Complete Projected Activities completed from 7/1/08 to 9/1/08. Resources (Planned) ESS Dispute Resolution Director and Coordinator Survey was developed by Dispute Resolution director. Activities completed as of 11/1/09. 9/1/08– 6/30/09 Survey was given to all participants in resolution sessions held during FFY 2008. Revisions were considered but deemed not necessary at this time. Activities completed from 7/1/10 to 6/30/11. ESS Dispute Resolution Director and Coordinator 7/1/09– 6/30/11 ESS Dispute Resolution Director and Coordinator Beginning 7/1/09, PEAs and parents participating in resolution sessions were provided with Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 185 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 2) Track resolution sessions to determine effectiveness a) Develop a resolution session tracking form b) Disseminate tracking form to each PEA when a due process hearing is filed 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 PowerPoint presentation for training PEAs and families b) Train PEAs at various conferences throughout the year c) Work with Arizona’s Parent Training and Information Center (PTI) and ADE/ESS Parent Information Network Specialists (PINS) to train families throughout the year surveys for gathering data on resolution session effectiveness. Activities completed as of 12/15/09. ESS Dispute Resolution Director Form was developed by Dispute Resolution director to track the effectiveness of resolution sessions. Activities completed from 7/1/10 to 6/30/11. 12/1/09– 6/30/11 Dispute Resolution staff disseminated a tracking form to PEAs involved in a due process hearing. Activities completed from 7/1/10 to 6/30/11. ESS Dispute Resolution Director and Coordinator 7/1/09– 6/30/11 ESS Dispute Resolution Director Dispute Resolution staff used this form to track all resolution session data for FFY 2010 and continues to use the form to collect such data. Activities completed as of 1/6/10. ESS Dispute Resolution Director PowerPoint presentation was developed by director of Dispute Resolution. Activities completed from 7/1/10 to 6/30/11. 1/1/10– 6/30/11 ESS Dispute Resolution Director The director of Dispute Resolution gave the resolution session PowerPoint presentation at numerous regional and statewide workshops and conferences. Activities completed from 7/1/10 to 6/30/11. 1/1/10– 6/30/11 ESS Dispute Resolution Director The director of Dispute Resolution worked collaboratively with the PINS and Arizona’s PTI to schedule and develop a series of parent trainings on topics such Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 186 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 d) Train administrative law judges on resolution sessions as dispute resolution, including a focus on resolution sessions. Activities completed as of 12/31/09. 1/1/10– 6/30/11 ESS Deputy Associate Superintend ent ESS Dispute Resolution Director 4) Train PEAs on resolution session effectiveness a) Identify qualified trainer Activities completed as of April 2011. 10/1/10– 5/1/11 b) Provide training at a statewide conference A qualified trainer was identified to present at the next Directors Institute. Activities planned as of 6/30/11. 5/1/11– 6/30/12 ADE/ESS Dispute Resolution Director and Coordinator a) Review and revise presentation, support materials, and resources 7/1/11– 6/30/13 b) Conduct statewide presentations at various regional and statewide venues 7/1/11– 6/30/13 ADE/ESS Dispute Resolution Director and Coordinator ADE/ESS Dispute Resolution Director and Complaint Investigator ADE/ESS Dispute Resolution Director and Coordinator Two sessions on leading an effective resolution session will be offered at the next Directors Institute. 5) Conduct dispute resolution presentations for PEAs and parent groups 6) Review and revise dispute resolution brochure External Consultant ADE/ESS Dispute Resolution Director and Coordinator a) Revise and update brochure b) Disseminate brochure statewide and post on ADE/ESS Web site Activities completed as of April 2011. 7/1/11– 6/30/13 Dispute resolution brochure was revised and updated and is currently in circulation. Activities completed from 4/1/11 to 6/30/11. 7/1/11– 6/30/13 Revised and updated brochure was disseminated at local and statewide conferences and via the Parent ADE/ESS Dispute Resolution Director and Coordinator Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 187 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 Information Network Specialists. 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 2011 There are no revisions for FFY 2011. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 188 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 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 2010 FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target 2010 84.5% Actual Target Data for FFY 2010 # of mediations held that resulted in mediation agreements # of mediations 20 29 Actual Target Data for FFY 2010 69% (2.1 (a) (i) + 2.1 (b) (i))  (2.1)  100 = X 3 + 17  29 = 0.689  100 = 69% Arizona did not meet the target. Data Data Source Data are the same as the data 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 the data reported under section 618, Dispute Resolution, Table 7. Explanation of Slippage That Occurred for FFY 2010 Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 189 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 Arizona experienced slippage as compared to FFY 2009 (85.7%) and did not meet its target of 84.5% for FFY 2010. The slippage may be due to the increasingly complicated nature of the disputes. Arizona maintains a list of independent contractors to serve as mediators. The mediators 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 attend the ADE’s annual Directors Institute, which includes a full-day private training specifically tailored for State administrative complaint investigators, administrative law judges, and mediators. Information about Arizona’s mediation system is disseminated to PEAs through trainings and 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 2010 Primary Activity (GOAL) 1) Review and revise, if appropriate, mediation survey Sub-Activities (Objectives or Action Steps) 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 2) Train mediators on current developments in special education law a) Invite mediators to attend the ADE/ESS Directors Institute Timeline Complete Projected Resources (Planned) Activities completed from 7/1/08 to 6/30/09. 7/1/08– 6/30/09 Survey was reviewed by Dispute Resolution director. Activities completed from 7/1/08 to 6/30/09. ESS Dispute Resolution Director and Coordinator 7/1/09– 9/1/09 Dispute Resolution director, after review and analysis, determined that revision of survey was not necessary. Activities completed from 7/1/10 to 6/30/11. ESS Dispute Resolution Director and Coordinator 9/1/09– 6/30/11 Mediation survey was distributed to all participants when mediations were complete. Activities completed as of June 2011. ESS Dispute Resolution Director and Coordinator 7/1/10– 6/30/13 ADE/ESS Dispute Resolution Director and Coordinator Mediators were invited to attend the ADE’s annual Directors Institute. Technical Assistance for Excellence in Special Education Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 190 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 (TAESE) 3) Conduct dispute resolution presentations for PEAs and parent groups b) Invite mediators to participate in the Dispute Resolution in Special Education Consortium quarterly conference calls for mediators a) Review and revise presentation, support materials, and resources Activities completed from 7/1/10 to 6/30/11. The mediators participated in the quarterly conference calls. 7/1/11– 6/30/13 b) Conduct statewide presentations at various regional and statewide venues 4) Review and revise dispute resolution brochure a) Revise and update brochure b) Disseminate brochure statewide and post on ADE/ESS Web site 7/1/10– 6/30/13 7/1/11– 6/30/13 Activities completed as of April 2011. 7/1/11– 6/30/13 Dispute resolution brochure was revised and updated and is currently in circulation. Activities completed from 4/1/11 to 6/30/11. 7/1/11– 6/30/13 Revised and updated brochure was disseminated at local and statewide conferences and via the Parent Information Network Specialists. ADE/ESS Dispute Resolution Director and Coordinator 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 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 2011 There are no revisions for FFY 2011. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 191 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 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 2010 FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target 2010 100% Actual Target Data for FFY 2010 97.67% 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;  Arizona Safety Accountability for Education (AZ SAFE), a Web-based system for PEAs to submit data on the discipline elements; Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 192 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010  Annual Special Education Data Collection, a Web-based system for PEAs to submit data on the preschool transition, personnel, and exit 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 97.67% for FFY 2010.  Child Count, due February 2, 2011, was submitted on time and was accurate. Educational Environment, due February 2, 2011, was submitted on time but was not accurate. This data applied to Indicators 4, 5, 9, and 10.  Personnel, due November 2, 2011, was submitted on time and was accurate.  Exit, due November 2, 2011, was submitted on time and was accurate. This data applied to Indicators 1 and 2.  Discipline, due November 2, 2011, was submitted on time and was accurate. This data applied to Indicator 4.  Dispute Resolution, due November 2, 2011, was submitted on time and was accurate. This data applied to Indicators 16, 17, 18, and 19.  Assessment, due December 15, 2011, was submitted on time and was accurate. This data applied to Indicator 3.  Maintenance of Effort/Coordinated Early Intervening Services, due May 1, 2011, was submitted on time and was accurate.  Annual Performance Report, due February 1, 2012, was submitted on time and was accurate. Explanation of Progress That Occurred for FFY 2010 Arizona experienced slight progress from FFY 2009 (97.6%) to FFY 2010 (97.67%). The Educational Environment data (Table 3) submitted by the State was inaccurate. While the Educational Environment data was accurate in Arizona’s summary tables and submitted on time via EDFacts, the text file produced from the summary tables (and used for submission) was inconsistent between the Limited English Proficient (LEP) detail and LEP totals and required subsequent correction. Steps in the data review process have been put into place to ensure data checks between summary tables and text files are adequate. 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-eight training opportunities were offered during this reporting year—14 trainings focused on child count and other data topics in fall 2010 and 14 trainings focused on annual data collection in spring 2011. In all, 992 attendees were trained through regional data workshops, at the annual Directors Institute, and through 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 (http://www.azed.gov/special-education/funding/data-management/). 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 Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 193 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 accuracy. The State also investigates the unusual variances identified by the Data Accountability Center (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. Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed for FFY 2010 Primary Activity (GOAL) 1) Review and revise 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 Resources (Planned) 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 fulltime equivalent (FTE) positions, including two programming analysts and an architect/project lead. Activities completed from 7/1/10 to 6/30/11. ADE/ESS Deputy Associate Superintendent, Directors, and Data Management Coordinator 3/1/09– 6/30/11 ADE/ESS Deputy Associate Superintendent, Directors, and Data Management Coordinator The ESS/IT Technical Review Team met bimonthly from 7/1/10 to 2/1/11. Beginning in spring 2011, the ESS/IT Technical Review Team was re-formed and became two separate Scrum meetings (one intra-agency and the other specific to ESS, formerly called the ESS/IT Technical Review Team). These meetings were facilitated by IT and met bi-weekly to address SAIS and non-SAIS data collection issues, prioritize SAIS and non-SAIS development projects, and review timelines for data submissions. Activities completed from 7/1/09 to 6/30/10. ESS collaborated with IT business analysts to develop and revise rules for SAIS revisions on an as-needed basis. IT Staff 7/1/09– 6/30/10 ADE/ESS Deputy Associate Superintendent, Directors, and Data Management Coordinator Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 194 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 IT Staff d) ADE/ESS will analyze SAIS operations 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 7/1/10 to 6/30/11. The ESS/IT Technical Review Team met bimonthly from 7/1/10 to 2/1/11. Beginning in spring 2011, the ESS/IT Technical Review Team was reformed and became two separate Scrum meetings (one intraagency and the other specific to ESS, formerly called the ESS/IT Technical Review Team). These meetings were facilitated by IT and met bi-weekly to address SAIS and non-SAIS data collection issues, prioritize SAIS and non-SAIS development projects, and review timelines for data submissions. Activities completed from 7/1/09 to 6/30/10. ESS met with other ADE sections/stakeholders (School Safety & Prevention, Early Childhood Special 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. 7/1/09– 6/30/11 ADE/ESS Deputy Associate Superintendent, Directors, and Data Management Coordinator IT Staff 3/1/09– 6/30/10 ADE/ESS Deputy Associate Superintendent, Directors, and Data Management Coordinator IT Staff Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 195 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 b) ADE/ESS will analyze and refine internal procedures for processing and reporting special education data Activities completed from 7/1/10 to 6/30/11. 7/1/09– 6/30/11 ADE/ESS analyzed internal procedures and timelines, identified issues, and resolved internal problems that affected processing of special education data. ADE/ESS Deputy Associate Superintendent, Directors, and Data Management Coordinator IT Staff The following changes were made to applications: ESS Annual Data:  Modified the Preschool Transition area to improve data collection requirements for Indicator 12. 3) Provide SPP/APR Indicator data to each PEA in secure format a) Develop Data Profiles each federal fiscal year ESS Census/SPED Participation data (child count/environment):  Revised ethnicity and race data elements to comply with federal reporting requirements.  Revised data extract procedures to ensure consistency and enhance tracking of data.  Developed additional technical assistance documents for PEAs, including a special education census “Dos and Don’ts” list. Activities completed from 7/1/10 to 6/30/11. ADE/ESS contracted with a third party to develop PEA Data Profiles to include Indicator Report and Report Card for FFY 2009. 7/1/10– 6/30/13 ADE/ESS Directors and Data Management Specialist Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 196 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 b) Disseminate Data Profiles each federal fiscal year Activities completed from 7/1/10 to 6/30/11. 7/1/10– 6/30/13 ADE/ESS Directors and Data Management Specialist a) ADE/ESS will meet with Information Technology (IT) staff periodically to revise procedures as necessary and address problems b) ADE/ESS will write business rules for the SAIS revisions 7/1/11– 6/30/13 ADE/ESS Directors and Data Management Specialist c) ADE/ESS will analyze SAIS operations for timely and accurate collection and reporting of special education data d) Investigate the creation of two FTE positions: 1) a PEA data support, and 2) an IT SAIS developer 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 contracted with a third party to generate user names and passwords for special education administrators allowing each PEA to access PEA Data Profiles via a secure Web-based application. 4) Review and revise the ADE Student Accountability Information System (SAIS) to improve timely and accurate special education data 5) Provide information to PEAs about data accuracy and timeliness 7/1/11– 6/30/13 7/1/11– 6/30/13 7/1/11– 6/30/13 ADE IT Staff ADE/ESS Directors and Data Management Specialist ADE IT Staff ADE/ESS Directors and Data Management Specialist ADE IT Staff ADE/ESS Directors and Data Management Specialist ADE/ESS Directors and Data Management Specialist ADE/ESS Directors and Data Management Specialist ADE/ESS Directors and Data Management Specialist Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 197 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 Part B – Indicator 20 Self-Scoring Rubric Part B Indicator 20 – SPP/APR Data APR Indicator Valid and Reliable Correct Calculation Total 1 2 3A 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3B 3C 4A 4B 5 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 8 9 10 11 12 13 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 14 15 16 17 18 19 1 1 1 1 1 1 APR Score Calculation 1 1 1 1 1 1 Subtotal Timely Submission Points – If the FFY 2010 APR was submitted on time, place the number 5 in the cell on the right. 2 1 2 2 2 2 40 5 Grand Total – (Sum of the subtotal and Timely Submission Points) = 45.00 Part B Indicator 20 – 618 Data Table Table 1 – Child Count Due Date: 2/2/11 Timely Complete Data Passed Edit Check Responded to Date Note Requests Total 1 1 1 1 4 Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 198 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 Table 2 – Personnel Due Date: 11/2/11 Table 3 – Ed. Environments Due Date: 2/2/11 Table 4 – Exiting Due Date: 11/2/11 Table 5 – Discipline Due Date: 11/2/11 Table 6 – State Assessment Due Date: 12/15/11 Table 7 – Dispute Resolution Due Date: 11/2/11 Table 8 – MOE/CEIS Due Date: 5/1/11 1 1 1 N/A 3 1 1 0 NA 2 1 1 1 N/A 3 1 1 1 N/A 3 1 N/A N/A N/A 1 1 1 1 N/A 3 1 N/A N/A N/A 1 Subtotal 20 Grand Total (Subtotal X 2.045) = 618 Score Calculation 40.91 Indicator 20 Calculation A. APR Grand Total B. 618 Grand Total C. APR Grand Total (A) + 618 Grand Total (B) = 45.00 40.91 85.91 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 2.0454 87.95 0.977 97.67 *Note any cell marked as N/A will decrease the denominator by 1 for APR and 2.045 for 618. Additional Information Required by the OSEP APR Response Table for This Indicator Statement from the Response Table State’s Response In reporting on Indicator 20 in the FFY 2010 APR, the State must use the Indicator 20 Data Rubric. Arizona used the Indicator 20 Data Rubric in the FFY 2010 APR. If the State does not report 100% compliance in the FFY 2010 APR, the State must review its improvement activities and revise them, if necessary. Arizona reviewed its improvement activities for Indicator 20. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 199 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources for FFY 2011 There are no revisions for FFY 2011. Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 200 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 Attachments The following are attachments to the FFY 2010 APR: Attachment 1  List of Acronyms and Terms Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 201 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 Attachment 1 List of Acronyms and Terms AAC Arizona Administrative Code ADE Arizona Department of Education AEEB Arizona Education Employment Board AHAA Arizona High Achievement for All AIMS Arizona’s Instrument to Measure Standards AIMS A Arizona’s Instrument to Measure Standards Alternate ALJ Administrative Law Judge APR Annual Performance Report ARS Arizona Revised Statutes ASAMA Arizona Students Achieving Mathematics Academy ASVL Annual Site Visit Log AYP Adequate Yearly Progress AZCoPT Arizona Community of Practice on Transition AzEIP Arizona Early Intervention Program for Infants and Toddlers AZHSRI Arizona High School Renewal and Improvement Initiative AZ SAFE Arizona Safety Accountability for Education AZ TAS Arizona Technical Assistance System CACM Corrective Action Compliance Monitor CAP Corrective Action Plan CEIS Coordinated Early Intervening Services CFR Code of Federal Regulations CoP Community of Practice CSPD Comprehensive System of Personnel Development CTE Career and Technical Education Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 202 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 CTT Community Transition Team DAC Data Accountability Center DBHS Division of Behavioral Health Services (Arizona) DDD Division of Developmental Disabilities (Arizona) DI Directors Institute (Arizona) EAPN Enhancing Arizona’s Parent Networks ECE Early Childhood Education ECQUIP Early Childhood Quality Improvement Practices Process ECSE Early Childhood Special Education ESEA Elementary and Secondary Education Act ESS Exceptional Student Services FAPE Free Appropriate Public Education FFY Federal Fiscal Year FTE Full-Time Equivalent GOLD Teaching Strategies GOLD (early childhood assessment) Group B Arizona Funding Category for Significant Disabilities IDEA The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act IEP Individualized Education Program IGA Intergovernmental Agreement IT Information Technology LEP Limited English Proficient LRE Least Restrictive Environment M Team Monitoring Team (Arizona) MOE Maintenance of Effort MPRRC Mountain Plains Regional Resource Center NASDSE National Association of State Directors of Special Education Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 203 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 NCCRESt National Center for Culturally Responsive Educational Systems 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 OCSHCN Office for Children with Special Health Care Needs (Arizona) OELAS Office of English Language Acquisition Services OSEP Office of Special Education Programs/U.S. Department of Education PBISAz Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports of Arizona PEA Public Education Agency PINS Parent Information Network Specialist PSO Post School Outcome PTI Parent Training and Information Center PWN Prior Written Notice R&E Research and Evaluation (Arizona Department of Education) RSA/VR Rehabilitation Services of Arizona/Vocational Rehabilitation RTI Response to Intervention SAIS Student Accountability Information System SCR Systemic Change in Reading SEAP Special Education Advisory Panel SEAS-Math Special Education Achieving Success in Mathematics SETT Student, Environment, Task, Tools SPDG State Personnel Development Grant SPP State Performance Plan STMP Secondary Transition Mentoring Project SUMS Special Education Using Mathematics for School Improvement Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 204 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 SW-PBIS School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports TA Technical Assistance TAESE Technical Assistance for Excellence in Special Education WRR Weighted Risk Ratio Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 205 Arizona Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2010 The contents of this publication were developed with funds allocated by the U.S. Department of Education under The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. These contents do not necessarily represent the guideline of the agency, nor should endorsement by the federal government be assumed. The Arizona Department of Education of the State of Arizona does not discriminate on the basis of race, religion, color, national origin, sex, disability or age in its programs, activities or in its hiring and employment practices. For questions or concerns regarding this statement, please contact Administrative Services at 602-542-3186. Printed in Phoenix, Arizona, by the Arizona Department of Education Part B Arizona Annual Performance Report for FFY 2010 206