florida’s part b state performance plan for 2005 13€™s part b. state performance plan . for...

Florida Department of Education Bureau of Exceptional Education and Student Services

Florida’s Part B State Performance Plan

for 2005–13

SPP Template – Part B FLORIDA

Table of Contents

Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE ...............................................................1

Indicator 1: Graduation ................................................................................................................ 1 Indicator 2: Dropout ................................................................................................................... 10 Indicator 3: Assessments ........................................................................................................... 18 Indicator 4: Discipline ................................................................................................................. 33 Indicator 5: Educational environments, ages 6-21………. ......................................................... 42 Indicator 6: Preschool settings ................................................................................................... 52 Indicator 7: Preschool Performance .......................................................................................... 57 Indicator 8: Parent involvement ................................................................................................. 67

Monitoring Priority: Disproportionality ...........................................................74

Indicator 9: Disproportionality .................................................................................................... 74 Indicator 10: Disproportionality, specific disability categories .................................................... 79

Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision, Part B ..........................86

Indicator 11: Evaluation ............................................................................................................. 86 Indicator 12: Transition from Part C to Part B ............................................................................ 90 Indicator 13: Transition of youth ages 16 and above ................................................................. 96 Indicator 14: Postsecondary outcomes .................................................................................... 103 Indicator 15: Noncompliance ................................................................................................... 108 Indicator 16: Complaints .......................................................................................................... 120 Indicator 17: Due process hearings ......................................................................................... 125 Indicator 18: Hearing requests ................................................................................................. 129 Indicator 19: Mediations ........................................................................................................... 132 Indicator 20: State-reported data ............................................................................................. 135

iii


Part B State Performance Plan: 2005-2012 Page 1 (OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 7/31/2015)

Part B State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012

Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE

Indicator 1 – Percent of youth with IEPs graduating from high school with a regular diploma.

Measurement: States must report using the graduation rate calculation and timeline established by the Department under the ESEA.

Denominator = (the number of first-time ninth graders with disabilities in membership during fall 2005 plus incoming transfer students with disabilities on the same schedule to graduate [i.e., 1

st time 9

th graders in 2005-06, 1

st -

time10th

graders in 2006-07, 1st -time 11th

graders in 2007-08, and 1st -

time 12th

graders in 2008-09] minus

students with disabilities from this combined population who transferred out, students who left to enroll in a private school, a home education program, or an adult education program, and deceased students).

Numerator = the number of regular diploma graduates from the group described above. Data Source: State data used for reporting to USDOE under the Consolidated State Performance Report

Overview of Issue/Description of System or Process:

The graduation rate described above includes students exiting with a standard diploma in the following categories:

Diploma awarded to students who have passed both sections of the Graduation Test (Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test or FCAT), successfully completed the minimum number of academic credits as identified in Section 1003.43, F.S., and successfully completed any other requirements prescribed by the state or the local school board.

Diploma awarded to students who have received an FCAT waiver, successfully completed the minimum number of academic credits as identified in Section 1003.43, F.S., and successfully completed any other requirements prescribed by the state or the local school board.

Diploma awarded to students who have met all of the requirements to graduate based on the 18-credit college preparatory graduation option.

Diploma awarded to students who have met all of the requirements to graduate based on the 18-credit career preparatory graduation option.

Diploma awarded to students who have satisfied the graduation test requirement through an alternate assessment, successfully completed the minimum number of academic credits as identified in Section 1003.43, F.S., and successfully completed any other requirements prescribed by the state or the local school board.

Diploma awarded to students who have met all of the requirements to graduate based on the 18-credit college preparatory graduation option and who have satisfied the graduation test requirement through an alternate assessment.



Diploma awarded to students who have met all of the requirements to graduate based on the 18-credit career preparatory graduation option and who have satisfied the graduation test requirement through an alternate assessment.

All options described above are available to all students with the exception of the FCAT waiver option, which is only available to students with disabilities. Under this option, an individual educational plan (IEP) team has the authority to waive passage of the graduation test as a requirement for graduation with a standard diploma in the traditional 24-minimum-credit graduation program. The IEP team must determine that the student has mastered the skills tested by the graduation test and that the graduation test is not an accurate measure of the student’s ability, even with allowable accommodations. Baseline Data from FFY 2004 (2004-05):

NCLB Graduation Rate

All Students Students with Disabilities 2001-02 64.7% (110,680/171,081) 29.5% (6,782/22,954) 2002-03 66.0% (116,872/177,085) 33.6% (8,238/24,541) 2003-04 68.6% (117,706/171,447) 36.6% (8,376/22,890)

New Baseline Data from FFY 2005 (2005-06) due to change in calculation method

In 2005-06, 39.3% of youth with IEPs graduated from high school with a regular diploma (9,533/24,353).

Discussion of Baseline Data from FFY 2005:

The percentage of students with disabilities graduating with a standard diploma is approximately half of the percentage of all students graduating with a standard diploma. The difference is made up primarily by students with disabilities graduating with a special diploma. In addition, the gap between all students and students with disabilities narrowed from 35.2% during 2001-02 to 32.0% during 2003-04.

The graduation calculation used only addresses students who complete their high school education in four years. There are students with disabilities who require more than four years to earn a standard high school diploma.

Florida’s State and Local Education Agency (SEA and LEA) profiles currently include data on standard diploma completers (number of students with disabilities receiving standard diplomas divided by the total number of students with disabilities who completed their education). These data are further broken out into three categories of standard diploma students: those achieving a standard diploma by meeting all graduation requirements, those achieving a standard diploma through the GED Exit Option, and those achieving a standard diploma through the FCAT waiver.

Discussion of New Baseline Data from FFY 2005:

Less than half of youth with IEPs who complete high school receive a regular diploma. Other means of exit include special diploma, certificate of completion, special certificate of completion, GED, and dropping out. District regular diploma rates ranged from a low of 0% in one small district to a high of 74%.

The new baseline data includes students who took more than four years to complete their education. All regular diploma completers, regardless of the number of years in school, are included in this calculation.

New Baseline Data from FFY 2008 (2008-09) due to change in calculation method

In 2007-08, 43.0% of youth with IEPs graduated from high school with a regular diploma (10,836/25,203).



Discussion of New Baseline Data from FFY 2008: Beginning with the APR submitted February 2010, the data reported are once again the same as used for reporting to the Department under the Consolidated State Performance Report. Because of this, the 2007-08 rate is a new baseline. Progress and slippage of this baseline will be reported in the APR for FFY 2009. Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets The proposed target for FFY 2012 has been revised due to the change in the calculation to the federal uniform graduation rate. The federal uniform graduation rate calculation is much more stringent than the previous calculation with the main difference being that students that transfer to adult education remain in the cohort. This calculation includes only standard diplomas in the numerator. Not included in the numerator are GEDs or special diplomas.

FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target

2006 (2006-07)

The percentage of students graduating with a standard diploma will increase to 39.8%.

2007 (2007-2008)

The percentage of students graduating with a standard diploma will increase to 40.3%.

2008 (2008-2009)

The percent of youth with IEPs graduating from high school with a regular diploma in 2008-09 will increase to 40.3%.

2009 (2009-2010)

The percent of youth with IEPs graduating from high school with a regular diploma in 2008-09 will increase to 43.5%.

2010 (2010-2011)

The percent of youth with IEPs graduating from high school with a regular diploma in 2009-10 will increase to 49%.

2011 (2011-2012)


2012 (2012-2013)


Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources:

Activities Timelines Resources Using current NCLB graduation rate data, conduct an analysis of individual district data to identify those districts that have shown no graduation improvement over previous 4 years.

June 2006 FLDOE/BEESS ISRD

Identify districts with graduation rate and DOP activities for the Continuous Improvement Monitoring Process and review yearly progress reports for effective activities.


Collaborate with the National Dropout Prevention Center for

December 2006 FLDOE/BEESS NDPC-SD



Students with Disabilities (NDPC-SD) to identify effective strategies to support DOP and graduation activities in districts.

2007-08 Inform districts about the resources provided by the state and the National Dropout Prevention Center for Students with Disabilities (NDPC-SD).

July 2007 – June 2008

FLDOE/BEESS NDPC-SD FDLRS

Provide technical assistance and support training for districts to implement co-teaching, and support facilitation service delivery models for students with disabilities in general education classrooms.

July 2007 – June 2008

FDLRS FIN

DOE will continue to collaborate with NDPC-SD project to review proven methods of increasing standard diploma graduates of students with disabilities.

July 2007 – June 2008 FLDOE/BEESS NDPC-SD

Provide technical assistance to districts in the development of effective major areas of interests for students with disabilities.

July 2007 – June 2008

FLDOE/BEESS FDLRS CDT TIP

Provide training and supports for general education teachers in techniques for educating students with disabilities in the Sunshine State Standards in content area courses.

August 2007 – June 2008 FLDOE/BEESS FDLRS AMP Project CENTRAL

Provide support for districts to implement FCAT remediation initiatives for students with disabilities.

August 2007 – June 2008 FLDOE/BEESS FDLRS Project CENTRAL

Provide assistance to districts with compliance with related requirements based on self-assessment results.

September 2007 – June 2008 FLDOE/BEESS

Provided training and technical assistance in the effective use of the FCAT waiver.

October 2007 – June 2008 FLDOE/BEESS

Using information on new graduation requirements, the committee will develop technical assistance for guidance and counseling staff when assisting students with disabilities in planning toward graduation.

December 2007 FLDOE/BEESS



Provide additional support training in transition planning, and vocational education options.

December 2007 – June 2008

FLDOE/BEESS Transition Projects FDLRS Florida Developmental Disabilities Council

Conduct focus groups in diverse areas of the state with students, parents, caregivers and teachers and analyze data to determine factors that contribute to Indicator 1, 2, 13 and 14 outcomes; and share data with districts for possibly developing strategies for their action plan.

January 2008 – June 2008

FLDOE/BEESS Transition Steering Committee NSTTAC NDPC-SD

Evaluate data on district performance related to graduation rate and target districts for technical assistance based on established criteria.

January 2008 FLDOE/BEESS

Provide targeted districts with technical assistance to create a plan of action that will focus on increasing the graduation rate.

February 2008 – March 2008 FLDOE/BEESS FLDOE/Bureau of Family and Community Outreach/Dropout Prevention

Facilitate mentoring opportunities for targeted districts with those districts experiencing success at increasing graduation rates.

February 2008 – June 2008 FLDOE/BEESS FDLRS

2008-09 Conduct focus groups in diverse areas of the state with students, parents, caregivers and teachers, and analyze data to determine factors 1, 2, 13, and 14 outcomes; and share data with districts for possibly developing strategies for their action plan.

January 2009 – June 2009 FLDOE/BEESS Transition Projects NSTTAC NDPC-SD

Evaluate data on district performance related to graduation rate and target districts for training, technical assistance, and support based on established criteria.

July 2008 – June 2009

FLDOE/BEESS

Assist targeted districts in developing and monitoring the implementation of an action plan to focus on increasing the graduation rate.

July 2008 – June 2009

FLDOE/BEESS FLDOE/Bureau of Family and Community Outreach/Dropout Prevention FDLRS Project 10

Require targeted districts to conduct a focused compliance

July 2008 – June 2009

FLDOE/BEESS



self-assessment based on the related requirements identified by OSEP.

Provide training, technical assistance, resources and support to school districts on topics related to increasing the graduation rate, including the implementation of legal and compliance requirements and evidence-based practices such as mentoring, instructional strategies, content mastery, accommodations and modifications, program development and access, and transition.

July 2008 – June 2009

FLDOE/BEESS FDLRS FIN Project 10 AMP

Collaborate with national and state partners to support dropout prevention and graduation activities in districts.

July 2008 – June 2009

FLDOE/BEESS NDPC-SD NSTTAC Project 10 FDLRS Workforce Education, Career and Technical Education Florida State College System Board of Governors, State University System Adult Basic Education

2009-10 Evaluate data on district performance related to graduation rate and target districts for training, technical assistance, and support based on established criteria.

July 2009 – June 2010

FLDOE/BEESS


July 2009 – June 2010

FLDOE/BEESS Project 10

Require targeted districts to conduct a focused compliance self-assessment based on the related requirements identified by OSEP.

July 2009 – June 2010

FLDOE/BEESS

Provide training and technical assistance to school districts on data collection, analysis, and usage to identify students with disabilities populations with lower graduation rates.

July 2009 – June 2010


Provide training and technical assistance to school districts on analysis of policies and procedures that contribute to

July 2009 – June 2010




higher graduation rates and to identify barriers.

Provide technical assistance to school districts in using a problem-solving method to identify and implement evidence-based solutions to identified barriers.

July 2009 – June 2010


Provide training, technical assistance, resources and support to school districts on evidence-based practices (such as instructional strategies, co-teaching, student engagement, accommodations, access to rigorous academic instruction and career and technical education, adolescent literacy, and transition) for use in addressing identified barriers.

July 2009 – June 2010


Work with state partners and school districts to increase parent involvement in the transition process through training and support beginning in elementary school.

July 2009 – June 2010

FLDOE/BEESS FDLRS FIN Project 10 AMP State Secondary Transition Interagency Committee

Collaborate with national and state partners to identify and plan support for graduation activities in the state.

July 2009 – June 2010

FLDOE/BEESS NDPC-SD NSTTAC Project 10 FDLRS FIN State Secondary Transition Interagency Committee


July 2010 – June 2011

FLDOE/BEESS


July 2010 – June 2011



July 2010 – June 2011

FLDOE/BEESS

Provide training and technical July 2010 – June 2011 FLDOE/BEESS



assistance to school districts on data collection, analysis, and usage (e.g., trend and disaggregated data, including district, district/region feeder pattern, school, race, disability) to identify students with disabilities populations with lower graduation rates.

Project 10

Provide training and technical assistance to school districts on analysis of policies and procedures (e.g., student progression plan, matriculation to postsecondary settings, articulation between school levels – elementary to middle to high, class/academic program access and enrollment, remediation structures, exceptional student education policy, discipline, and attendance) that contribute to higher graduation rates and to identify barriers.

July 2010 – June 2011


Provide technical assistance to school districts in using a problem-solving method to identify and implement evidence-based solutions to identified barriers.

July 2010 – June 2011


Provide training, technical assistance, resources and support to school districts on evidence-based practices (such as instructional strategies, co-teaching, student engagement, accommodations, access to rigorous academic instruction and career and technical education, adolescent literacy, and transition) for use in addressing identified barriers.

July 2010 – June 2011



July 2010 – June 2011

FLDOE/BEESS FDLRS FIN Project 10 AMP SSTIC


July 2010 – June 2011

FLDOE/BEESS NDPC-SD NSTTAC Project 10 FDLRS FIN



SSTIC


January 2012 – April 2012

FLDOE/BEESS


April 2012 – June 2012


Provide training and technical assistance to school districts to target the graduation rate of students with disabilities.

July 2011 – June 2012

FLDOE/BEESS Project 10, FDLRS, FIN, Project 10, AMP


July 2011 – June 2012

FLDOE/BEESS NDPC-SD, NSTTAC, Project 10, FDLRS, FIN, SSTIC


January 2013 – April 2013

FLDOE/BEESS


April 2013 – June 2013


Provide training and technical assistance to school districts to target the graduation rate of students with disabilities.

July 2012 – June 2013

FLDOE/BEESS Project 10, FDLRS, FIN, Project 10, AMP, SPDG


July 2012 – June 2013

FLDOE/BEESS NDPC-SD, NSTTAC, Project 10, FDLRS, FIN, SSTIC




Indicator 2 – Percent of youth with IEPs dropping out of high school.

Measurement: States must report using the dropout data used in the ESEA dropout rate calculation and follow the timeline established by the Department under the ESEA.

Numerator = the number of students with disabilities in grades 9-12 (from the year’s total enrollment) who have withdrawn from school and have been assigned a dropout withdrawal reason code.

Denominator = total grade 9-12 enrollment (includes all students who were in attendance at any time during the school year)

Data Source: State data used for reporting to USDOE under Title I


Florida has calculated the dropout rate using the above calculation method since the 1998-99 school year. The same rate is calculated for all students and students with disabilities. Not included in the calculation are students who withdraw to attend another school or home education, students who complete their education, or students who are withdrawn due to death.

Dropout withdrawal reasons include:

Any student who was expected to attend a school but did not enter as expected for unknown reasons.

Any student age 16 or older who leaves school voluntarily with no intention of returning.

Any student withdrawn from school due to court action. Any student withdrawn from school due to nonattendance. Any student who withdraws from school due to medical reasons. Any student who is withdrawn from school due to being expelled. Any student whose whereabouts is unknown. Any student who withdraws from school for any reason other than those above.

There is no difference between the calculation for all students and the calculation for students with disabilities.

Baseline Data from FFY 2004 (2004-2005):

Year All Students Students with Disabilities 1998-99 5.4% 7.0% (6,280/89,688) 1999-00 4.6% 5.6% (5,345/96,045) 2000-01 3.8% (30,258/798,206) 5.5% (5,615/102,201) 2001-02 3.2% (26,240/832,223) 4.6% (5,021/109,487) 2002-03 3.1% (25,578/825,133) 4.5% (5,150/115,654) 2003-04 2.9% (25,587/878,326) 4.5% (5,611/124,324) 2004-05 2.8% (25,070/899/295) 4.7% (5,872/127,191)



Discussion of Baseline Data:

While dropout rates for all students as well as students with disabilities show a steady decline from 1998-99 through 2002-03, there was a slight increase in the dropout rate for students with disabilities during the 2003-04 and 2004-05 school years, while the dropout rate for all students continued to decline.


2005 (2005-2006)

The dropout rate for students with disabilities will decrease to 4.5%.

2006 (2006-2007)


2007 (2007-2008)


2008 (2008-2009)

The percent of youth with IEPs dropping out of high school in 2007-08 will decrease to 4.0%.

2009 (2009-2010)


2010 (2010-2011)


2011 (2011-2012)


2012 (2012-2013)



Activities Timelines Resources Using current NCLB graduation rate data, conduct an analysis of individual district data to identify those districts that have shown no graduation improvement over previous 4 years.


Identify districts with graduation rate and DOP activities for the Continuous Improvement Monitoring Process and review yearly progress reports for effective activities.


Collaborate with the National Dropout Prevention Center for Students with Disabilities (NDPCSD) to identify effective strategies to support DOP and graduation activities in districts.

December 2006 FDOE/BEESS NDPC-SD

Provide technical assistance and support training for districts to implement co-teaching, and support facilitation service delivery models for students with disabilities in general education

June 2007 FLDOE/BEESS FIN



classrooms. Inform districts about the resources provided by the state and the National Dropout Prevention Center for Students with Disabilities (NDPC-SD).


Collaborate with the National Dropout Prevention Center for Students with Disabilities (NDPCSD) to identify effective strategies to support DOP and graduation activities in districts.


Provide technical assistance to July 2007 – June 2008 FLDOE/BEESS districts in the development of FDLRS effective major areas of interests CDT for students with disabilities. TIP Increase technical assistance, training, information and collaboration with postsecondary education and training partners to increase participation of students with disabilities in Career and Technical Education programs and postsecondary education and training options.

July 2007 – June 2008 FLDOE/BEESS CDT TIP FDLRS Workforce Education, Career and Technical Education Division of Community Colleges Board of Governor’s, State University System Adult Basic Education

Provide technical assistance to July 2007 – June 2008 FLDOE/BEESS districts in the development of FDLRS effective major areas of interests CDT for students with disabilities. TIP Provide support for districts to implement FCAT remediation initiatives for students with disabilities.

August 2007 – June 2008 FLDOE/BEESS Discretionary Projects

Provide training and supports for general education teachers in techniques for educating students with disabilities in the Sunshine State Standards in content area courses.

August 2007 – June 2008 FLDOE/BEESS

Provide training and technical assistance in the effective use of diploma options and FCAT waiver.

October 2007 – June 2008 FLDOE/BEESS AMP

Provide technical assistance, training, and relevant information to assist districts with development and implementation of meaningful transition services for students with disabilities.

January 2008 – June 2008 FLDOE/BEESS CDT TIP FDLRS

Include additional districts for targeted assistance that are showing an increase in their dropout rate after the data is available.

January 2008 FLDOE/BEESS



Collaborate with FDOE Dropout Prevention Director to provide statewide forum for sharing effective dropout prevention activities with lower performing districts.

January 2008 FLDOE/BEESS FLDOE/Bureau of Family and Community Outreach/Dropout Prevention

Conduct focus groups in diverse areas of the state with students, parents, caregivers and teachers and analyze data to determine factors that contribute to Indicator 1, 2, 13 and 14 outcomes; and use data to develop an action plan of strategic activities.

January 2008 – June 2008 FLDOE/BEESS Transition Steering Committee NSTTAC NDPC/SD

Provide districts with technical February 2008 – March 2008 FLDOE/BEESS assistance to create a plan of FDOE/Bureau of Family and action that will focus on Community Outreach/Dropout decreasing the dropout rate. Prevention Inclusion of mentoring activities with districts indicating success with decreasing the dropout rates in their districts.

February 2008 – June 2008. FLDOE/BEESS FDLRS CDT TIP

2008-09 Conduct focus groups in diverse areas of the state with students, parents, caregivers and teachers, and analyze data to determine factors 1, 2, 13, and 14 outcomes; and share data with districts for possibly developing strategies for their action plan.

January 2009 – June 2009 FLDOE/BEESS Transition Projects NSTTAC NDPC-SD

Evaluate data on district performance related to graduation rate and target districts for training, technical assistance, and support based on established criteria.

July 2008 – June 2009 FLDOE/BEESS


July 2008 – June 2009 FLDOE/BEESS FLDOE/Bureau of Family and Community Outreach/Dropout Prevention FDLRS Project 10



Provide training, technical assistance, resources and support to school districts on topics related to increasing the graduation rate, including the implementation of legal and compliance requirements and

July 2008 – June 2009 FLDOE/BEESS FDLRS FIN Project 10 AMP



evidence-based practices such as mentoring, instructional strategies, content mastery, accommodations and modifications, program development and access, and transition. Collaborate with national and state partners to support dropout prevention and graduation activities in districts.

July 2008 – June 2009 FLDOE/BEESS NDPC-SD NSTTAC Project 10 FDLRS Workforce Education, Career and Technical Education Florida State College System Board of Governors, State University System Adult Basic Education

2009-10 Evaluate data on district performance related to dropout rate and target districts for training, technical assistance, and support based on established criteria.


Assist targeted districts in developing and monitoring the implementation of an action plan to focus on decreasing the dropout rate.

July 2009 – June 2010 FLDOE/BEESS Project 10



Provide training and technical assistance to school districts on data collection, analysis, and usage to identify schools, feeder patterns, and populations with higher dropout rates.


Provide training and technical assistance to school districts on analysis of policies and procedures that contribute to students dropping out.


Provide technical assistance to school districts in using a problem- solving method to identify and implement evidence-based solutions to identified barriers.


Provide training, technical assistance, resources and support to school districts on

July 2009 – June 2010 FLDOE/BEESS FLDOE/Bureau of Family and Community Outreach/Dropout



evidence-based practices (such as early identification of potential dropouts, mentoring, instructional strategies, student engagement, accommodations, program development and access, and transition) for use in addressing identified barriers.

Prevention FDLRS FIN Project 10 AMP


July 2009 – June 2010 FLDOE/BEESS FDLRS FIN Project 10 AMP State Secondary Transition Interagency Committee

Collaborate with national and state partners to identify and plan support for dropout prevention activities in the state.

July 2009 – June 2010 FLDOE/BEESS FLDOE/Bureau of Family and Community Outreach/Dropout Prevention NDPC-SD NSTTAC Project 10 FDLRS FIN State Secondary Transition Interagency Committee







Provide training and technical assistance to school districts on data collection, analysis, and usage (e.g., trend and disaggregated data, including district, district/region feeder pattern, school, race, disability) to identify schools, feeder patterns, and populations with higher dropout rates.


Provide training and technical assistance to school districts on




analysis of policies and procedures that contribute to students dropping out. Provide technical assistance to school districts in using a problem- solving method to identify and implement evidence-based solutions to identified barriers.


Provide training, technical assistance, resources and support to school districts on evidence-based practices (such as early identification of potential dropouts, mentoring, instructional strategies, student engagement, accommodations, program development and access, and transition) for use in addressing identified barriers.

July 2010 – June 2011 FLDOE/BEESS FLDOE/Bureau of Family and Community Outreach/Dropout Prevention FDLRS FIN Project 10 AMP


July 2010 – June 2011 FLDOE/BEESS FDLRS FIN Project 10 AMP SSTIC

Collaborate with national and state partners to identify and plan support for dropout prevention activities in the state.

July 2010 – June 2011 FLDOE/BEESS FLDOE/Bureau of Family and Community Outreach/Dropout Prevention NDPC-SD NSTTAC Project 10 FDLRS FIN SSTIC


January 2012 – April 2012 FLDOE/BEESS


April 2012 – June 2012 FLDOE/BEESS Project 10

Provide training and technical assistance to school districts to target the dropout rate of students with disabilities.

July 2011 – June 2012 FLDOE/BEESS Project 10, FDLRS, FIN, Project 10, AMP, SPDG

Collaborate with national and state partners to identify and plan support for dropout activities in

July 2011 – June 2012 FLDOE/BEESS NDPC-SD, NSTTAC, Project 10, FDLRS, FIN, SSTIC



the state. 2012-2013

Evaluate data on district performance related to dropout rate and target districts for training, technical assistance, and support based on established criteria.

January 2013 – April 2013 FLDOE/BEESS


April 2013 – June 2013 FLDOE/BEESS Project 10

Provide training and technical assistance to school districts to target the dropout rate of students with disabilities.

July 2012 – June 2013 FLDOE/BEESS Project 10, FDLRS, FIN, Project 10, AMP, SPDG

Collaborate with national and state partners to identify and plan support for dropout activities in the state.

July 2012 – June 2013 FLDOE/BEESS NDPC-SD, NSTTAC, Project 10, FDLRS, FIN, SSTIC





Indicator 3 – 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.

Measurement:

A. AYP Percent = [(# of districts with a disability subgroup that meets the State’s minimum “n” size that meets 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)].


Florida’s statewide assessment program includes the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT 2.0), Florida End-of-Course (EOC) Assessments for specific subjects, alternate assessment for students with significant cognitive disabilities, and alternate assessment for LEP students. FCAT 2.0 assessments are administered in grades 3 through 10 in the areas of reading and math. Writing is administered in grades 4, 8 and 10 and science is administered in grades 5 and 8. EOC assessments are administered when students complete the associated course. The Algebra 1 EOC has replaced the 10th grade FCAT 2.0 Math assessment for the purpose of graduation requirements.

Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test 2.0 and EOC Assessments: FCAT 2.0 and EOCs are the primary assessment in Florida’s assessment system. Allowable standard accommodations for students with disabilities include on FCAT 2.0 and Florida’s EOC exams include: changes in the way the test items are presented (large print, Braille, sign language,

visual enhancement) changes in the way the student responds to the test items (signed response, verbal

response, use of mechanical or electronic devices, dictation to a proctor) changes in scheduling of the test (allowing frequent breaks, extending the test

session over several days, allowing more time); changes in the setting (taking the test with a smaller group or alone)



use of assistive devices (adapted calculators in grades 7 and higher, technology without spelling or grammar check for writing assessment.

Unique accommodations are also offered. These typically involve modification to the existing test materials but must not change what is tested or affect the validity or reliability of the test. Unique accommodations require approval from the Commissioner of Education.

The grade 3 FCAT 2.0 Reading is a critical part of promotion/retention decisions. Third graders must demonstrate reading proficiency either on the FCAT 2.0, on an alternative norm-referenced assessment, or through portfolio in order to be promoted. In addition, there are good cause exemptions available to students with IEPs who take alternate assessment or who have been previously retained at least once and have received intensive remediation in reading.

The grade 10 FCAT Reading 2.0 and Algebra 1 EOC are considered to be Florida’s graduation test. Students must earn a passing score in order to receive a standard diploma. All students who do not pass these assessments the first time have six additional opportunities over a period of two years to take the assessments. In addition, there are a small number of students with disabilities whose mastery of the Next Generation Sunshine State Standards (academic content standards) cannot be accurately measured by the grade 10 FCAT 2.0 or the Algebra 1 EOC. These students may be eligible for an FCAT or EOC waiver and may access a standard diploma provided they have met other graduation requirements.

Additionally, if a parent and school district feel that a student’s FCAT 2.0 or EOC scores reflect the student’s disability in sensory, manual, or speaking skills rather than the student’s academic achievement, the school district superintendent may request from the Commissioner of Education a special exemption from the FCAT 2.0 or EOC requirement for graduation.

Alternate Assessment Based on Alternate Achievement Standards Prior to 2007-08 students with significant cognitive abilities were assessed through alternate assessments that focused on functional academic standards. The state allowed school districts to identify their own assessment provided they could document alignment to special standards, age appropriateness, and adequate technical quality. Through the Florida Alternate Assessment Report (FAAR) school districts reported on student progress in the special standards based on results of their assessment.

In 2007-08 Florida implemented a new statewide assessment, the Florida Alternate Assessment, for students with significant cognitive disabilities. The assessment is aligned to the Next Generation Sunshine State Standards access points.


A. In 2004-05, 9 districts (13%) met AYP targets in reading for the students with disabilities subgroup. Four districts (6%) met AYP target in math for the students with disabilities

subgroup.

B. PARTICIPATION RATES

Reading a = 265,107 b = (85,750/265,107)*100 = 32.3% c = (133,598/265,107)*100 = 50.4% d = 0 e = (23,331/265,107)*100 = 8.8% Overall Participation Rate = 91.5%



Math a = 265,107 b = (87,984/265,107)*100 = 33.2% c = (132,087/265,107)*100 = 49.8% d = 0 e = (23,324/265107)*100 = 8.8% Overall Participation Rate = 91.8%

Note: Florida does not currently offer alternate assessment against grade level standards.

Because the denominator (# of children with IEPs in grades assessed) is taken from the February student count (survey 2) and test information is taken from assessment files, some students who were present for the February count had withdrawn from school prior to the March assessment. Additionally, students with invalid scores are not included in the participation rate.

C. PROFICIENCY RATES

Reading a = 265,107 b = (25,095/265,107)*100 = 10.3% c = (27,257/265,107)*100 = 9.5% d = 0 e = (13,529/265,107)*100 = 5.1% Overall Proficiency Rate = 24.9%

Math a = 265,107 b = (27,977/265,107)*100 = 11.8% c = (31,156/265,107)*100 = 10.6% d = 0 e = (12,315/265,107)*100 = 4.6% Overall Proficiency Rate = 27.0


Participation rates in FCAT have remained stable in grades 3 through 5. In 2004-05, the rates at 3rd through 5th grade range from 86% to 89%. Participation rates in grades 6 through 8 range from 83% to 86% in 2004-05.The largest change in FCAT participation in 2004-05 occurred at grades 9 and 10 where rates ranged from 72% to 76%.

Proficiency continues to rise in grades 3 through 5 with 28% to 42% of students with disabilities attaining proficiency in reading or math in 2004-05. Proficiency rates for students with disabilities in grades 6 through 8 range from 14% to 21% in reading or math. Students with disabilities in grades 9 and 10 continue to struggle with proficiency in reading (7% to 10%). Proficiency rates are somewhat higher for math (21% to 22%).

Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets

The measurable and rigorous targets set for indicator 3C were lowered in response to Florida’s implementation of higher achievement levels necessary to demonstrate proficiency. The effect of this change was similar to the creation of a new baseline for the purpose of determining meaningful targets. The targets were lowered from 40% of students with disabilities in grade three through ten will demonstrate proficiency in reading and 45% of students in grade three through ten will demonstrate proficiency in math to 34% of students



with disabilities in grade three through ten will demonstrate proficiency in reading and 37% of students in grade three through ten will demonstrate proficiency in math.


2005 (2005-2006)

Indicator 3A – 22 % of school districts will meet AYP targets in reading and 16% will meet AYP targets in math

Indicator 3B – 95% of students with disabilities in grades three through ten will participate in statewide assessment

Indicator 3C – 44% of students with disabilities in grades three through ten will demonstrate proficiency in reading

Indicator 3C – 50% of students with disabilities in grades three through ten will demonstrate proficiency in math

2006 (2006-2007)





2007 (2007-2008)





2008 (2008-2009)

Indicator 3A – 49% of school districts will meet AYP targets in reading and 47% will meet AYP targets in math




2009 (2009-2010)



Indicator 3C – 48% of with disabilities in grades three through ten will demonstrate proficiency in reading


2010 (2010-2011)


Indicator 3B – 99% of students with disabilities in grades three through ten will



participate in statewide assessment



2011 (2011-2012)

Indicator 3A – 5% of school districts will meet AMO targets in reading and 10% will meet AMO targets in math




2012 (2012-2013)

Indicator 3A – 10% of school districts will meet AMO targets in reading and 15% will meet AMO targets in math





Activity Timeline Resources Conduct summer writing teams institute to develop extensions to Sunshine State Standards (academic content standards) for students with significant cognitive disabilities.

July 2005 FLDOE/BEESS Southeast Regional Resource Center (SERRC) Stakeholder Advisory Committee AMP Alternate Assessment Project

Edit and finalize extensions to August 2005 – March 2006 FLDOE/BEESS Sunshine State Standards in AMP Language Arts and Mathematics. AASD Seek public input on extensions. Conduct discrete data analysis related to participation in FCAT and alternate assessment for selected populations of students with disabilities in grades six through twelve (specific learning disabilities, emotionally handicapped, severely emotionally handicapped, other health impaired).

September 2005 FLDOE/BEESS Student database

Based on findings from FCAT and Alternate Assessment data analysis, review monitoring reports and continuous improvement plans for targeted districts.

August 2005 – January 2006 FLDOE/BEESS Monitoring reports Continuous Improvement Plans



Contact targeted districts (group January – February 2006 FLDOE/BEESS 1) based on data analysis and AASD provide technical assistance in FIN making assessment decisions. Based on group 1 data analysis, develop district specific interventions to improve participation rates in FCAT for selected student populations. Such interventions may include, but not be limited to, district self assessment of decision-making process to exclude students in FCAT assessment.

January – February 2006 FLDOE/BEESS ISRD FDLRS FIN

Based on FCAT performance, provide technical assistance and training to increase the use of differentiated instruction to meet the needs of students with disabilities in ten targeted small and rural districts (group 2).

September 2005 – May 2006 FIN FDLRS AMP ISRD

Provide technical assistance and September 2005 – May 2006 FLDOE/BEESS training to increase access to the FIN general curriculum for students FDLRS with disabilities and ensure the AMP teaching of the Sunshine State ISRD Standards to groups 1 and 2. Ensure districts are addressing and meeting students with disabilities need for access to assistive technology in order to participate in the general curriculum.

October 2005 – June 2006 FDLRS/TECH FDLRS-ATEN FDLRS

Provide professional development in the implementation of content enhancement routines for general and special educators.

September 2005 – August 2006 FDLRS FIN Project CENTRAL AMP

Through discretionary project allocations, fund additional regional local assistive technology positions specifically for small and rural districts.

August 2005 – June 2006 FLDOE/BEESS FDLRS

Provide technical assistance and training in the provision of accommodations for students with disabilities.

November 2005 – June 2006 FLDOE/BEESS FDLRS FIN AMP

Provide training to district personnel in group 1 and 2 targeted districts related to decision-making for inclusion in FCAT assessment.

January 2006 – May 2006 FLDOE/BEESS FDLRS FIN ISRD

Provide support and participate as school point persons for identified F schools.

September 2005 – May 2006 FLDOE/BEESS FLDOE/Bureau of School Improvement



Evaluate training and interventions to determine if results are positive. Revise training components as necessary.

June 2006 – August 2006 FLDOE/BEESS Project staff LEAs

Require group 1 and 2 districts to include staff development and other strategies to address FCAT participation and performance in their application for the discretionary supplement for 2006-2007.

July 2006 – June 2007 FLDOE/BEESS LEAs

Revise goals and objectives for university professional development partnerships (PDPs) to focus on preparing teachers to address student performance outcomes.

September 2005 – August 2006 FLDOE/BEESS PDP Teacher training discretionary projects

Identify and implement September 2005 – August 2006 FLDOE/BEESS innovative teacher and related PDP services personnel recruitment Teacher training discretionary and retention initiatives. projects Develop Request for Proposal (RFP) for development of an alternate assessment and award a contract.

January 2006 – April 2006 FLDOE/BEESS SERRC

Develop item specifications and April 2006 – September 2006 State committees for content, items for alternate assessment. sensitivity review, and technical

review Contract firm SERRC

Based on data analysis referenced above, develop district specific interventions to improve participation rates in FCAT for selected student populations. Such interventions may include, but not be limited to, district self assessment.

February 2007 – March 2007 FLDOE/BEESS FDLRS FIN

Provide targeted technical assistance and training to increase the use of differentiated instruction, content enhancement, and inclusion to meet the needs of students with disabilities.

March 2007 – December 2007 FLDOE/BEESS FIN

Ensure districts are addressing and meeting students with disabilities need for access to assistive technology in order to participate in the general curriculum.

June 2007 – July 2007 FDLRS FDLRS/ATEN FDLRS/TECH

Provide technical assistance and training in the provision of accommodations for students

June 2007 – July 2007 FDLRS/ATEN FDLRS/TECH



with disabilities. Gather data to identify if there June 2007 – July 2007 FLDOE/BEESS are needed additional allowable FLDOE/Assessment office FCAT accommodations for LEAs certain students with disabilities. Evaluate training and interventions to determine if results are positive. Revise training components as necessary.

June 2007 – August 2007 FLDOE/BEESS

2007-2008 Conduct discrete data analysis related to participation in alternate assessment for select populations of students with disabilities in grades six through twelve.

September 2007 – June 2008 FLDOE/BEESS

Provide targeted technical assistance and training based on data analysis to increase the use of differentiated instruction to meet the needs of students with disabilities.

September 2007 – June 2008 FIN FDLRS AMP

Provide technical assistance and training to increase access to the general curriculum for students with disabilities and ensure the teaching of the Sunshine State Standards.

September 2007 – June 2008 FLDOE/BEESS FIN FDLRS AMP

Based on data analysis referenced above, develop district specific interventions to improve participation rates in FCAT for selected student populations. Such interventions may include, but not be limited to, district self assessment of decision-making process to exclude students in FCAT assessment.

October 2007 – June 2008 FLDOE/BEESS ISRD FDLRS FIN

Ensure districts are addressing and meeting students with disabilities need for access to assistive technology in order to participate in the general curriculum.

October 2007 – June 2008 FDLRS/TECH FDLRS/ATEN FDLRS

Provide technical assistance and training in the provision of accommodations for students with disabilities.

November 2007 – June 2008 FLDOE/BEESS FDLRS FIN AMP

Based on identified need, continue to provide professional development in the implementation of content enhancement routines for

September 2007 – June 2008 FDLRS FIN Project CENTRAL AMP



general and special educators. Provide training to district January 2008 – May 2008 FLDOE/BEESS personnel in targeted districts FDLRS related to decision-making for FIN inclusion in FCAT assessment. ISRD Evaluate the effectiveness of September 2007 – November FLDOE/BEESS previously implemented teacher and related services personnel recruitment and retention initiatives.

2008 PDPs Teacher training discretionary projects

Based on data, continue to implement or develop and implement new innovative strategies for teacher and related services personnel recruitment and retention initiatives.

November 2007 – June 2008 FLDOE/BEESS PDPs Teacher training discretionary projects

Continue technical assistance, September 2007 – June 2008 FLDOE/BEESS item development, and review of SERRC data for alternate assessment. AASD

AASCI Stakeholder Advisory Committee

2008-09 Annual analysis of data concerning student participation and performance on annual statewide assessments.

September 2008 FLDOE/BEESS

Implement an integrated model for identifying districts that have a high correlation between LRE and student achievement for the purpose of identifying exemplar models for targeted districts.

August 2008 – May 2009 FLDOE/BEESS

Identify successful resources, projects, and successful inclusion models and high student achievement rates as demonstrated on annual statewide assessments, and share with districts via paperless communication, Technical Assistance Papers/Notes, presentations and professional development/training to be disseminated to schools and education professionals and parents as appropriate.

September 2008 – May 2009 FLDOE/BEESS FIN PS/RtI RtI-TLC FDLRS PBS ISRD Learning through Listening Parents Educating Parents

Assist districts in identifying district/school specific barriers to students with disabilities performing adequately on annual statewide assessments.

October 2008 – May 2009 FLDOE/BEESS FIN PBS

Assist targeted school districts in developing action plans in collaboration with BEESS personnel to address

September 2008 – May 2009 FLDOE/BEESS LEA and school personnel PS/RtI RtI-TLC



participation and performance on annual statewide assessments for students with disabilities using a systems change framework and the problem solving-model. Based in the action plans submitted for BEESS review, provide feedback and monitor progress toward performance targets making revisions as necessary based on annual outcome data.

PBS FIN

Provide professional development using lessons learned from exemplar districts at the annual state administrator conference.

September 2008 – May 2009 FLDOE/BEESS LEAs

Develop and support educator use of instructional strategies for students with significant cognitive disabilities to access the general curriculum.

July 2008 – June 2009 FLDOE/BEESS CLASP Inclusive Large-Scale standards and Assessment (ILSSA)

Continue refinement and implementation of the Florida Alternate Assessment.

July 2008 – June 2009 FLDOE/BEESS Measured Progress Piedra Data Services

2009-10 Conduct annual analysis of data concerning student participation and performance on annual statewide assessments to target for technical assistance on practices that improve student achievement outcomes in mathematics and reading.


Implement an integrated model for identifying districts that have a high correlation between LRE, student achievement, and low rates of suspension/expulsion for the purpose of identifying exemplar models for targeted districts.

August 2009 – May 2010 FLDOE/BEESS PBS FIN

Identify successful resources, projects, and high student achievement rates as demonstrated on annual statewide assessments, and share with districts via paperless communication, Technical Assistance Papers/Notes, presentations and professional development/training to be disseminated to schools and education professionals and parents as appropriate.

September 2009 – May 2010 FLDOE/BEESS FIN PS/RtI RtI-TLC FDLRS PBS ISRD



Assist districts in identifying October 2009 – May 2010 FLDOE/BEESS district/school specific barriers to FIN students with disabilities PBS performing adequately on annual statewide assessments. Collaborate with targeted school districts to develop action plans to address participation and performance on annual statewide assessments for students with disabilities using a systems change framework and the problem solving-model. Based in the action plans submitted for BEESS review,

September 2009 – May 2010 FLDOE/BEESS LEA and school personnel Resources for Districts to Access as Needed for Planning and Implementation: PS/RtI RtI-TLC PBS FIN

provide feedback and monitor progress toward performance targets making revisions as necessary based on annual outcome data. Provide professional development using lessons learned from exemplar districts at the annual state administrator conference.


Require newly targeted districts to conduct a focused compliance self-assessment on the related requirements identified by OSEP.

October 2009 – June 2010 FLDOE/BEESS LEAs

Develop and support educator July 2009 – June 2010 FLDOE/BEESS use of instructional strategies for CLASP students with significant Inclusive Large-Scale standards cognitive disabilities to access and Assessment (ILSSA) the general curriculum. Continue refinement and implementation of the Florida Alternate Assessment.


2010-2011 Conduct annual analysis of data September 2010 FLDOE/BEESS, in collaboration concerning student participation with related projects and performance on annual statewide assessments to inform technical assistance on practices that improve student achievement outcomes in mathematics and reading. Implement an integrated model August 2010 – May 2011 FLDOE/BEESS for identifying districts that have PBS a high correlation between LRE, FIN student achievement, and rates of suspension/expulsion for the purpose of identifying exemplar models for targeted districts. Identify successful resources, September 2010 – May 2011 FLDOE/BEESS



projects, and high student achievement rates as demonstrated on annual statewide assessments, and share with districts via paperless communication, Technical Assistance Papers/Notes, presentations and professional development/training to be disseminated to schools and education professionals and parents as appropriate.

FIN PS/RtI FDLRS PBS ISRD

Assist districts in identifying October 2010 – May 2011 FLDOE/BEESS district/school specific barriers to FIN students with disabilities PBS performing adequately on annual PS/RtI statewide assessments. Require targeted school districts to develop action plans to address participation and performance on annual statewide assessments for students with disabilities using a systems change framework and the problem solving-model. Based in the action plans submitted for BEESS review, provide feedback and monitor progress toward performance targets making revisions as necessary based on annual outcome data.

September 2010 – May 2011 FLDOE/BEESS LEA and school personnel Resources for Districts to Access as Needed for Planning and Implementation: PS/RtI PBS FIN

Provide professional development using lessons learned from districts at the annual state administrator conference.




Develop and support educator July 2010 – June 2011 FLDOE/BEESS use of instructional strategies for CLASP students with significant Inclusive Large-Scale standards cognitive disabilities to access and Assessment (ILSSA) the general curriculum. Continue refinement and implementation of the Florida Alternate Assessment.


2011-2012 Conduct annual analysis of data concerning student participation and performance on annual statewide assessments to inform

September 2011 FLDOE/BEESS, in collaboration with related discretionary projects



technical assistance on practices that improve student achievement outcomes in mathematics and reading. Implement a model for identifying districts that specifically targets student achievement, while encouraging districts to maintain the focus on the interrelationship between LRE, student achievement, and rates of suspension/expulsion.

August 2011 – May 2012 FLDOE/BEESS FIN

Identify and evaluate the effectiveness of a training resource for site-based flexible scheduling that increases access to general education and achievement on standardized tests for students with disabilities.


Identify successful resources, projects, and high student achievement rates as demonstrated on annual statewide assessments, and share with districts via paperless communication, Technical Assistance Papers/Notes, presentations and professional development/training to be disseminated to schools, education professionals and parents as appropriate.

September 2011 – May 2012 FLDOE/BEESS FIN PS/RtI FDLRS PBS ISRD

Assist districts in identifying October 2011 – May 2012 FLDOE/BEESS district/school specific barriers to FIN students with disabilities PBS performing adequately on annual PS/RtI statewide assessments. Require targeted school districts to develop action plans to address participation and performance on annual statewide assessments for students with disabilities using a systems change framework and the problem solving-model. Based on the action plans submitted for BEESS review, provide feedback and monitor progress toward performance targets making revisions as necessary based on annual outcome data.












2012-2013 Conduct annual analysis of data concerning student participation and performance on annual statewide assessments to inform technical assistance on practices that improve student achievement outcomes in mathematics and reading.


Implement a model for identifying districts that specifically targets student achievement, while encouraging districts to maintain the focus on the interrelationship between LRE and student achievement.




Identify successful resources, projects, and high student achievement rates as demonstrated on annual statewide assessments, and share with districts via paperless communication, Technical Assistance Papers/Notes, presentations, and professional development/training to be disseminated to schools, education professionals, and parents as appropriate.


Assist districts in identifying district- and school-specific barriers to students with disabilities performing adequately on annual statewide assessments.

October 2012 – May 2013 FLDOE/BEESS FIN PBS

Require targeted school districts September 2012 – May 2013 FLDOE/BEESS



to develop action plans to address participation and performance on annual statewide assessments for students with disabilities using a systems change framework and the problem solving-model. Based on the action plans submitted for BEESS review, provide feedback and monitor progress toward performance targets, making revisions as necessary based on annual outcome data.

LEA and school personnel Resources for Districts to Access as Needed for Planning and Implementation: PS/RtI PBS FIN



Require targeted districts to conduct a focused compliance self-assessment on the related requirements identified by OSEP.






Build capacity for targeted districts to implement research-based instructional practices in middle and high schools through management and implementation of the SPDG.

August 2012 – June 2013 FLDOE/BEESS LEAs FDLRS FIN Project 10 Ps/RtI PBS





Indicator 4 – Rates of suspension and expulsion:

A. Percent of districts that have a significant discrepancy in the rates of suspensions and expulsions of children with disabilities for greater than 10 days in a school year for children with IEPs.

B. 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.

Measurement:

A. Percent = [(# of districts that have a significant discrepancy in the rates of suspensions and expulsions of children with disabilities for greater than 10 days in a school year) divided by the (# of districts in the State)] times 100.

Significant discrepancy is defined as a risk ratio of three or higher when comparing children with IEPs to nondisabled children within the LEA. Note that LEAs are excluded from the calculation when they have fewer than 10 students with disabilities who are suspended/expelled for more than 10 days.

B. 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) divided by the (# of districts in the State)] times 100.

Significant discrepancy is defined as a risk ratio of three or higher when comparing children with IEPs to nondisabled children within the LEA. Note that LEAs are excluded from the calculation when they have fewer than 10 students with disabilities for a specific racial/ethnic group who are suspended/expelled for more than 10 days.

Overview of Issue/Description of System or Process: Disciplinary policies are set at the district level as guided by Rules 6A-6.03312 and 6A6.0527 of the Florida Administrative Code. Because of the variance in district disciplinary policies, Florida has chosen to determine significant discrepancy by comparing disabled and nondisabled students within a district. Data were obtained from Florida’s automated student database at the student level which includes disabled or nondisabled, race/ethnicity, and the rates of suspension and expulsion as well as their duration.

Indicator 4A – The Rates of suspension/expulsion were calculated within each district for disabled and nondisabled students by dividing the number students with suspensions or expulsions of greater than 10 days by total year enrollment as reported at the end of the school year. Risk ratios were calculated for each district by dividing the rate of



suspension/expulsion of students with disabilities by the rate of suspension/expulsion for nondisabled students. Significant discrepancy for 4A is defined as a risk ratio of three or higher. Districts with fewer than 10 disabled students reported as having suspension or expulsions of greater than 10 days are excluded from the calculation.

Indicator 4B – The rates of suspension/expulsion were calculated for students with disabilities from a specific racial/ethnic group as well as all nondisabled students within each district by dividing the number students with suspensions or expulsions of greater than 10 days by total year enrollment as reported at the end of the school year. Risk ratios were calculated for each district by dividing the rate of suspension/expulsion of students with disabilities for a specific racial/ethnic group by the rate of suspension/expulsion for all nondisabled students. Significant discrepancy for 4B is defined as a risk ratio of three or higher. Districts with fewer than 10 disabled students for a specific racial/ethnic group reported as having suspension or expulsions of greater than 10 days are excluded from the calculation.

4A Baseline Data from FFY 2004 (2004-05): For the 2004-05 school year, 14 districts (20.9%) showed evidence of a significant discrepancy (i.e., a risk ratio of three or higher) between the percentage of students with disabilities suspended or expelled for more than 10 days as compared with nondisabled students.

4B Baseline Data from FFY 2009 (2009-10): For the 2009-10 school year, 0% of districts were identified by the state as having both (a) a significant discrepancy in the rates of suspensions and expulsions of children with IEPs by race or ethnicity for greater than 10 days 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. The following table displays the number of districts for each racial/ethnic group that were removed from the calculation due to not meeting the minimum “n” size requirement of 10 students with disabilities who were suspended/expelled for greater than 10 days.

Racial/Ethnic Group Districts Removed from the Calculation

White, not Hispanic 35 Black, not Hispanic 38 Hispanic 52 Asian/Pacific Islander 72 American Indian/Alaska Native 72


2005 (2005-2006)

4A: The percent of districts with a significant discrepancy will decrease to 16.4% or lower. Districts with risk ratios of less than three will continue to maintain or decrease those ratios.

2006 (2006-2007)


2007 (2007-2008)


2008 (2008-2009)

4A: 7.5% or fewer districts are identified by the state as having a significant discrepancy in the rates of suspensions and expulsions of children with IEPs for



greater than 10 days in a school year in 2007-08.

2009 (2009-2010)

4A: 3% or fewer districts are identified by the state as having a significant discrepancy in the rates of suspensions and expulsions of children with IEPs for greater than 10 days in a school year in 2008-09.

2010 (2010-2011)

4A: 0% of districts are identified by the state as having a significant discrepancy in the rates of suspensions and expulsions of children with IEPs for greater than 10 days in a school year in 2009-10.

4B: 0% of districts are identified by the state as having both (a) a significant discrepancy in the rates of suspensions and expulsions of children with IEPs by race or ethnicity for greater than 10 days 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 in 2009-10.

2011 (2011-2012)



2012 (2012-2013)



Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources: The Florida Department of Education, in conjunction with district staff, will assess districts targeted for indicator 4A and 4B regarding data submission, policy development, implementation, service delivery, resource availability, and staff development.

Activities Timelines Resources 2006-07

Using Department staff and Bureau-supported projects, work with one-third of targeted districts to pinpoint schools with significant problems and provide technical assistance, as appropriate, regarding data collection, policy development, service delivery, staff development, and resource development.

August 2006 – May 2007 FLDOE/BEESS PBS SEDNET FDLRS FLDOE/A+ Teams Consultant



Monitor data from non-targeted districts to ensure they do not enter risk ratio.


Conduct statewide study of alternatives to suspension and expulsion for students with disabilities, building on previous efforts at studying alternatives to suspension and expulsion for all students.

August 2006 – June 2007 Independent Evaluation Consultant

Conduct analysis of referrals of students with disabilities who are suspended for more than 10 days or are expelled in targeted districts. Specifically assess number of referrals, reason and interventions both prior to referral and subsequent to referral.

February 2007 – December 2007 Independent Evaluation Consultant

Develop a plan to review and, if appropriate, revise policies, procedures and practices related to the development and implementation of IEP’s the use of behavior interventions, and procedure safeguards, to ensure these policies and procedures comply with the Act, as required by 34 CFR, 300.146.

February 2007 – December 2007 FLDOE/BEESS Independent Evaluation Consultant

2007-08 Provide technical assistance, as appropriate, to all targeted districts (and schools within these districts) regarding data collection, policy development, service delivery, staff development, and resource development.

August 2007 – June 2008 FLDOE/BEESS SEDNET PBS Contracted Consultant FDLRS

Assess the impact of the technical assistance and assessments on targeted districts and targeted schools within districts.

June – July 2008 FLDOE/BEESS



Develop a plan to review and, if appropriate revise policies, procedures and practices related to the development and implementation of IEP’s the use of behavior interventions, and procedure safeguards, to ensure these policies and procedures comply with the Act, as required by 34 CFR, 300.146.

FLDOE/BEESS Independent Evaluation Consultant



2008-09 Provide technical assistance, as appropriate, to all targeted districts (and schools within these districts) regarding data collection, policy development, service delivery, staff development, and resource development.

August 2008 – June 2009 FLDOE/BEESS SEDNET PBS Contracted Consultant FDLRS

Assess the impact of the technical assistance and assessment on targeted districts and targeted schools within districts.

June – July 2009 FLDOE/BEESS PBS SEDNET FDLRS Consultant



Develop a plan to review and, if appropriate revise policies, procedures and practices related to the development and implementation of IEP’s the use of behavior interventions, and procedure safeguards, to ensure these policies and procedures comply with the Act, as required by 34 CFR, 300.146.

October 2008 – June 2009 FLDOE/BEESS PBS SEDNET FDLRS Consultant

Newly targeted districts will conduct a focused compliance self-assessment on the related requirements identified by OSEP.

October 2008 – June 2009 BEESS

2009-10 Conduct annual analysis of data concerning student suspension and expulsion to target for technical assistance on practices that improve student behavior in school.

November 2009 FLDOE/BEESS FLPBS:RtI

Implement an integrated model for identifying districts that have a high correlation between LRE, student achievement, and positive behavior for the purpose of identifying exemplar models for targeted districts.

August 2009 – June 2010 FLDOE/BEESS FLPBS:RtI FIN

Identify successful resources, projects, alternatives to suspension/expulsion, and positive behavior support models – to share with districts via paperless communication, Technical Assistance Papers/Notes, presentations and professional development/training to be disseminated to schools and education professionals and parents as appropriate.

September 2009 – June 2010 FLDOE/BEESS FLPBS:RtI FIN FDLRS PS/RtI ISRD RtI/TLC



Assist districts in identifying district/school specific barriers that impact students with disabilities being disproportionately suspended/expelled.

October 2009 – June 2010 FLDOE/BEESS FLPBS:RtIB SEDNET

Collaborate with targeted school districts to develop action plans to address suspension/expulsion of students with disabilities using a systems change framework and the problem solving-model. Based on the action plans submitted for BEESS review, provide feedback and monitor progress toward performance targets making revisions as necessary based on annual outcome data.

September 2009 – June 2010 FLDOE/BEESS LEAs FLPBS:RtIB SEDNET


September 2009 FLDOE/BEESS LEAs



Collaborate with targeted school districts to develop a plan to review and, if appropriate, revise policies, procedures and practices related to the development and implementation of IEPs the use of behavior interventions, and procedure safeguards, to ensure these policies and procedures comply with the Act, as required by 34 CFR, 300.170.


2010-11 Conduct annual analysis of data concerning student suspension and expulsion to inform technical assistance on practices that improve student behavior in school.

September – October 2010 FLDOE/BEESS PBS PS/RtI

Implement an integrated model for identifying districts that have a high correlation between LRE, student achievement, and rates of suspension/expulsion for the purpose of identifying exemplar models for targeted districts.


Identify successful resources, projects, alternatives to suspension/expulsion, and positive behavior support models – to share with districts via paperless communication, Technical

September 2010 – May 2011 FLDOE/BEESS PBS FIN FDLRS PS/RtI ISRD



Assistance Papers, presentations and professional development/training to be disseminated to schools and education professionals and parents as appropriate. Assist districts in identifying district/school specific barriers that impact students with disabilities being disproportionately suspended/expelled.

October 2010 – May 2011 FLDOE/BEESS PBS SEDNET PS/RtI

Require targeted school districts to develop action plans to address suspension/expulsion of students with disabilities using a systems change framework and the problem solving-model. Based on the action plans submitted for BEESS review, provide feedback and monitor progress toward performance targets making revisions as necessary based on annual outcome data.

September 2010 – May 2011 FLDOE/BEESS LEAs PBS SEDNET


September 2010 FLDOE/BEESS LEAs


October 2010 – May 2011 FLDOE/BEESS LEAs



2011-2012 Ensure correction of any identified July 2011 – June 2012 FLDOE/BEESS noncompliance found in FFY 2011. PBS

PS/RtI SEDNET

Conduct annual analysis of data September – October 2011 FLDOE/BEESS concerning student suspension and PBS expulsion to inform technical PS/RtI assistance on practices that SEDNET improve student behavior in school. Identify successful resources, alternatives to suspension/expulsion, and positive

September 2011 – May 2012 FLDOE/BEESS PBS FDLRS



behavior support models. Share these findings with districts.

SEDNET ISRD

Assist districts in identifying district/school specific barriers that impact students with disabilities being disproportionately suspended/expelled.

October 2011 – May 2012 FLDOE/BEESS FDLRS PBS SEDNET PS/RtI



Provide more intensive support to December 2011 – June 2012 FLDOE/BEESS districts identified as having a PBS significant discrepancy for 3 FDLRS consecutive years or more. SEDNET

ISRD 2012-2013

Tier 1 Support: Ensure correction of any identified noncompliance found in FFY 2011.

July 2012 – June 2013 FLDOE/BEESS PBS PS/RtI SEDNET

Tier 1 Support: Conduct annual analysis of data concerning student suspension and expulsion to inform technical assistance on practices that improve student behavior in school.

September – October 2012 FLDOE/BEESS PBS PS/RtI SEDNET

Tier 1 Support: Identify successful resources, projects, alternatives to suspension/expulsion, and positive behavior support models to share with districts via paperless communication, Technical Assistance Papers, presentations, and professional development/training to be disseminated to schools, education professionals, and parents as appropriate.

September 2012 – May 2013 FLDOE/BEESS PBS FDLRS SEDNET ISRD

Tier 1 Support: Assist districts in identifying district- and school-specific barriers that impact:

students with disabilities being disproportionately suspended/expelled

October 2012 – May 2013 FLDOE/BEESS FDLRS PBS SEDNET PS/RtI



students with disabilities being disproportionately suspended/expelled by race or ethnicity

Tier 2 Support: Collaborate with targeted school districts to develop a plan to review and, if appropriate, revise policies, procedures, and practices related to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of behavior interventions, and procedural safeguards to ensure these policies, procedures, and practices comply with the Act, as required by 34 CFR, 300.170.


Tier 3 Support: Provide more intensive support to districts identified as having a significant discrepancy for three consecutive years or more, which include:

1. District planning and problem solving

2. Provision of PBS training and technical assistance to targeted schools

3. Support in database utilization and problem-solving

November 2012 – June 2013 FLDOE/BEESS PBS FDLRS SEDNET ISRD





Indicator 5 – Percent of children with IEPs aged 6 through 21:

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 schools, residential facilities, or homebound/hospital placements.

Measurement: Data collected for reporting under section 618

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 separate schools, residential facilities, or homebound /hospital placements) divided by the (total # of students aged 6 through 21 with IEPs)] times 100.


Educational environments for all students with disabilities who are provided special education and related services by Florida’s 67 public school districts, 4 university laboratory schools, the Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind (FSDB), and the Department of Corrections are reported consistent with OSEP definitions. Due to changes in federal data reporting requirements for 2006-07, students ages 6-21 reported in the categories correctional facilities and parentally placed in private schools are now reported as unduplicated counts. Data are collected at the student level and allow for the calculation of the percent of time removed from regular class in cases where the student is not served in a public or private separate school, residential placement, hospital/homebound setting, correctional facility or private school.


49.8%: removed from regular class less than 21% of the day (181,958/364,877);

26.3%: removed from regular class greater than 60% of the day (96,202/364,877); and

2.9%: served in public or private separate schools, residential placements, or homebound or hospital placements (10,667/364,877).

Source: Table 3, Federal Annual Data Report.


Approximately one-half of students with disabilities ages 6 to 21 years are removed from the regular class less than 21% of the day; approximately one-quarter are removed from regular class greater than 60% of the day. Less than 3 percent of students are served in separate settings.


2005 (2005-2006)

Indicator 5A – Increase the percentage of students with IEPs aged 6 to 21 years removed from regular class placement for less than 21% of the day to 52.8%.

Indicator 5B – Decrease the percentage of students with IEPs aged 6 to 21



years removed from regular class placement for greater than 60% of the day to 24.3%.

Indicator 5C – Decrease the percentage of students with IEPs aged 6 to 21 years served in public or private separate schools, residential placements, or homebound or hospital placements to 2.8%.

2006 (2006-2007)


Indicator 5B – Decrease the percentage of students with IEPs aged 6 to 21 years removed from regular class placement for greater than 60% of the day to 23.3%.


2007 (2007-2008)



Indicator 5C – Maintain the percentage of students with IEPs aged 6 to 21 years served in public or private separate schools, residential placements, or homebound or hospital placements at 2.7%.

2008 (2008-2009)

Indicator 5A - Increase the percentage of students with IEPs aged 6 to 21 years removed from regular class placement for less than 21% of the day to 58.8%.

Indicator 5B - Decrease the percentage of students with IEPs aged 6 to 21 years removed from regular class placement for greater than 60% of the day to 21.3%.

Indicator 5C - Decrease the percentage of students with IEPs aged 6 to 21 years served in public or private separate schools, residential placements, or homebound or hospital placements to 2.6%.

2009 (2009-2010)



Indicator 5C – Maintain the percentage of students with IEPs aged 6 to 21 years served in public or private separate schools, residential placements, or homebound or hospital placements at 2.6%.

2010 (2010-2011)





2011 Indicator 5B – Decrease the percentage of students with IEPs aged 6 to 21 (2011-2012) years removed from regular class placement for greater than 60% of the day to

14.0%.




2012 (2012-2013)






Analysis of data, to include disaggregating of data by disability categories, concerning student placement outside of regular classrooms to provide information on districts/schools to target for in-depth technical assistance on inclusion.


Develop and distribute district and state data regarding LRE.

August 2005 – September 2005 FLDOE/BEESS

Review continuous improvement plans for districts whose target indicator was least restrictive environment.

September 2005 – May 2006 FLDOE/BEESS

Review IEPs as part of the monitoring process for identified districts.

September 2005 – May 2006 FLDOE/BEESS

Identify successful resources, projects, and successful inclusion models, and share with districts via paperless communication, Technical Assistance Papers/Notes, presentations and professional development/training to be disseminated to schools and education professionals and parents as appropriate.

September 2005 – May 2006 FLDOE/BEESS FIN FDLRS AMP ISRD

Identify district/school specific barriers to students with disabilities being placed in the least restrictive environment.

October 2005 – May 2006 FLDOE/BEESS Discretionary project staff

Develop action plans in collaboration with targeted districts and schools to address LRE for students with disabilities.

October 2005 – May 2006 FLDOE/BEESS LEA and school personnel FIN FDLRS ISRD

Based on action plans, determine October 2005 – May 2006 FLDOE/BEESS



the follow-up and monitoring necessary for successful implementation.

LEA and school personnel FIN FDLRS ISRD

Revise the action plans as necessary based on outcome data for LRE.

May 2005 – September 2006 FLDOE/BEESS LEA and school personnel FIN FDLRS ISRD

Conduct pilot study of a targeted district’s allocation of funds for ESE instructional units.

February 2006 – May 2006 FLDOE/BEESS Targeted LEAs

In targeted districts’ discretionary supplement application, include a requirement to address LRE using a pre-determined amount of funds.

July 2006 – June 2007 FLDOE/BEESS Targeted LEAs

2006-07 Analysis of data, to include disaggregating of data by disability categories, concerning student placement outside of regular classrooms to provide information on districts/schools to target for in-depth technical assistance on inclusion, e.g., lowest 10% of districts.


Share findings from pilot study of targeted district’s allocation of funds for ESE instructional units.

September 2006 FLDOE/BEESS Targeted LEAs


September 2006 – May 2007 FLDOE/BEESS FIN FDLRS AMP ISRD

Recognize districts that have made significant improvements in LRE placements, e.g., data book, Administrators’ Management Meeting, letter to Superintendent.

September 2006 FLDOE/BEESS Targeted LEAs

Based on previously identified barriers to students with disabilities being placed in the least restrictive environment, develop technical assistance to address the barriers.

October 2006 – May 2007 FLDOE/BEESS Discretionary projects

Develop action plans in collaboration with targeted districts and schools to address

October 2006 – May 2007 FLDOE/BEESS LEA and school personnel FIN



LRE for students with disabilities. FDLRS ISRD

Based on action plans, determine the follow-up and monitoring necessary for successful implementation.

October 2006 – May 2007 FLDOE/BEESS LEA and school personnel FIN FDLRS ISRD

Revise the action plans as necessary based on outcome data for LRE.

May 2006 – September 2007 FLDOE/BEESS LEA and school personnel FIN FDLRS ISRD

2007-08 Analysis of data concerning student placement outside of regular classrooms to provide information on districts/schools to target for in-depth technical assistance on inclusion.

September 2007 – June 2008 FLDOE/BEESS FIN


September 2007 – May 2008 FLDOE/BEESS FIN RtI FDLRS PBS ISRD

Establish and maintain a Web-based communication board for state and district level team members so that barriers, advancements, critical dates, opportunities, and updates can be shared in one central location.

April 2007 – May 2008 FLDOE/BEESS

Identify district/school specific October 2007 – May 2008 FLDOE/BEESS barriers to students with FIN disabilities being placed in the PBS least restrictive environment. Targeted school districts develop action plans in collaboration with BEESS personnel to address LRE for students with disabilities using a systems change framework and the problem solving-model. Based in the action plans submitted for BEESS review, provide feedback and monitor progress toward performance targets making revisions as necessary based on annual outcome data for LRE.

September 2007 – May 2008 FLDOE/BEESS LEA and school personnel RtI FIN

Establish an integrated model for August 2007 – May 2008 FLDOE/BEESS



identifying districts that have a high correlation between LRE and student achievement in collaboration with state university personnel for the purpose of identifying exemplar models for targeted districts.

University of Florida



2008-09 Annual analysis of data concerning student placement outside of regular classrooms to provide information on districts/schools to target for in-depth technical assistance on inclusion.

September 2008 FLDOE/BEESS FIN

Implement an integrated model for identifying districts that have a high correlation between LRE and student achievement for the purpose of identifying exemplar models for targeted districts.

August 2008 – May 2009 FLDOE/BEESS



Identify district/school specific October 2008 – May 2009 FLDOE/BEESS barriers to students with FIN disabilities being placed in the PBS least restrictive environment. Targeted school districts develop action plans in collaboration with BEESS personnel to address LRE for students with disabilities using a systems change framework and the problem-solving model. Based in the action plans submitted for BEESS review, provide feedback and monitor progress toward performance targets making revisions as necessary based on annual outcome data for LRE.

September 2008 – May 2009 FLDOE/BEESS LEA and school personnel PS/RtI RtI-TLC PBS FIN

Provide professional September 2008 – May 2009 FLDOE/BEESS



development using lessons learned from exemplar districts at the annual state administrator conference.

LEAs

2009-10 Conduct annual analysis of data concerning student placement outside of regular classrooms to provide information on districts/schools to target for technical assistance on inclusion.






Identify district/school specific October 2009 – May 2010 FLDOE/BEESS barriers to students with FIN disabilities being placed in the PBS least restrictive environment. Collaborate with targeted school districts to develop action plans to address LRE for students with disabilities using a systems change framework and the problem-solving model. Based in the action plans submitted for BEESS review, provide feedback and monitor progress toward performance targets making revisions as necessary based on annual outcome data for LRE.

September 2009 – May 2010 FLDOE/BEESS LEA and school personnel Resources for Districts to Access as Needed for Planning and Implementation: PS/RtI RtI-TLC PBS FIN







2010-11 Conduct annual analysis of data concerning student placement outside of regular classrooms to provide information on districts/schools for technical assistance on inclusion.




Identify successful resources, projects, and successful inclusion models, and share with districts via paperless communication, Technical Assistance Papers, presentations and professional development/training to be disseminated to schools and education professionals and parents as appropriate.


Assist districts in identifying district/school specific barriers to students with disabilities being placed in the least restrictive environment.

October 2010 – May 2011 FLDOE/BEESS FIN PBS PS/RtI

Require targeted school districts to develop action plans to address LRE for students with disabilities using a systems change framework and the problem-solving model. Based in the action plans submitted for BEESS review, provide feedback and monitor progress toward performance targets making revisions as necessary based on annual outcome data for LRE.


Provide professional development using lessons learned at the annual state administrator conference.




2011-2012 Conduct annual analysis of data concerning student placement outside of regular classrooms to provide information on

September – October 2011 FLDOE/BEESS FIN



districts/schools for technical assistance on inclusion. Implement a model for identifying districts that specifically targets student achievement, while encouraging districts to maintain the focus on the interrelationship between LRE, student achievement, and rates of suspension/expulsion.




Identify successful resources, projects, and successful inclusion models, and share with districts via paperless communication, Technical Assistance Papers, presentations and professional development/training to be disseminated to schools and education professionals and parents as appropriate.


Assist districts in identifying district/school specific barriers to students with disabilities being placed in the least restrictive environment.

October 2011 – May 2012 FLDOE/BEESS FIN PBS PS/RtI

Require targeted school districts to develop action plans to address LRE for students with disabilities using a systems change framework and the problem-solving model. Based in the action plans submitted for BEESS review, provide feedback and monitor progress toward performance targets making revisions as necessary based on annual outcome data for LRE.






2012-2013 Conduct annual analysis of data concerning student placement




outside of regular classrooms to provide information on districts/schools for technical assistance on inclusion. Implement a model for identifying districts that specifically targets student achievement, while encouraging districts to maintain the focus on the interrelationship between LRE and student achievement.




Identify successful resources, projects, and inclusion models and share with districts via paperless communication, Technical Assistance Papers, presentations, and professional development/training to be disseminated to schools, education professionals, and parents as appropriate.


Assist districts in identifying October 2012 – May 2013 FLDOE/BEESS district- and school-specific FIN barriers to students with PBS disabilities being placed in the PS/RtI least restrictive environment. Require targeted school districts to develop action plans to address LRE for students with disabilities using a systems change framework and the problem-solving model. Based on the action plans submitted for BEESS review, provide feedback and monitor progress toward performance targets, making revisions as necessary based on annual outcome data for LRE.

September 2012 – May 2013 FLDOE/BEESS LEA and school personnel Resources for districts to access as needed for planning and implementation: PS/RtI PBS FIN



Require targeted districts to conduct a focused compliance self-assessment on the related requirements identified by OSEP.






Indicator 6 – 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 classes, separate school or residential facility.

(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A))

Measurement: Data collected for reporting under section 618.

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.


Special education and related services for eligible children with disabilities ages 3 through 5 years are primarily provided by Florida’s 74 of 75 geographically defined school districts. In addition, some eligible children may be served by Head Start. IEP or IFSP teams must consider placement in the least restrictive environment available to the child (e.g., provision of services in an inclusive setting with typically developing peers). In order to provide an opportunity for children with disabilities to receive services with typically developing peers, school districts may “blend” preschool programs for children with disabilities with other early childhood programs (e.g. Head Start, Voluntary Prekindergarten Education [VPK] Program) provided by the district. Furthermore, schools may serve children through itinerant/ consultative models in community-based settings or may contract for services with community providers. This population of children includes children served in the Part B preschool program in addition to some children who are served in public kindergarten.


A. 30%: 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 (11,145/37,445).

B. 49%: children aged 3 through 5 with IEPs attending a special education classes, separate school, or residential facility (18,310/37,445).

Data Source: State student database; data reported on Table 3

Discussion of Baseline Data for FFY 2011:

In 2011-12, almost one-third of children aged 3 through 5 with IEPs attended a regular early childhood program and received the majority of their special education and related services in



the regular early childhood program (11,145/37,445). Almost half (18,310/37,445) attended a separate special education class, separate school or residential facility.


2005

(2005-2006)

64% of children with disabilities ages 3 through 5 years served by Florida’s 67 public school districts will receive special education and related services in settings with typically developing peers.

2006 (2006-2007)


2007 (2007-2008)


2008 (2008-2009)


2009 (2009-2010)


2010 (2010-2011)


2011 (2011-2012)

This is the new baseline year so there are no targets established.

2012 (2012-2013)

A. 32% of children with disabilities ages 3 through 5 years served by Florida’s public school districts will receive special education and related services in settings with typically developing peers.

B. 47% of children with disabilities ages 3 through 5 years served by Florida’s public school districts will receive special education and related services in a separate special education class, separate school, or residential facility.


Activities Timelines Resources

2005-06 Review school district educational environments data for children ages 3 through 5 years reported during December 1, 2005 count.

February 2006 FDOE/BEESS FDOE student database

Based on review described above, identify school districts that do not meet the established target for 2005-06.

March 2006 FDOE/BEESS FDOE student database

Require districts identified through process described above to develop action plans to expand opportunities

May 2006 FDOE/BEESS



related to educational environments for children ages 3 through 5 years. Provide technical assistance and training on inclusive practices for young children and community collaboration; support district action plans addressing educational environments.

2005 – 2006 FDOE/BEESS TATS FDLRS FIN

Continue state level coordination activities with other key agencies and entities to facilitate development of state policies that support inclusion of children with disabilities with their typically developing peers.

2005 – 2006 FDOE/BEESS FDOE/AWI Offices of Early Learning Florida Early Childhood Interagency Inclusion Team

Work with Bureau monitoring staff related to the restructuring of monitoring procedures to determine how any revised monitoring procedures related to LRE will apply to preschool environments.

June 2006 FDOE/BEESS

2006-07 Review school district educational environments data for children ages 3 through 5 years reported during December 1, 2006, count.

February 2007 FDOE/BEESS FDOE student database

Based on review described above, identify districts that do not meet the established target for 2006-07.

March 2007 FDOE/BEESS FDOE student database

Require districts identified through process described above to develop action plans to expand opportunities related to educational environments for children ages 3 through 5 years.

May 2007 FDOE/BEESS

Provide technical assistance and training on inclusive practices for young children and community collaboration; support district action plans addressing educational environments.

2006 – 2007 FDOE/BEESS TATS FDLRS FIN

Continue state level 2006 – 2007 FDOE/BEESS coordination activities with FDOE/AWI Offices of Early other key agencies and Learning entities to facilitate Florida Early Childhood



development of state policies that support inclusion of children with disabilities with their typically developing peers.

Interagency Inclusion Team

Review funding strategies that support the provision of services to children with disabilities with their typically developing peers.

June 2007 FDOE/BEESS TATS

2007-11 Review school district February 2008 FDOE/BEESS educational environments data February 2009 FDOE student database for children ages 3 through 5 February 2010 years reported during December 1 count.

February 2011

Based on review described March 2008 FDOE/BEESS above, identify districts that do February 2009 FDOE student database not meet the established February 2010 target for the respective year. February 2011 Require districts identified May 2008 FDOE/BEESS through process described May 2009 above to develop action plans May 2010 to address educational environments for children ages 3 through 5 years.

May 2011

Provide technical assistance 2007 – 2008 FDOE/BEESS and training on inclusive 2008 – 2009 TATS practices for young children 2009 – 2010 FDLRS and community collaboration; support district action plans addressing educational environments.

2010 – 2011 FIN

2011-2012 States have not been required to report on activities for this indicator since 2010-11. Based on

new baseline data established in 2011-12 activities are developed for 2012-13 forward. 2012-2013

Support districts that did not meet established targets to develop long-range action plans that expand opportunities related to educational environments for children ages 3 through 5.

May 2013 FDOE/BEESS

Provide technical assistance and training on inclusive practices for young children and community collaboration; support district action plans addressing educational environments.

July 2012 – June 2013 FDOE/BEESS Technical Assistance and Training System (TATS) Project Florida Diagnostic and Learning Resources System (FDLRS) Florida Inclusion Network (FIN)

Provide resources and best practices materials to support inclusive practices; highlight

July 2012 – June 2013 FDOE/BEESS Technical Assistance and Training System (TATS)



and share exemplary practices around the state.

Project Headstart/Voluntary PreK Florida Diagnostic and Learning Resources System (FDLRS) Florida Inclusion Network (FIN)

Continue state-level coordination activities with other key agencies and entities to facilitate development of state policies that support inclusion of children with disabilities with their typically developing peers.

July 2012 – June 2013 FDOE/BEESS Headstart/Voluntary PreK Florida Office of Early Learning Florida Early Childhood Interagency Expanding Opportunities Team





Indicator 7 – Percent of preschool children with IEPs who demonstrate improved:

A. Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships);

B. Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/ communication and early literacy); and

C. Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs.

Measurement:

Outcomes:

A. Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships);

B. Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/communication and early literacy); and

C. Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs.

Progress categories for A, B and C:

a. Percent of preschool children who did not improve functioning = [(# of preschool children who did not improve functioning) divided by (# of preschool children with IEPs assessed)] times 100.

b. Percent of preschool children who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-aged peers = [(# of preschool children who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-aged peers) divided by (# of preschool children with IEPs assessed)] times 100.

c. Percent of preschool children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it = [(# of preschool children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it) divided by (# of preschool children with IEPs assessed)] times 100.

d. Percent of preschool children who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged 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 (FFY 2008-2009 reporting):

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 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.


FLDOE, in collaboration with the FLDOH/Early Steps, has developed a system to meet the requirements for reporting on the progress of preschool children with disabilities in the areas of positive social-emotional skills, acquisition and use of knowledge and skills, and use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs. As a part of this collaboration, routine management/planning meetings are held to discuss system design and implementation, training needs, data analysis and quality assurance considerations. To enhance the resources of FLDOE and FLDOH, a discretionary project is awarded to the University of Miami to support the technical aspects related to this indicator including, but not limited to, data processing, analysis, and reporting. The additional resources of another project, TATS, are used to facilitate training activities. This technical expertise and support has been made available to both Departments.

A determination was made to collect data on children across both programs on a common instrument - the Battelle Developmental Inventory 2nd Edition (BDI-2). The BDI-2 is a “standardized, individually administered assessment battery of key developmental skills in children from birth through 7 years of age” [Source: Battelle Development Inventory – Examiner’s Manual]. Some school districts have used this tool as a part of a typical battery of instruments used to determine eligibility for the prekindergarten program for children with disabilities. This instrument is also used by Early Steps for the determination of program eligibility.

The number of school districts participating in the measurement system has expanded over time and as of July 1, 2009, all school districts have received the materials and training needed for implementation of the outcomes measurement system.

Data are collected upon entry into and exit from the prekindergarten program for children with disabilities. The assessment conducted on entry into the prekindergarten program is considered a “shared data point” for those children served in Early Steps who are transitioning to the prekindergarten program for children with disabilities. School districts and local Early Steps determine which entity will administer the assessment for this “shared data point.” School districts provide the data to the University of Miami subcontractor for electronic data entry and processing. The data processed are then analyzed by University of Miami staff assisting FLDOE through the discretionary project referenced above.

FLDOE has relied on the advice of technical consultants and guidance offered by the publisher of the instrument in the development of decision rules that have been applied to the data.

Update of Activities/Process for 2008-09

The system and processes described in the prior year SPP document remain unchanged. Because Florida has established a system for children birth to five, staff members from FLDOE and FLDOH share roles in the planning and implementation of the system with the assistance of discretionary project staff. Discretionary projects awarded to the University of



Miami and TATS continue to provide essential support for system implementation. The following update is provided on the activities identified for the 2008-09 year.

Complete expansion to all school districts/provide orientation to system As previously noted in the prior year SPPs, Florida used a phased-in approach to implement the statewide system to measure child outcomes. During 2008-2009, the final two cadres of districts were phased-in. Fourteen districts and their corresponding LES programs were identified for phase four. An additional 12 school districts and their corresponding LES were identified for phase five. By July 1, 2009, Florida’s 67 school districts had initiated procedures related to obtaining child data for the system to measure outcomes for preschool children.

As each cadre of districts has been phased-in, the first step was to conduct a “kick-off” meeting for school district and LES staff. Local staff who assume a leadership role in implementation are invited to attend. The purpose of these meetings has been to provide information on the system design and implementation. Kick-off meetings were held on November 6, 2008, and February 26, 2009. These meetings were held in advance of training on the instrument used.

Provide training on selected instrument Training was provided in the months of November 2008, and March 2009 for districts and LES staff in cadres four and five. On a space available basis, the training was made available to staff included in the earlier cadres of adopters. Six training workshops were conducted by staff of the publisher. A total of 152 individuals participated in the trainings conducted in November and an additional 83 participated in the trainings conducted in March 2009. Since the inception of Florida’s system to measure child outcomes, FLDOE and FLDOH have, through the support of the two discretionary projects mentioned above, facilitated the training of over 835 individuals. For this activity, the publisher’s staff members have provided the training on administration of the instrument.

Acquire assessment materials Assessment materials have been acquired for all participating districts. Multiple orders were placed by BEESS on behalf of school districts participating in all phases of implementation. The TATS project developed on-line ordering system to facilitate materials acquisition.

Prepare for implementation of technology application As noted in the prior year SPP, a decision was made to proceed with using a Web-based data management tool available from the publisher. In making this decision, staff conferred with other states using the same application. A face-to-face meeting was held with staff from the publisher. Selected school district and Early Steps staff members have assisted the state team in considering implementation issues. While these plans have been in development, we have continued procedures for data collection initiated in prior years. These procedures were described in the prior year SPP and have remained in place for 2008-09. During 2008-09, we worked to finalize a data security agreement with the publisher, established hierarchies and procedures for the assignment of logins, and developed a manual for use of the Florida child outcomes measurement system.

Implement train-the-trainer materials/process During 2008-09, train-the-trainer sessions were initiated. In collaboration with staff from the publisher, training materials were finalized. A process was established for reviewing candidates nominated by school districts as potential trainers. Three 2-day train-the-trainer workshops were implemented. Training was provided by staff from the publisher. A total of 100 individual participated in these training workshops.

Review data quality Staff from the University of Miami and a sub-contractor periodically review data quality and provide feedback to state and local staff.



Review and revise documents/maintain communication In advance of each phase-in, documents and procedures have been reviewed by staff and revised. Input and feedback has been requested from school district and LES staff members. Conference calls have been conducted with school districts and LES staff to assist state-level staff in staying informed with regard to implementation issues. The state-level team communicates extensively on a routine basis via email, phone conference calls, and occasional face-to-face meetings.

During 2008-09, five regional meetings were held with school district and LES staff. Staff from both FLDOE and FLDOH planned, organized, and facilitated the meetings. The primary purposes included provision of technical assistance with regard to Indicators B7/C3, B12, and C8a, b, and c.

Additionally during this year, revisions were made to the “flow chart” document that defines the applicable assessment windows and included populations. Conference calls were scheduled with school districts and LES to review these changes. The TATS project maintains all applicable documents on their Web site for easy access by school districts.

Analyze and prepare dataData have been analyzed and this information is provided on the following pages.

Baseline Data for FFY 2008-2009:

Results for Indicator B-7 – Child Outcomes

Positive social- Acquisition and Use of emotional skills use of appropriate (including social knowledge and behaviors to relationships) skills (including

early language/ communication and early literacy)

meet their needs

OSEP Categories n % n % n % a. Percent of preschool children

who did not improve functioning

42 3.4 48 3.9 36 2.9

b. Percent of preschool children who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-aged peers

166 13.5 329 26.7 208 16.9

c. Percent of preschool children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach

90 7.3 202 16.4 84 6.8

d. Percent of preschool children who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers

312 25.4 340 27.6 275 22.4

e. Percent of preschool children who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers

620 50.4 311 25.3 627 51.0

Total N=1230 100% N=1230 100% N=1230 100%



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 exited the preschool program. (c+d/a+b+c+d) for each outcome category

Outcome A: 65.9% (90+312/42+166+90+312)*100 Outcome B: 59.0% (202+340/48+329+202+340)*100 Outcome C: 59.5% (84+275/36+208+84+275)*100

Summary Statement 2: The percent of preschool children who were functioning within age expectation in each Outcome by the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program by the time they exited the preschool program. (d+e/a+b+c+d+e) for each outcome category

Outcome A: 75.8% (312+620/42+166+90+312+620)*100 Outcome B: 52.9% (340+311/48+329+202+340+311)*100 Outcome C: 73.3% (275+627/36+208+84+275+627)*100


Florida’s child outcomes measurement system uses scores from the Personal-Social domain of the BDI-2 to determine category placement for indicator A, scores from the Communication domain of the BDI-2 to determine category placement for indicator B, and scores from the Adaptive domain of the BDI-2 to determine category placement for indicator C. A standard score of 78 or above (>-1.5 SD) is considered to represent a level of functioning that is “comparable to same-aged peers.”

The percent of children in each of the reporting categories is calculated based on application of the following decision rules:

a. Percent of children who did not improve functioning This category may include (i) children who were functioning below a level comparable to same-aged peers at both entry and exit, and (ii) children who were functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers at entry but below their same-aged peers at exit. Children in this category did not show any gain in their domain raw score (which rules out any standard score gain).

b. Percent of children who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-aged peers This category may include (i) children who were functioning below a level comparable to same-aged peers at both entry and exit, and (ii) children who were functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers at entry but below their same-aged peers at exit. Children in this category showed a gain in their domain raw score but not in their domain standard score.

c. Percent of children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach This category includes only children who were functioning below a level comparable to same-aged peers at both entry and exit. Children in this category showed a gain in both their domain raw score and their domain standard score.

d. Percent of children who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers This category includes only children who were functioning below a level comparable to same-aged peers on entry but were functioning comparable to same-age peers on exit.



Children in this category showed a gain in both their domain raw score and their domain standard score.

e. Percent of children who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peersThis category includes only children who were functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers at both entry and exit.

The numbers of children for this data report will expand in subsequent years as the number of children for whom exit data is available increases.


2009 (2009-2010)

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 exited the preschool program.

Outcome A: 65.9%

Outcome B: 59.0%

Outcome C: 59.5%

Summary Statement 2: The percent of preschool children who were functioning within age expectation in each Outcome by the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program.

Outcome A: 75.8%

Outcome B: 52.9%

Outcome C: 73.3%

2010 (2010-2011)


Outcome A: 66.0%

Outcome B: 59.1%

Outcome C: 59.6%


Outcome A: 75.9%

Outcome B: 53.0%

Outcome C: 73.4%

2011 (2011-2012)


Outcome A: 66.1%

Outcome B: 59.2%

Outcome C: 59.7%




Outcome A: 76.0%

Outcome B: 53.1%

Outcome C: 73.5%

2012 (2012-2013)


Outcome A: 66.2%

Outcome B: 59.3%

Outcome C: 59.8%


Outcome A: 76.1%

Outcome B: 53.2%

Outcome C: 73.6%


Activity Timelines Resources 2007-08

Expand number of school districts included in system (Phases Two and Three) and provide an orientation meeting for these districts.

July 2007 – June 2008 FLDOE/BEESS FLDOH/Early Steps MOPC TATS

Provide training on the selected instrument to school districts participating in Phases Two and Three.


Acquire assessment materials for Early Adopters and Phases Two and Three Adopters.

July 2007 – June 2008 FLDOE/BEESS ESEAS University of Miami Discretionary Project Publisher

Explore technology applications available from publisher.

July 2007 – June 2008 FLDOE/BEESS FLDOH/Early Steps ESEAS MOPC Publisher

Develop train-the-trainer materials/process.


Review data quality/provide feedback to Early Adopters and Phases Two and Three adopters.


Review and revise technical assistance documents and other

July 2007 – June 2008 FLDOE/BEESS FLDOH/Early Steps



support materials; maintain communication with Early Adopters and Phases Two and Three adopters.

MOPC TATS

Analyze and prepare data for reporting in SPP (February 2008).

July 2007 – December 2007 FLDOE/BEESS FLDOH/Early Steps MOPC

2008-09 Complete expansion to all school districts included in system and provide an orientation meeting for these districts.


Provide training on the selected instrument to school districts participating in final phase; on an as needed basis, provide training to districts earlier phases.


Acquire assessment materials for final phase; assess additional materials needed by Early Adopters and Phases Two and Three Adopters.

July 2008 – June 2009 FLDOE/BEESS ESEAS MOPC Publisher

Implement train-the-trainer materials/process.


Review data quality/provide feedback to all participating school districts.


Review and revise technical assistance documents and other support materials; maintain communication with all participating districts.


Analyze and prepare data for SPP (February 2009).

July 2008 – December 2008 FLDOE/BEESS FLDOH/Early Steps MOPC

2009-10 Assess ongoing training needs of school districts on the selected instrument.


Convene child outcomes advisory committee for indicators C3/B7 to advise Departments regarding target setting, quality assurance measures, and other related implementation issues.


Provide training on Web-based data management system.


Implement and support the trainthe-trainer materials/process.




MOPC TATS

Review data quality/provide feedback to school districts.


Review and revise technical assistance documents and other support materials; maintain communication with school districts.


2010-11 Re-convene child outcomes advisory committee for indicators C3/B7 to advise Departments regarding target setting, quality assurance measures, and other related implementation issues.








Analyze school district performance against baseline data.

July 2010 – June 2011 FLDOE/BEESS FLDOH/Early Steps MPOC Advisory Committee









Review and revise technical assistance documents and other




support materials; maintain communication with all participating districts.

MOPC TATS











Review and revise technical assistance documents and other support materials; maintain communication with all participating districts.








Indicator 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.

Measurement: State selected data source.

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.


The Florida Department of Education (FLDOE) has used parent feedback from parent surveys and parent focus groups in its monitoring system for several years. Through these mechanisms, parents of students with disabilities have had the opportunity to provide input from their experiences with schools, school districts, and special education services. Data from parent calls, complaints, due process hearings, and mediations are also used in the pre-staffing for districts selected for focused monitoring. Information from all of these sources is incorporated into the school district monitoring report.

The population of interest consists of parents of children with disabilities ages 3 through 21 who are receiving special education services. According to the December 1, 2005, child count of children with disabilities served in Florida, there were 34,350 children ages 3-5 and 364,566 children ages 6-21, for a total of 398,916 children ages 3-21.The total number is far greater than the number required in order to draw valid inferences concerning the percentage of parents who report that schools facilitated their involvement as a means of improving services and results for children with disabilities. Multiple sources of sampling guidance (e.g., http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm) concur in suggesting that for a population equal to or greater than 100,000, a sample size of 384 is adequate to achieve a 95% confidence level in conjunction with a confidence interval (expressed in terms of responses to individual dichotomous survey items) of 5%. Given the high reliability of the NCSEAM measurement instrument, the same figures can be used as reasonable guidelines for required sample sizes to achieve similar results. Consequently, a representative sample of parents of children in kindergarten through age 21 years will be used to address this indicator. In contrast, no sampling will be applied to the population of parents of children receiving preschool special education services.

The state of Florida comprises 67 public school districts, 13 of which have an average daily enrollment of over 50,000 students. All districts, including but not limited to the 13 which have an average daily enrollment of 50,000, will participate in the data collection every year.

For parents of children receiving preschool special education services, no sampling procedure was applied. All parents were invited to participate. For parents of children in kindergarten through age 21, sampling occurred only in districts with special education membership exceeding 3,500, for reasons explained below.

The sampling guidance referenced above indicates that for a population of 1,000, a sample size of 278 is adequate to achieve a 95% confidence level with a 5% confidence interval; for a population of 10,000, the required sample size is 370.


http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm


Florida has been administering an annual mailed parent survey since 1999. Over the years, statewide response rates have ranged from 10 to 15%. Using the more conservative response rate of 10% as an expected rate for 2005-06, the required sample size for the state and for each participating LEA was multiplied by a factor of 10 in order to have a reasonable likelihood of yielding the sample size necessary to allow valid inferences to be drawn concerning the population.

In smaller districts, the entire population of children receiving special education services is less than the required sample size multiplied by 10. Within-district sampling was not used in these districts, which we operationally define as those with special education enrollments of fewer than 3,500 students. Instead, a survey was sent to the parent of every child included in the LEA’s individual-level database.

For districts with special education enrollments greater than 3,500, a stratified random sample was selected. Stratification was based on the child’s race/ethnicity, grade grouping (K-5, 6-8, 912), and primary disability.

FLDOE used the 25-item scale from the NCSEAM survey that addresses parent’s perception of schools’ efforts to facilitate parent involvement. Each family selected to be included in the sample received a mailed survey printed on an optical scan form accompanied by a cover letter explaining the importance of the survey and guaranteeing the confidentiality of the parent’s responses. The packet also included a pre-addressed, postage-prepaid envelope for return of the survey. The survey was provided in two languages: English and Spanish. FLDOE anticipates moving to a web-based system for future years.

To develop a standard, or minimum measure for reporting parents’ perceptions that schools facilitated the parents’ involvement, data from the surveys were sent to NCSEAM’s measurement consultant for further analysis. Using the standard recommended by NCSEAM’s national stakeholder group for reporting these data, the percentage of Florida parents with measures at or above a level (standard) indicating their perceptions that schools facilitated their involvement as a means of improving services and results for children with disabilities was calculated.


Statewide Response to Parent Survey

Program Age Group

# Surveys Sent

# Surveys Received

% Response Rate

# Met Standard

% Met Standard

IDEA, Part B, Preschool Ages 3-5 25,562 3,810 14.90 1,518 39.84

IDEA, Part B

Ages 6-21 152,339 14,915 9.79 3,976 26.66

Combined

Ages 3-21 177,901 18,725 10.53 5,495 29.34


A total of 18,725 surveys (10.5%) were returned. The distribution of the returned sample by race/ethnicity was 65% White, 15.4% Hispanic, 14.7% Black/African-American, 2.9% Multi-racial, 1.5% Asian/Pacific Islander, 0.3% Native American, 0.1% race/ethnicity unknown.



The baseline data reported above represent parent survey data collected during FY 2005-06 by the following age groups served: preschool children ages 3-5; school age children ages 6-21; and a combination of these age groups representing children ages 3-21. These data revealed a 5% higher response rate for parents of preschool children, when compared with the response rate for parents of children ages 6-21. When applying the standard indicating their perception of schools’ facilitation of parental involvement, a higher percentage of preschool parents met the standard compared to parents of school-age children. This difference was 13 percentile points. For a combined measure, 29% of parents of children ages 3-21 met this standard.

Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets

The 2011-12 data were used as a new baseline for the purpose of setting the 2012-13 targets. In 2012-13 the data will be presented and analyzed by survey item. This method of presentation is easier for parents and others to understand and provides districts with more specific information they can use to improve their level of parental involvement. Targets will be set based on number of survey items that obtain at least 75% agreement.


2006 (2006-2007)

32% of parents with a child receiving special education services report that schools facilitate parent involvement as a means of improving services and results for children with disabilities.

2007 (2007-2008)

32% of parents with a child receiving special education services report that schools facilitate parent involvement as a means of improving services and results for children with disabilities.

2008

47% of parents with a preschool child receiving special education services report that schools facilitate parent involvement as a means of improving services and results for children with disabilities

(2008-2009) 38% of parents with a child in K-12 receiving special education services report that schools facilitate parent involvement as a means of improving services and results for children with disabilities

2009



2010



2011 (2011-2012)


42% of parents with a child in K-12 receiving special education services report that schools facilitate parent involvement as a means of improving services and results for children with disabilities

2012 75% of parents with a preschool child receiving special education services respond positively on 21/25 (84%) survey items that schools facilitate parent involvement as a means of



(2012-2013) improving services and results for children with disabilities.

75% of parents with a child in K-12 receiving special education services respond positively on 18/25 (72%) survey items that schools facilitate parent involvement as a means of improving services and results for children with disabilities.

Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources: Activities Timelines Resources

2006-07 Develop action plan with strategies for increasing parents’ response rate and percentage of parents who report that schools facilitated their involvement. Pilot test a web-based parent survey in several districts Develop and utilize strategies for marketing the survey instrument based on feedback from a variety of statewide stakeholders.

November 2006 – June 2007 FLDOE/BEESS FLDOE/Bureau of Family and Community Outreach MOPC FDLRS Florida Association of School Administrators Parent/Teacher Organizations Early Childhood Contacts and Organizations Florida Council of Exceptional Children (CEC)

Provide information and training November 2006 – May 2007 FLDOE/BEESS on strategies to increase parent LEA Parent Liaisons and ESE education opportunities and Parent Advisory Committees strengthen parent/family FDLRS involvement in schools. Collect and disseminate parental involvement “best practices” based on current research to districts via web postings, electronic communications, technical assistance papers/notes, and presentations to various education professionals and parents.

November 2006 – June 2007 FLDOE/BEESS FLDOE/Bureau of Family and Community Outreach Early Steps Program ISRD TATS (University of Central Florida) The Florida Partnership for Family Involvement in Education (University of South Florida) FDLRS LEA Parent Liaisons Parent Training and Information Centers Family Café and other community-based parent organizations Florida Association of Elementary and Middle School Principals Florida Association of School Administrators Florida CEC

Administer parent survey; pilot web-based survey with several key districts.

Spring 2007 FLDOE/BEESS LEA Parent Liaisons and ESE Parent Advisory Committees FDLRS MOPC

Develop a framework to analyze the survey data with other data variables collected by DOE to

June 2007 – August 2007 FLDOE/BEESS University of Miami District Parent Liaisons and ESE



determine linkages between gains on the indicator and state and district-level activities designed to bring about improvements. Analyze parent survey data Identify districts that did not improve response rates and/or show gains in the indicator and target ten or fewer districts for technical assistance.

Parent Advisory Committees FDLRS

Report parent survey data. September 2007 FLDOE/BEESS Share data analysis related to parent survey data with stakeholders and solicit their input.

September 2007 FLDOE/BEESS State Advisory Committee LEA Parent Liaisons and ESE Parent Advisory Committees FDLRS

2007-08 Assist school districts and schools in implementing activities for marketing the survey.

November 2007 – July 2008 FLDOE/BEESS FLDOE-Faith and Community Outreach Office (FLDOE-FCO) School Districts Parent Information Resource Center (PIRC) Community Based Parent Organizations NSTTAC National Dropout Prevention Center for Students with Disabilities (NDPC-SD) FDLRS

Implementation of National Secondary Technical Assistance Center (NSTTAC) technical assistance grant.

January 2008 – September 2008 FLDOE/BEESS PIRC Community Based Parent Organizations LEA parent liaisons and ESE parent advisory committees NSTTAC NPDC-SD FDLRS

Provide information and training June 2007 – July 2008 FLDOE/BEESS on strategies to increase parent FLDOE/FCO education opportunities and PIRC strengthen parent/family Community Based Parent involvement in schools. Organizations

MOPC NSTTAC NPDC-SD FDLRS

Expand online statewide access to web-based survey to parents of pre-k students with disabilities.

May 2007 – June 2008 FLDOE/BEESS MOPC

Pilot three districts. May 2007 – July 2008 FLDOE/BEESS MOPC Select LEAs

2008-09



Adjust action plan as needed for desired results.

October 2008 – December 2008 FLDOE/BEESS MOPC

Provide technical assistance to districts concerning outreach to previously underrepresented groups.

November 2008 – May 2009 FLDOE/BEESS

Expand statewide access to paper-based and web-based survey to parents by expanding time for parents to respond from one month to three months.

Spring 2009 – Summer 2009 FLDOE/BEESS LEA Parent Liaisons and ESE Parent Advisory Committees FDLRS

Analyze parent survey data. Identify districts that did not improve response rates and/or gains in the indicator and target ten or fewer districts for technical assistance.

June 2009 FLDOE/BEESS MOPC LEA Parent Liaisons and ESE Parent Advisory Committees FDLRS

2009-2010 Report parent survey data. September 2009 FLDOE/BEESS Share parent survey data with stakeholders and solicit their input.

September 2009 FLDOE/BEESS State Advisory Committee LEA Parent Liaisons and ESE Parent Advisory Committees FDLRS

Expand access to online survey to all parents of children with disabilities and extend time for parents to respond from three months to five months.

February 2010 – June 2010 FLDOE/BEESS LEA Parent Liaisons and ESE Parent Advisory Committees FDLRS

Provide technical assistance focused on specific standards within the School Effort to Partner with Parents scale (parent survey scale) to districts and school personnel.

February 2010 – June 2010 FLDOE/BEES LEA Parent Liaisons and ESE Parent Advisory Committees FDLRS

Analyze parent survey data. June 2010 FLDOE/BEESS MOPC LEA Parent Liaisons and ESE Parent Advisory Committees FDLRS


September 2010 – December 2010

FLDOE/BEESS State Advisory Committee LEA Parent Liaisons and ESE Parent Advisory Committees FDLRS

Provide technical assistance to districts concerning best practices to enhanced parental involvement.

November 2010 – June 2011 FLDOE/BEESS LEA Parent Liaisons and ESE Parent Advisory Committees FDLRS

Open web based survey to all parents of preschool children with disabilities and students in K-12

February 2011 – June 2011 MOPC FLDOE/BEESS



with disabilities. Analyze parent survey data. June 2011 FLDOE/BEESS

MOPC LEA Parent Liaisons and ESE Parent Advisory Committees FDLRS




Conduct parent focus groups. November 2011 – May 2012 Provide technical assistance to districts concerning best practices to enhanced parental involvement.


Open web based survey to all parents of preschool children with disabilities and students in K-12 with disabilities.


Analyze parent survey data. June 2012 FLDOE/BEESS MOPC LEA Parent Liaisons and ESE Parent Advisory Committees FDLRS

2012-2013 Analyze and report parent survey data.

September 2012 FLDOE/BEESS MOPC LEA Parent Liaisons and ESE Parent Advisory Committees FDLRS

Share parent survey data with stakeholders and solicit their input.



Provide technical assistance to districts concerning best practices to enhance parental involvement.


Gather information from districts with the highest percentages of parent responders to increase parent participation and build a bank of best practices to share with all districts.

December 2012 – February 2013 FLDOE/BEESS LEA Parent Liaisons FDLRS

Open Web-based survey to all parents of preschool children with disabilities and students in K-12 with disabilities.





Monitoring Priority: Disproportionality

Indicator 9 – Percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services that is the result of inappropriate identification.

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.

Westat’s risk ratio method is used for calculating disproportionate representation. Florida used an “n” size of 10 in their 2005-06 analysis. The “n” size was changed to 30 for 200607 and the future in order to align with other state accountability measures and requirements.

Florida defined disproportionate representation as a risk ratio of 3.5 or higher for overrepresentation and a risk ratio of 0.20 or less for underrepresentation.


Previous examination of risk ratios at the state level indicated no significant disproportionality for the total population of students with disabilities. Data on relative risk has been calculated since 2002 by (1) determining the percent of the majority population (white) in each disability category; (2) determining the percent of black students in the same category; and (3) dividing the percent for white students by the percent for black students. If the risk is comparable in the two groups, then the relative risk index equals 1.0.

Beginning with the 2005-06 baseline data, risk ratios were calculated by race/ethnicity for all children with disabilities by district using 618 data and Westat’s calculation method. Prior to completing this calculation, multiracial students are prorated across other races. This is accomplished by: (1) subtotaling all races except multiracial, (2) determining the percent represented by each of these races, (3) multiplying the percent in each race by the number of multiracial students and (4) adding these numbers to the original subtotal.

Following proration of students identified as multiracial, the calculation is continued as follows:

Numerator = risk for racial/ethnic group of being identified as a student with a disability (Hispanic students identified as disabled/all Hispanic students) * 100

Denominator = risk for all other racial/ethnic groups of being identified as a student with a disability (all students except Hispanic identified as disabled/all students except Hispanic) * 100

Using Westat’s risk ratio method, Florida defined disproportionate representation as a risk ratio of 2.0 or higher. In 2005-06, cases where the number of students with disabilities for a given race is less than 10 were excluded from targeting. Beginning with 2006-07, the minimum cell size was increased to 30.


In 2005-06, four districts were defined as having disproportionate representation: one district with disproportionate representation of black students; two districts with disproportionate



representation of American Indian/Alaskan Native students; and one district with disproportionate representation of white students. Following this determination, the State incorporated a process to determine if this disproportionate representation was due to inappropriate identification. The process involved a review of 50% of the special education records of students found eligible for special education programs within the past two years in the four districts with a risk ratio of 2.0 or higher, as well as a review of policies, practices, and procedures. The result of this review forms the 2005-06 baseline data.

Using the state’s definition of disproportionate representation as a risk ratio of 2.0 or higher, only one district was targeted. The state Department of Education (DOE) requested 50% of the records of students identified within the past two years from that district. After a review of the records, it was determined that the disproportionate representation was not a result of inappropriate identification.


In the one district targeted for the baseline record review for eligibility, no pattern of inappropriate identification was found. As a result, Florida’s percentage of districts with disproportionate representation due to inappropriate identification is 0%. This meets the original target for this indicator. The Department of Education will continue to monitor the incidence of disproportionate representation of students receiving special education and related services in order to ensure that the cause is not due to inappropriate identification.


2006 (2006-2007)

In 0% of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services, the disproportionality can be attributed to inappropriate identification.

2007 (2007-2008)


2008 (2008-2009)


2009 (2009-2010)


2010 (2010-2011)


2011 (2011-2012)


2012 (2012-2013)




Targeted districts complete self-assessment.

July 2007 – June 2008 Targeted LEAs



2008-09 Review data to determine identification patterns.

July 2008 – August 2008 FLDOE/BEESS

Create plan with identified district to target area(s) of need.

August 2008 – September 2008 FLDOE/BEESS Selected LEAs RtI PBS CARD Project CENTRAL





2009-10 Provide support to targeted district(s) in response to data showing disproportionate representation.

July 2009 – June 2010 FLDOE/BEESS Selected LEAs RtI PBS CARD RtI-TLC

Review data for all districts to determine identification patterns.

November 2009 – February 2010 FLDOE/BEESS

Meet individually with selected districts with continued data revealing disproportionate representation to target areas of need.

December 2009 – January 2010 FLDOE/BEESS Selected Districts

Provide technical assistance to selected districts with continued data revealing disproportionate representation in the form of individual contacts, monitoring visits, conference calls, or regional meetings.

February 2010 – June 2010 FLDOE/BEESS Selected LEAs RtI PBS CARD RtI-TLC

Require districts with data showing disproportionate representation to complete a self-assessment of a sampling of records, as well as provide clarification of policies and procedures related to eligibility determination.

April 2010 – June 2010 FLDOE/BEESS Selected Districts

2010-11 Provide support to targeted district(s) in response to data showing disproportionate representation.




Meet individually with selected districts with continued data revealing disproportionate representation to target areas of




need. Provide technical assistance to selected districts with continued data revealing disproportionate representation in the form of individual contacts, monitoring visits, conference calls, or regional meetings.




2011-2012 Ensure correction of any identified noncompliance found in FFY 2010.


Provide support to targeted district(s) in response to findings of inappropriate identification.

July 2011– June 2012 FLDOE/BEESS Selected LEAs RtI PBS CARD RtI-TLC












July 2012 – June 2013 FLDOE/BEESS Selected LEAs RtI



PBS CARD RtI-TLC












Monitoring Priority: Disproportionality

Indicator 10 – Percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories that is the result of inappropriate identification.

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.

Westat’s risk ratio method is used for calculating disproportionate representation. Florida used an “n” size of 10 in their 2005-06 analysis. The “n” size was changed to 30 for 2006-07 and the future in order to align with other state accountability measures and requirements.

Florida defined disproportionate representation as a risk ratio of 3.5 or higher for overrepresentation and a risk ratio of 0.20 or less for underrepresentation.


Previous examination of risk ratios at the state level have revealed significant disproportionality in some areas—particularly for black students identified as mentally handicapped or emotionally disturbed. Data on relative risk have been calculated since 2002 by (1) determining the percent of the majority population (white) in each disability category; (2) determining the percent of black students in category; and (3) dividing the percent for white students by the percent for black students. If the risk is comparable in the two groups, then the relative risk index would equal 1.0.

Beginning with the 2005-06 baseline data, risk ratios were calculated by race/ethnicity using 618 data and Westat’s calculation method. Prior to completing this calculation, multiracial students are prorated across other races. This is accomplished by: (1) subtotaling all races except multiracial, (2) determining the percent represented by each of these races, (3) multiplying the percent in each race by the number of multiracial students and (4) adding these numbers to the original subtotal.

Following proration of students identified as multiracial, the calculation is continued as follows:

Numerator = risk for racial/ethnic group of being identified as a student with a specific disability (Hispanic students identified as mentally handicapped/all Hispanic students) * 100

Denominator = risk for all other racial/ethnic groups of being identified as a student with a specific disability (all students, except Hispanic, identified as mentally handicapped/all students except Hispanic) * 100

For each disability category (mental retardation, specific learning disabilities, emotional disturbance, speech or language impairments, other health impairments, and autism), districts are defined as having significant disproportionate representation if their risk ratio is 2.0 or greater. Excluded from targeting are cases where the number of students with disabilities for a given race is less than 30.


After compiling risk ratios by district, it was determined that significant disproportionate representation (above 2.0) occurred in the white and black populations as displayed in Table 1. Significant disproportionate representation was not found for any other race.



Table 1: Number of Districts with Significant Disproportionate Representation by Specific Disability Categories

2005-06

Disability Category White Black Mental Retardation 1 48 Emotional Disturbance 2 33 Other Health Impairments 5 1 Specific Learning Disabilities 1 1 Speech/Language Impairments 1 Autism 6

It was found that the disproportionate representation displayed above was not a result of inappropriate identification.


For the 2005-06 school year, analysis by disability category at the state level revealed that in two of the six disability categories, the risk ratio exceeded 2.0. Black students have a risk ratio above 2.0 in both mental retardation (2.8) and emotional disturbance (2.1). After a review of the district level data for all exceptionality areas, and in order to prioritize technical assistance efforts, the State focused its examination of the risk ratio for all districts in the two areas identified at the state level and selected districts above 2.0 in both areas for further review. This resulted in the selection of 35 of the 67 school districts (52%) which were further examined to determine the baseline.

To determine if disproportionate representation in these districts was the result of inappropriate identification for this reporting, the State reviewed a proportion of the special education records of students identified as educable mentally handicapped and a proportion of the special education records of students identified as emotionally handicapped in grades K-5, within the last two years, in each of the thirty-five identified counties as well as reviewing policies, practices, and procedures in these districts, resulting in the baseline data described above.

There was a lack of clear evidence to support inappropriate eligibility and placement in the records reviewed due to race or ethnicity. Due to the systemic nature of the findings, the DOE will be providing technical assistance statewide (rather than to individual districts) pertaining to the concerns found during the record review. The DOE did not receive records from one school district, as requested. As a result, this district is being targeted for noncompliance.

The State’s monitoring team completed monitoring visits or reviews in the eight districts that were not included in the thirty-five (35) districts selected for further review of records. No instances were found to result in inappropriate identification of students with disabilities.

Due to the high number of records received for review, the DOE has determined that a revision in the data collection process for this indicator is needed. Instead of reviewing records off-site, districts will be required to implement a problem-solving process which may include a self-assessment of their records, and submit their results to the state. Districts will be encouraged to review school-level data to identify schools with high rates of identification of students in special education programs. The schools identified will be required to track students beginning with the request for assistance to the child study team from the teacher. It is hypothesized that the pre-referral/request for assistance level is where there will be disproportionate representation, since it is not found in the eligibility process.

In order to further investigate the issue of disproportionality in programs for mentally handicapped and emotionally handicapped, an additional analysis was conducted focusing on newly placed students. Newly placed students are defined as students placed for the first time in an MH or EH/SED program between July 1 and June 30 of the year of interest. For



this analysis, the number of students newly placed in programs of interest was calculated for 2003-04, 2004-05, and 2005-06 along with the racial/ethnic distribution of these students. The data tables below provide a summary of these data.

Students Newly Placed in MH Programs 2003-04 through 2005-06

Total White Black Hispanic Asian/Pacific

Islander

American Indian/

Alaskan Native Multiracial

2003-04 3,690 35.6% 41.6% 19.2% 1.1% 0.3% 2.2% 2004-05 3,755 37.5% 37.8% 20.7% 1.4% 0.3% 2.3% 2005-06 3,765 36.4% 37.6% 21.6% 1.4% 0.3% 2.8%

Change from 2003-04 to 2005-06 0.8% -4.0% 2.4% 0.3% 0.0% 0.6%

The number of students newly placed in MH programs remained fairly constant across the three years examined, although the distribution of these students across racial/ethnic categories shows a reduction in the percentage of black students from 2003-04 to 2005-06 of 4% (from 41.6% to 37.6%). It is likely that this reduction is a result of the efforts made by the Department and school districts in response to the Partnership Agreement entered into with the Office for Civil Rights in 2000. The Partnership Agreement covered a three-year period with the Department receiving notification in 2005 that no further monitoring was warranted. While the Partnership Agreement is no longer in effect, the Department has continued to work with districts regarding disproportionality issues, particularly those involving black students receiving services in MH programs.

Students Newly Placed in EH/SED Programs 2003-04 through 2005-06

Total White Black Hispanic Asian/Pacific

Islander

American Indian/

Alaskan Native Multiracial

2003-04 4,904 49.3% 33.5% 13.4% 0.3% 0.3% 3.2% 2004-05 5,111 49.9% 33.3% 13.1% 0.3% 0.4% 3.1% 2005-06 4,956 47.7% 33.9% 13.8% 0.3% 0.4% 3.9%

Change from 2003-04 to 2005-06 -1.6% 0.4% 0.4% 0.0% 0.1% 0.7%

A similar analysis conducted for students newly placed in EH/SED programs does not reveal the same progress being made. These data indicate a need for a renewed focus on the placement on black students in programs for EH/SED.

The data on newly placed students in special education programs will be used as an additional tool in working with districts having significant disproportionality issues.

In order to prioritize technical assistance efforts, the State, using the Westat model, examined the risk ratio for all districts for each disability category and targeted districts with a risk ratio of 2.0 or greater in any category for further review. This initial review excluded cell sizes of less than thirty (30), which is consistent with the accountability measures used statewide. This review resulted in the selection of 53 of the 67 school districts (79%) which were further examined to determine the tier of intervention the district will receive from the state. The State then looked at the risk ratio for newly placed students, students who have been found eligible to receive special education services within the past two school years. Districts with an overall risk ratio higher than 3.5 or a newly-placed risk ratio higher than 2.0 are considered to be significantly disproportionate. The State will be providing targeted assistance to these districts through the problem solving process, in order to assess if eligibility practices result in inappropriate identification.




2006 (2006-2007)


2007 (2007-2008)


2008 (2008-2009)


2009 (2009-2010)


2010 (2010-2011)


2011 (2011-2012)


2012 (2012-2013)




Revise eligibility rule for mentally handicapped programs.


Revise general supervision rules related to transferring students.


Review data to determine identification patterns.

July 2008 – August 2008 FLDOE/BEESS

Create plan with identified districts to target area(s) of need.

August 2008 – September 2008

FLDOE/BEESS Selected LEAs RtI PBS CARD RtI-TLC

Targeted districts complete self-evaluation.

July 2008 – June 2009 FLDOE/BEESS Selected LEAs

Targeted districts complete self-evaluation.

July 2010 – June 2011 FLDOE/BEESS Selected LEAs

2009-10 Provide support to targeted district(s) in response to findings of inappropriate identification.

July 2009 – June 2010 FLDOE/BEESS Selected LEAs RtI PBS



CARD RtI-TLC


November 2009 – February 2010

FLDOE/BEESS

Meet individually with selected December 2009 – January FLDOE/BEESS districts with continued data revealing disproportionate representation to target areas of need.

2010 Selected Districts





2010-11 Provide support to targeted district(s) in response to findings of inappropriate identification.




FLDOE/BEESS

Meet individually with selected December 2010 – January FLDOE/BEESS districts with continued data revealing disproportionate representation to target areas of need.

2011 Selected Districts



Require districts with data showing disproportionate representation to complete a self-assessment of a sampling of records, as well as provide clarification of policies and




procedures related to eligibility determination.







FLDOE/BEESS


December 2011 – January 2012

FLDOE/BEESS Selected Districts







Provide support to districts with disproportionate identification.

July 2012 – June 2013 FLDOE/BEESS SSS RtI PBS



FLDOE/BEESS


February 2013 – June 2013 FLDOE/BEESS SSS RtI PBS





Begin development of a protocol for determining whether disproportionate representation is due to inappropriate identification.

July 2012 – June 2013 FLDOE/BEESS SSS PBS




Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B

Indicator 11 – Percent of children who were evaluated within 60 days of receiving parental consent for initial evaluation or, if the State established a timeframe within which the evaluation must be conducted, within that timeframe.

Measurement:

a) # of children for whom parental consent to evaluate was received.

b) # of children whose evaluations were completed within 60 school days (or State-established timeline).

Account for children included in a but not included in b.

Indicate the range of days beyond the timeline when the evaluation was completed and any reasons for the delays.

Percent = [(b) divided by (a)] times 100.

Overview of Issue/Description of System or Process: Florida’s State Board of Education Rule 6A-6.0331, FAC, indicates the LEA shall ensure that students suspected of having a disability are evaluated within a period of time, not to exceed (60) school days of which the student is in attendance, or for pre-kindergarten children not to exceed sixty (60) school days after: completion of pre-referral interventions, the receipt of the referral for evaluation, and the receipt of parental consent for the evaluation.

Each LEA is required to outline in their Policies and Procedures for the Provision of Specially Designed Instruction and Related Services for Exceptional Students document what “receipt of referral” and “receipt of parental consent” mean and thereby define the initiation date of the 60-day timeline. Receipt of referral may not extend beyond 10 school days of receipt of parent consent.

Baseline data were collected via a form that each district was required to submit identifying components of the above measurement.


Statewide 45,150 students were referred, with parental consent, for evaluation. Ninety-two percent of the evaluations were completed within 60 school days.



2006 (2006-2007)

100% of students referred, with parental consent for evaluation, are evaluated within 60 school days of which the student is in attendance.

2007 (2007-2008)


2008 (2008-2009)


2009 (2009-2010)




2010 (2010-2011)


2011 (2011-2012)


2012 (2012-2013)



Activities Timelines Resources Identify the state rate for evaluation completion based on school year 2005-06.

Districts send data in by 10/6/06 FLDOE/BEESS

Identify and select districts that fall at 85% or below.

Districts notified of target 1/07 FLDOE/BEESS

Require districts to do self-assessment of those evaluations not completed within the 60-day timeline.

Complete self-assessment by March 23, 2007

FLDOE/BEESS

Identify and contact the 14 districts that have 100% compliance to identify best practices.

February – March 2007 FLDOE/BEESS

Request that all districts develop plan of initiatives/strategies to increase rate of evaluation completion, if not already at 100%.

To be sent in with District Special Program and Procedures

FLDOE/BEESS

2007-08 Review 2006-07 data and compare to previous year and identify % of districts that have improved and identify districts that will be targeted for 2007-08 who are below the state’s rate of 93% (14 districts).

February 2008 FLDOE/BEESS SSS

Hold series of conference calls with all districts to identify barriers to reaching 100%.

April – May 2008 FLDOE/BEESS SSS

Districts will initiate a self-assessment to determine causes of delays in evaluations.

April 2008 FLDOE/BEESS SSS

2008-09 Review 2007-08 data and compare to previous year and identify % of districts that have improved and identify districts that will be targeted for 2008-09 who are below the state’s rate.




Notify targeted districts with requirement for submission of strategic plan to increase their rate of completion.


Hold series of conference calls with all districts to identify barriers to reaching 100%.

April – May 2009 FLDOE/BEESS SSS

Districts will initiate a self-assessment to determine causes of delays in evaluations.


2009-10 Review 2008-09 data and compare to previous year and identify % of districts that have improved and identify districts that will be targeted for 2009-10 who are below 100%.


Notify targeted districts with requirement for submission of strategic plan to increase their rate of completion.


Require districts to implement a problem solving process to determine causes of delays in evaluations.


Review plans and provide technical assistance as needed.

June 2010 FLDOE/BEESS SSS

2010-11 Review 2009-10 data and compare with previous year’s data. Identify districts that have improved percentage rates and identify districts targeted for noncompliance that did not achieve 100%.

December 2010 FLDOE/BEESS SSS

Districts achieving 100% will resume implementation of plan to ensure continued compliance for 2010-11.

December 2010 – June 2011 FLDOE/BEESS SSS

Districts with rates under 100% begin sampling of data for correction of noncompliance. Sampling results showing 100% compliance must be documented to show timely corrective action conducted by the district and verified by the FLDOE.

January 2011 – June 2011 FLDOE/BEESS SSS

Review targeted district plan(s) and provide technical assistance, as needed.


2011-2012 Review 2010-11 data and compare with previous year’s data. Identify districts that have




improved percentage rates and identify districts targeted for noncompliance that did not achieve 100%. Districts achieving 100% will resume implementation of plan to ensure continued compliance for 2011-12.






2012-2013 Review 2011-12 data and compare with previous year’s data. Identify districts that have improved percentage rates and identify districts targeted for noncompliance that did not achieve 100%.


Districts achieving 100% will resume implementation of plan to ensure continued compliance for 2012-13.









Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B/ Effective Transition

Indicator 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.

Measurement:

a. # of children who have been served in Part C and referred to Part B for Part B eligibility determination.

b. # of those referred determined to be NOT eligible and whose eligibility was determined prior to their third birthdays.

c. # of those found eligible who have an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthdays.

d. # of children for whom parent refusal to provide consent caused delays in evaluation or initial services.

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)] times 100.


Both the Florida Department of Education (FDOE) and the Department of Health (DOH) Early Steps Program have policies that reflect the federal requirements related to transition of children exiting Part C to the Part B preschool program. State Board of Education Rule 6A6.03028(9), Florida Administrative Code, requires that a child exiting Part C has an IEP or IFSP developed and implemented by the child’s third birthday. Additionally, the rule requires that school districts participate in transition planning conferences arranged by the Early Steps Program. Corresponding requirements are found in the Department of Health’s policy and procedures guidance documents which state that the Early Steps Program must notify school districts and refer, with parental consent, children who are potentially eligible for the Part B preschool program. Additionally, school districts must be invited to participate in a transition meeting which must be scheduled at least 90 days prior to child’s third birthday. School districts and Early Steps Programs develop interagency transition agreements in order to facilitate this process on the local level.

The Department of Health collects and reports data for the purpose of providing OSEP required exit data for Part C eligible children. Additionally, the Department of Education funds the Children’s Registry and Information System (CHRIS) which is a statewide registry of young children ages birth to seven with high risk or disabling conditions. This database registry is managed by the Florida Diagnostic and Learning Resources System (FDLRS), in conjunction with school districts, to support child find activities.

Florida continues to experience difficulty coordinating reliable data collection across Part C and Part B to be able to assess with some level of certainty the performance of the transition system for children exiting Part C to Part B.



FDOE (Part B) and the Department of Health (Part C) have crafted an interagency agreement to allow data sharing between agencies in order to address this indicator. The agreement was signed by the DOH on November 10, 2005 and by the DOE on December 5, 2005.


a = 3,702

b = 17

c = 1,076

(1,076/3,685) = 29%

Students with IEP developed and implemented: within 30 days of their third birthday = (776/2570) 30% within 45 days of their third birthday = (251/2570) 10% within 60 days of their third birthday = (176/2570) 7% within 90 days of their third birthday = (251/2570) 10%

Children included in a but not included in b, c or d:

Students referred and pending evaluation: prior to third birthday = 2 after third birthday = 6

Students determined eligible but not placed: prior to third birthday = 2 after third birthday = 4

Students determined ineligible after third birthday = 25


The data reported above is based on the first effort to merge data from two distinct databases. Challenges encountered in this process involved differing data definitions and comparability. Nevertheless, only 29% of this group of children had a developed IEP that was being implemented by their third birthday.


2005 (2005-2006)

100% of children served and referred by Part C prior to age 3, who are found eligible for Part B, have an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthday.

2006 (2006-2007)


2007 (2007-2008)


2008 (2008-2009)


2009 (2009-2010)


2010 100% of children served and referred by Part C prior to age 3, who are found



(2010-2011) eligible for Part B, have an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthday.

2011 (2011-2012)


2012 (2012-2013)




Exchange data in accordance with interagency agreement on an annual basis.

Annual data exchange beginning December 2005 and continuing for the duration of the agreement

FLDOE/BEESS FLDOH/Early Steps FLDOE student database

Develop process to monitor implementation of data sharing agreement.

April 2006 FLDOE/BEESS FLDOH/Early Steps

Conduct data verification process across three data systems (DOH Early Steps, DOE state student database, and CHRIS).

Annual process beginning in 2006

FLDOE/BEESS CHRIS FLDOH/Early Steps

Complete and disseminate jointly developed technical assistance paper on transition policies.

March, 2006 FLDOE/BEESS FLDOH/Early Steps

Support school districts and Early Steps local providers in development and maintenance of interagency agreements that improve and facilitate transition of children at age three.

2005 – 2006 State-level Florida’s Transition Project team TATS

2006-07 Exchange data on an annual basis in accordance with the interagency agreement.

2006 – 2007 FLDOE/BEESS FLDOH/Early Steps FLDOE student database

Conduct data verification process across three data systems (DOH Early Steps, DOE state student database, and CHRIS).

2006 – 2007 FLDOE/BEESS CHRIS FLDOH/Early Steps

Develop and implement monitoring protocol based on analysis of newly available transition data; maintain collaboration with DOH Early Steps staff on protocol, findings, and corrective actions required of school districts.

2006 – 2007 FLDOE/BEESS FLDOH/Early Steps

Support school districts and 2006 – 2007 State-level Florida’s Transition



Early Steps local providers in development and maintenance of interagency agreements that improve and facilitate transition of children at age three.

Project team TATS

Provide technical assistance and training on strategies that support effective transition practices.

2006 – 2007 FLDOE/BEESS TATS


October 2007 FLDOE/BEESS FLDOH/Early Steps FLDOE student database

District data verification activity.

November 2007 – January 2008

FLDOE/BEESS staff FLDOH/Early Steps


July 2007 – June 2008 FLDOE/BEESS TATS NECTC SERRC FLDOH/Early Steps NECTAC

Support school districts and Local Early Steps in the development and maintenance of interagency agreements that improve and facilitate transition of children at age three.

July 2007 – June 2008 TATS Florida’s Transition Project

Revise and disseminate the previously developed technical assistance paper on transition policies.




District data verification activity.




July 2008 – June 2009 FLDOE/BEESS TATS NECTC SERRC FLDOH/Early Steps NECTAC



Revise and disseminate the previously developed technical




assistance paper on transition policies.



Conduct district data verification activity.




July 2009 – June 2010 FLDOE/BEESS TATS NECTC FLDOH/Early Steps NECTAC FDLRS





















Provide technical assistance July 2011 – June 2012 FLDOE/BEESS



and training on strategies that support effective transition practices.

TATS NECTC FLDOH/Early Steps NECTAC FDLRS



Require districts that did not have 100% compliance to submit report of sampling records to show correction of noncompliance.

February 2012 – June 2012 FLDOE/BEESS










Revise and disseminate the previously developed Technical Assistance Paper on transition policies.





Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B/Effective Transition

Indicator 13 – 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.


FLDOE/BEESS, implements a statewide monitoring self-assessment system which includes Indicator 13. A sampling plan identifies the number of student records to be reviewed as well as any criteria that must be applied when selecting student records. BEESS staff validates the accuracy of data obtained from the districts’ self-assessment through a desk review of student records.


During the 2009-10 fiscal year, five-hundred and eighty-seven IEPs were evaluated in 71 districts. Of the 587 IEP records of students ages 16 and older reviewed, 483 (82.3%) included appropriate measurable postsecondary goals that were annually updated and based upon an age appropriate transition assessment, transition services, including courses of study, that would reasonably enable the student to meet those postsecondary goals, and annual IEP goals related to the student’s transition services needs. Evidence that the student was invited to the IEP Team meeting where transition services were 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 were also evaluated.


In the 2009-10 fiscal year, 587 IEP records were evaluated through self-assessment in 71 districts. Subsequently, BEESS staff validated the findings. Of the 587 records reviewed, 483 (82.3%) met the measurable and rigorous target defined by OSEP. Of the 104 (17.7%) records that did not meet the target, the standards with the greatest frequency of noncompliance included measurable postsecondary goals and age-appropriate transition



assessment, followed by transition services that will reasonably enable the student to meet the postsecondary goals and measurable annual goals. 35 districts (49.3%) had at least one finding of noncompliance on this standard.


2005 (2005-2006)

100% of youth age 16 and above have IEPs that include coordinated, measurable, annual IEP goals and transition services that will reasonably enable the student to meet the post-secondary goals.

2006 (2006-2007)


2007 (2007-2008)


2008 (2008-2009)


2009 (2009-2010)

100% of youth with IEPs aged 16 and above have 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.

2010 (2010-2011)


2011 (2011-2012)


2012 (2012-2013)

100% of youth with IEPs aged 16 and above have 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.



For the districts monitored in 2007-08 that do not have 100% compliance, within one year of their visit, the IEP team must provide documentation that the identified records have been corrected.


For districts monitored in 200708 whose noncompliance is systemic (i.e., evident in > 25% of IEPs reviewed) and due to transition findings based on the Self-Assessment for Secondary Transition require documentation of staff participation in relevant workshops for improvement as part of their corrective action plan.

July 2008 – June 2009 FLDOE/BEESS AMP Project 10 FDLRS

Provide technical assistance on appropriate use of the Transition Checklist.



July 2008 – June 2009 FLDOE/BEESS Transition Steering Committee NSTTAC NDPC/SD

Technical assistance, training, and relevant information will be provided to districts regarding implementation of transition services consistent with IDEA 2004, including I-13 requirements.

July 2008 – June 2009 FLDOE/BEESS Project 10 AMP FDLRS

2009-10 For the districts monitored in 2008-09 that do not have 100% compliance, within one year of their visit, the IEP team must provide documentation that the identified records have been corrected.




For districts monitored in 200809 whose noncompliance is systemic (i.e., evident in > 25% of IEPs reviewed) and due to transition findings based on the Self-Assessment for Secondary Transition require documentation of staff participation in relevant workshops for improvement as part of their corrective action plan.

July 2009 – June 2010 FLDOE/BEESS AMP Project 10 FDLRS

Provide technical assistance on appropriate use of the Transition Checklist.



July 2009 – June 2010 FLDOE/BEESS Transition Steering Committee NSTTAC NDPC/SD

Technical assistance, training, and relevant information will be provided to districts regarding implementation of transition services consistent with IDEA 2004, including I-13 requirements.


2010-11 For each individual incident of noncompliance identified through self-assessment during 2009-10, BEESS will ensure that each district corrects each incident within 60 days of receipt of the preliminary report and provides evidence of the action taken to correct it. If individual correction is not possible, BEESS will require the district to identify the policy, procedure, or practice that caused the noncompliance and provide evidence of the action taken to ensure future compliance.


In addition to individual correction procedures, BEESS will require the district to demonstrate that it is implementing the targeted standard(s) 100 percent of the time no later than one year from identification through sampling procedures.




If 100 percent compliance cannot be demonstrated through sampling within 60 days of the preliminary report, BEESS will require the district to develop and implement a CAP to address the root cause of the noncompliance and achieve the goal of 100 percent compliance as soon as possible but in no case later than one year from identification.


Districts selected for targeting will receive assistance in developing and monitoring an improvement plan to focus on evaluation of self-assessment data, local policies and procedures, and needed training and technical assistance for the purposes of continuous improvement and sustaining effective transition planning.


Training materials and resources related to implementation of transition services consistent with IDEA 2004, focusing on Indicator 13 requirements, will be updated and disseminated statewide.


Training and technical assistance to facilitate compliance with Indicator 13 requirements will be provided statewide on a scheduled and request basis.




For each individual incident of noncompliance identified through self-assessment during 2009-10, BEESS will ensure that each district corrects each incident within 60 days of receipt of the preliminary report and provides evidence of the action taken to correct it. If individual correction is not possible, BEESS will require the district to identify the policy, procedure, or practice that caused the noncompliance and provide evidence of the action taken to ensure future compliance.


In addition to individual correction procedures, BEESS will require




the district to demonstrate that it is implementing the targeted standard(s) 100 percent of the time no later than one year from identification through sampling procedures. If 100 percent compliance cannot be demonstrated through sampling within 60 days of the preliminary report, BEESS will require the district to develop and implement a CAP to address the root cause of the noncompliance and achieve the goal of 100 percent compliance as soon as possible but in no case later than one year from identification.










For each individual incident of noncompliance identified through self-assessment during 2009-10, BEESS will ensure that each district corrects each incident within 60 days of receipt of the preliminary report and provides evidence of the action taken to correct it. If individual correction is not possible, BEESS will require the district to identify the policy, procedure, or practice that




caused the noncompliance and provide evidence of the action taken to ensure future compliance. In addition to individual correction procedures, BEESS will require the district to demonstrate that it is implementing the targeted standard(s) 100 percent of the time no later than one year from identification through sampling procedures.


If 100 percent compliance cannot be demonstrated through sampling within 60 days of the preliminary report, BEESS will require the district to develop and implement a CAP to address the root cause of the noncompliance and achieve the goal of 100 percent compliance as soon as possible but in no case later than one year from identification.











Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B/Effective Transition

Indicator 14 – 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: State selected data source.

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.


Since its inception in 1988, the Florida Education & Training Placement Information Program (FETPIP) system has been used to collect data on post school education and employment, military enlistments, and other measures of success of former participants in Florida’s educational programs, including students with disabilities. The data are representative of all student exiters, including students with disabilities as linking is conducted for the entire population of exiters rather than a sample. FETPIP gathers these data from various sources using record linkage techniques. This method links common data elements in different databases and combines them into aggregated reports to answer questions of accountability. Data linkages involve records from the Florida Department of Education, Florida Department of Corrections, Florida Department of Children and Families, Florida Agency for Workforce Innovation, U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Postal Service, and the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.



Baseline Data from 2008-09 (FFY 2009):

For baseline data and beyond, Florida will continue use of the existing Florida Education & Training Placement Information Program (FETPIP) data system for reporting post-school outcome data for students with disabilities.

Of the 21,483 exiters in 2008-09, FETPIP results reflect the following: 1. 5,781 exiters were enrolled in higher education within one year of leaving high

school. 2. 2,249 exiters were competitively employed within one year of leaving high school (but

not enrolled in higher education). 3. 1,134 exiters were enrolled in some other postsecondary education or training

program within one year of leaving high school (but not enrolled in higher education or competitively employed).

4. 1,596 exiters were engaged in some other employment within one year of leaving high school (but not enrolled in higher education, some other postsecondary education or training program, or competitively employed).

Thus, A. 27% of exiters (5,781/21,483) were found enrolled in higher education within one

year of leaving high school. B. 37% of exiters (8,030/21,483) were found in higher education or competitively

employed within one year of leaving high school. C. 50% of exiters (10,760/21,483) were found 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.


Florida’s new baseline for the SPP-APR process reflects postschool outcomes of 2008-09 exiters using data collected during the subsequent school year. Factors influencing the baseline data include Florida’s expanded efforts to promote access to postsecondary education for students with disabilities and Florida’s unemployment rate, which has has soared over the past two years.


2005 (2005-2006)

55.2% percent of youth who had IEPs and are no longer in secondary school will be found competitively employed, enrolled in some type of postsecondary school, or both, within one year of leaving high school.

2006 (2006-2007)


2007 (2007-2008)


2008 (2008-2009)


2009 (2009-2010)

A. 27% of youth exiting in 2008-09 who are no longer in secondary school, had IEPs in effect at the time they left school, were found enrolled in higher education within one year of leaving high school.

B. 37% of youth exiting in 2008-09 who are no longer in secondary school, had



IEPs in effect at the time they left school, were found in higher education or competitively employed within one year of leaving high school.

C. 50% of youth exiting in 2008-09 who are no longer in secondary school, had IEPs in effect at the time they left school, were found 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.

2010 (2010-2011)

A. 27.5% of youth exiting in 2009-10 who are no longer in secondary school, had IEPs in effect at the time they left school, were found enrolled in higher education within one year of leaving high school.

B. 37.5% of youth exiting in 2009-10 who are no longer in secondary school, had IEPs in effect at the time they left school, were found in higher education or competitively employed within one year of leaving high school.

C. 50.5% of youth exiting in 2009-10 who are no longer in secondary school, had IEPs in effect at the time they left school, were found 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.

2011 (2011-2012)

A. 28% of youth exiting in 2010-11 who are no longer in secondary school, had IEPs in effect at the time they left school, were found enrolled in higher education within one year of leaving high school.

B. 38% of youth exiting in 2010-11 who are no longer in secondary school, had IEPs in effect at the time they left school, were found in higher education or competitively employed within one year of leaving high school.

C. 51% of youth exiting in 2010-11 who are no longer in secondary school, had IEPs in effect at the time they left school, were found 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.

2012 (2012-2013)

A. 28.5% of youth exiting in 2011-12 who are no longer in secondary school and had IEPs in effect at the time they left school were found enrolled in higher education within one year of leaving high school.

B. 38.5% of youth exiting in 2011-12 who are no longer in secondary school and had IEPs in effect at the time they left school were found in higher education or competitively employed within one year of leaving high school.

C. 51.5% of youth exiting in 2011-12 who are no longer in secondary school and had IEPs in effect at the time they left school were found 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.


Activities Timelines Resources Provide technical assistance, training, information, and support to facilitate agency involvement and linkages in transition planning processes prior to students exiting secondary school.

July 2008 – June 2009 July 2009 – June 2010

FLDOE/BEESS Project 10 FDLRS

Provide technical assistance, July 2008 – June 2009 FLDOE/BEESS



training, and relevant information to assist districts with development and implementation of meaningful transition services for students with disabilities.

July 2009 – June 2010 Project 10 FDLRS

Increase technical assistance, July 2008 – June 2009 FLDOE/BEESS training, information, and July 2009 – June 2010 Project 10 collaboration with postsecondary FDLRS education and training partners Workforce Education, Career and to increase participation of Technical Education students with disabilities in Division of Community Colleges Career and Technical Education Board of Governor’s State programs and postsecondary University System education and training options. Adult Basic Education Provide technical assistance, training, and information to districts on A++, including the development of effective major areas of interest for students with disabilities.

July 2008 – June 2009 July 2009 – June 2010


Conduct focus groups in diverse July 2008 – June 2009 FLDOE/BEESS areas of the state with students, July 2009 – June 2010 Transition Steering Committee parents, caregivers, and teachers National Secondary Transition and analyze data to determine Technical Assistance Center factors that contribute to Indicator (NSTTAC) 1, 2, 13, and 14 outcomes; and National Dropout Prevention use data to develop an action Center for Students with plan of strategic activities. Disabilities (NDPC/SD)

2010-2011 Provide technical assistance, training, information, and support to facilitate agency involvement and linkages in transition planning processes prior to students exiting secondary school.

July 2010 – June 2011 FLDOE/BEESS Project 10 FDLRS



Increase technical assistance, July 2010 – June 2011 FLDOE/BEESS training, information, and Project 10 collaboration with postsecondary FDLRS education and training partners Project STING RAY to increase participation of Florida Consortium students with disabilities in State Secondary Transition Career and Technical Education Interagency Committee (SSTIC) programs and postsecondary Governor’s Commission on education and training options. Disabilities Provide technical assistance, July 2010 – June 2011 FLDOE/BEESS training and information to Project 10 districts on Senate Bill 4 and new FDLRS graduation requirements.







Increase technical assistance, July 2011 – June 2012 FLDOE/BEESS training, information, and Project 10 collaboration with postsecondary FDLRS education and training partners Project STING RAY to increase participation of Florida Consortium students with disabilities in State Secondary Transition Career and Technical Education Interagency Committee (SSTIC) programs and postsecondary Governor’s Commission on education and training options. Disabilities Provide technical assistance, training, and information to districts on graduation requirements.






Increase technical assistance, July 2012 – June 2013 FLDOE/BEESS training, information, and Project 10 collaboration with postsecondary FDLRS education and training partners Project STING RAY to increase participation of Florida Consortium students with disabilities in State Secondary Transition Career and Technical Education Interagency Committee (SSTIC) programs and postsecondary Governor’s Commission on education and training options. Disabilities Provide technical assistance, training, and information to districts on graduation requirements.





Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B/General Supervision

Indicator 15 – General supervision system (including monitoring, complaints, hearings, etc.) identifies and corrects noncompliance as soon as possible but in no case later than one year from identification.

Per instructions in response table, revised for 2006-07 APR submitted February 2008:

Measurement:

Percent of noncompliance corrected within one year of identification:

a. # of findings of noncompliance b. # of corrections completed as soon as possible but in no case later than one year from

identification.

Percent = [(b) divided by (a)] times 100.

For any noncompliance not corrected within one year of identification, describe what actions, including technical assistance and enforcement actions that the State has taken.


The Florida Department of Education, Bureau of Exceptional Education and Student Services, Exceptional Student Education (ESE) Program Administration and Quality Assurance Section is responsible for the ESE administrative and quality assurance activities within the state’s school districts, including the Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind, four University Lab Schools, and the Department of Corrections’ prisons. The section has two units of operation, Monitoring and Dispute Resolution.

In addition, the Bureau has established SPP Indicator Teams that identify districts for participation in targeted planning activities related to specific SPP indicators. The Indicator Teams review each district’s data relative to an indicator, and determine what type of intervention or assistance might be needed for a given district. For some indicators, districts are required to conduct targeted planning activities or to develop action or improvement plans to address identified areas of concern or noncompliance. A team-based problem-solving approach is encouraged for districts involved in this process. Note: The activities and plans undertaken by the SPP Indicator Teams have replaced the Continuous Improvement Plan process previously employed by the Bureau.

Monitoring Stakeholders Workgroup

A workgroup was established in 1999 to provide input and guidance on the development of focused monitoring. The representatives of families, school districts, and other agencies continue to meet two times per year, more often if needed, to review annual findings and changes in the monitoring process. The indicators for the SPP were presented to this group for initial input. The workgroup will be restructured in 2006 to encompass the work of the Dispute Resolution Unit.

Monitoring System

The Monitoring office has established a two-pronged system of ESE monitoring and oversight. This system includes both (1) focused monitoring of selected districts and (2) continuous improvement plans for all districts in the state. The system is designed to emphasize improved outcomes for students while continuing to include those activities necessary to ensure compliance with all applicable federal and state requirements. In order to ensure that corrective actions and improvement strategies have been implemented by districts through these monitoring



activities to promote long-term effects, verification activities have been included in the system. While much of the focus of FDOE’s existing monitoring system is on the specific issues addressed in OSEP’s monitoring priority areas and indicators, the alignment is not as complete as we would like. As a result, the FDOE is planning to revise its monitoring system to more closely reflect the monitoring priority areas and indicators established by OSEP for the SPP. Currently, the monitoring system in Florida includes the following activities conducted annually:

Focused Monitoring: Each year eight districts are selected for focused monitoring on the basis of key data indicators (percentage of students with disabilities participating in regular classes, dropout rate for students with disabilities, participation in statewide assessments by students with disabilities, and percentage of students with disabilities exiting with a standard diploma(, for the purposes of (1) assisting the district in determining what factors may be impacting student outcomes on the targeted indicator and (2) carrying out compliance reviews, system improvement plans (SIPs) address findings related to factors that impact the key data indicator under investigation in a given district (e.g., limited staff development opportunities related to effective instruction in inclusive settings( as well as specific items or patterns of noncompliance with prescribed policies or procedures (e.g., lack of measurable annual goals).

Focused Monitoring/Verification: Verification visits are conducted two years after a district has been focus monitored for the purpose of verifying the on-going effectiveness of the corrective actions implemented through the districts’ SIPs. Verification monitoring begins with a review of current data, including analysis of the documentation submitted by the district in response to any corrective actions. If, through the data review process, it is determined that a district has successfully addressed findings of noncompliance and that current performance on the key data indicator reflects effective use of interventions, then the on-site visit may be waived.

Continuous Improvement Plans: All 67 districts in the state engage in the continuous improvement process under the supervision of the Bureau. During the 2001-02 school year districts collected and analyzed data on key data indicators they identified as having the greatest potential for improvement. Note: Fourteen districts were required to select disproportionality as their key data indicator in response to the Bureau’s Partnership Agreement with the USDOE Office for Civil Rights. Based on those data reviews, continuous improvement plans (CIPs) were developed and implemented using the 2002-03 school year; they are on-going and subject to semi-annual review and revision. Note: During the 2006-07 school year the Bureau discontinued the use of continuous improvement plans as the activities were redundant with the activities conducted by the SPP indicator teams described above.

Continuous Improvement Plans/Verification: The Bureau visits between two and four districts selected at random for the purposes of (1) verifying the districts’ implementation of their CIPs and (2) carrying out compliance reviews of policies. As a result of these visits, districts may be required to develop a SIP to address required corrective actions, or they may be required to revise their existing CIP to include additional strategies to affect outcomes including evidence of change and the required corrective actions, depending on the nature of the findings. Note: During the 2006-07 school year the Bureau discontinued the use of continuous improvement plans as the activities were redundant with the activities conducted by the SPP indicator teams described above.

The instruments and procedures used to identify and correct IDEA compliance for monitoring include a comprehensive set of Work Papers and Source Books written for each monitoring process, reviewed and updated annually. A Compliance Manual is in place and updated annually. These documents identify compliance and procedural expectations for the monitoring processes. For each type of monitoring visit, activities are designed to address the specific areas of concern for a given LEA (e.g., factors related to the focused monitoring indicator; factors related to the strategies identified by districts through their continuous improvement plans). In addition, the Bureau also investigates supplemental compliance areas determined to be of concern. These areas are identified based on the results of trend analyses conducted by Bureau staff and monitoring activities conducted by the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), and by the Office for Civil Rights (OCR), as well as other quality assurance



activities of the Department. The additional compliance areas investigated in 2003-04 were related to the provision of: speech and language services as related services; counseling as a related service, including psychological counseling; and, translation services. Targeted interview protocols and record reviews are used to examine the policies and procedures related to these issues.

Specific compliance and procedural issues cited as findings though the monitoring process are required to be resolved by a date designated by Bureau staff, not to exceed 90 days. In addition, some findings require long-term intervention in order to ensure continued effectiveness of corrective actions. For findings of a systemic nature, districts are expected to implement interventions for a period of at least one year, with follow-up status reports submitted semiannually for an additional year.

Selection of Districts for Monitoring: During the 2003-04 fiscal year, the Department of Education monitoring team conducted monitoring visits to 21 of the state’s 67 school districts. Of those, eight were focused monitoring visits, ten were verification visits of districts monitored two years prior, and two were randomly selected for verification of their continuous improvement self-assessment plans. In addition, a cyclical visit of one special facility was also conducted (i.e., Department of Corrections).

The four key data indicators utilized for district selection for focused monitoring during 2003-04 were percentage of students with disabilities participating in regular classes (i.e., spending at least 80% of the school day with their nondisabled peers), dropout rate for students with disabilities, percentage of students with disabilities exiting with a standard diploma, and participation in statewide assessments by students with disabilities. Districts were rank-ordered on their performance on each of these data indicators, districts recently monitored were removed from the list, and the two lowest ranking districts for each indicator were selected for focused monitoring. The additional four districts were then selected at random from the remaining districts

Enforcement/Accountability: Districts are required to submit semi-annual status reports on any system improvement plans or continuous improvement plans that they have in place under the Bureau’s oversight. Corrective actions related to noncompliance identified though the monitoring process are traced though the submission of these reports. Some areas of non-compliance may result in a fund adjustment, while others may require the reconvening of the IEP team.

The following actions are taken when there is no evidence that the noncompliance has been corrected: Phone contact is made to the district by the designated program specialist. If the district reports the correction has occurred, evidence and/or documentation is submitted and reviewed. If the correction has not occurred, the corrective action plan is revised and the district is required to access technical assistance provided by designated Bureau staff and/or discretionary projects. Verification monitoring, including data review and possible site-visits are conducted two years subsequent to the on-site visit to determine on-going compliance.

Enforcement activities have recently been addressed by the Monitoring Stakeholders’ Workgroup. Activities will be reviewed by the Bureau leadership and included in forthcoming monitoring Work Papers. A new database management system is being developed which will also enable the bureau to communicate with LEAs in advance of designated dates of compliance.

Dispute Resolution

Responsibilities/Activities of the Dispute Resolution unit included the following: facilitation of informal resolution at the local level, provision of mediation, investigation of formal complaints, and oversight of the due process hearing system. Bureau staff responds to parent calls and correspondence regarding concerns related to the education of their children with disabilities and facilitating communication between the parents and the districts. Information and resources are also provided to parents and districts to assist in the resolution of the issues. When the issues cannot be resolved informally at the local level, parents may request mediation, file a formal complaint, and/or request a due process hearing.



Mediation: Mediation requests are received and processed by Bureau staff with contracted mediators provided at no cost to the parents or the district. Formal complaints are investigated by Bureau staff who offer mediation and early resolution to the complainants and the districts. If both parties agree to mediation, the complaint investigation is placed in abeyance pending the outcome of the mediation process (which usually takes place within two weeks of the request). If the parties agree to early resolution, a meeting is held between the complainant and the district to attempt to reach agreement regarding the issues of the formal complaint. If agreement is reached, the Bureau must approve and enforce the agreement.

State Complaint: For formal complaints that proceed to full investigation, both parties are provided an opportunity of the provision of documentation regarding the complainant’s allegations and the district’s response. Following review of documentation and other inquiry activities that may include telephone interviews, records reviews, and/or on-site visits, a report is issued with findings of fact, conclusions, reasons for the decision and recommendations and/or corrective action(s) as appropriate. A due process hearing may be requested in addition to a request for mediation and/or the filing of a formal complaint. If all three are requested, the mediation occurs first (if both parties agree to mediate). If the complaint issues are the same as the issues to be addressed in the due process hearing, the complaint inquiry is placed in abeyance pending the outcome of the due process hearing. If there are issues in the complaint that are not a part of the due process hearing, investigation of these issues may proceed at the same time the due process hearing is pending. Complaint issues that are not addressed in due process may be investigated following the completion of the due process hearing.

Due Process Hearings: Due process hearing requests are submitted by parents to the LEA, and forwarded by the LEA to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH), the agency that provides the hearings. Administrative Law Judges (ALJs), who are employed by DOAH and provided training by the Florida Department of Education (FDOE), make determinations regarding the cases and provide information to the Bureau. FDOE houses the records following completion of the cases and provides oversight for the system (timelines, review of orders, training of ALJs, etc.).

Data related to the corrective actions identified through complaints and due process are maintained by the Bureau in a Microsoft Access database.

Baseline Data from FFY 2004 (2003-2004)—15A and 15B:

Table 1. Findings of Noncompliance (Monitoring (M) / Dispute Resolution (DR) / Total (T)

15A (a & b)

Findings of Noncompliance (a)

Total Corrections made within One Year (b)

Percent of Findings Corrected within One

Year

Findings related to Monitoring Priorities

M DR T M DR T M DR T

37 6 43 27 6 33 73% 100% 77%

15B (a & b)

Findings of Noncompliance (a)

Total Corrections made within One Year (b)

Percent of Findings Corrected within One

Year

Findings not related to Monitoring Priorities

M DR T M DR T M DR T

178 38 216 174 33 207 98% 87% 96%



Totals for all findings M DR T M DR T M DR T

215 44 259 201 39 240 93% 89% 93%


Findings of noncompliance identified thought the monitoring process and through other mechanisms (i.e., state complaints; due process hearings) are reported in Table 1 above. These activities occurred prior to OSEP’s establishment of the SPP monitoring priority areas and indicators. As a result, a greater proportion of the findings are in areas determined to be unrelated to the monitoring priority areas rather than related to them.

A. The percent of non compliance related monitoring priority areas and indicators corrected within one year of identification.

There were 43 findings of noncompliance related to the monitoring priority areas and indicators identified during the designated time period (i.e., 37 identified though monitoring; 6 identified though dispute resolution). Of those, 27 of the monitoring findings (73%) and 6 of the dispute resolution findings (100%) were corrected within a year, 5 were completed as of November 2005; 2 were delayed as a result of hurricanes that disrupted the school year and currently are being completed; and, 3 reflect findings where additional technical assistance was provided by the Bureau and corrections are being completed at this time.

B. The percent of noncompliance related to areas not included in the above monitoring priority areas and indicators corrected within one year of identification.

There were 216 findings of noncompliance unrelated to the monitoring priority areas and indicators identified during the designated time period (i.e., 178 identified though monitoring; 38 identified though dispute resolution). Of those, 174 of the monitoring findings (98%) and 33 of the dispute resolution findings (87%) were corrected within a year, for a total timely completion rate of 96%. Of the 4 monitoring findings that were not corrected within a year, 1 was completed as of November 2005, and 3 reflect findings where additional technical assistance was provided by the Bureau and corrections are being completed at this time. Of the 5 dispute resolution findings that were not corrected within a year, 2 are not yet due, and 3 have been contacted by the Bureau with technical assistance to facilitate completion. The noncompliance in unrelated areas generally represented IEP content, notice to parents, and eligibility.

Baseline Data from FFY 2004 (2004-2005)—15C: In order to be consistent with the baseline data for monitoring, data for 2003-2004 are provided.

15. C- Percent of noncompliance identified though other mechanisms (complaints, due process hearings, mediations, etc.) corrected within one year of identification: 93%

a. # of agencies in which noncompliance was identified though other mechanisms: 17 b. # of findings of noncompliance made: 42 c. # of corrections completed as soon as possible but in no case later than one year from identification: 39

Discussion of Baseline Data—15.C:

Of the 3 findings of noncompliance for which corrective actions were not completed within one year of identification, two were for a charter school; both the local education agency (LEA) and the Bureau attempted to work with the charter school to provide technical assistance to facilitate completion as soon as possible. Although the corrective actions were not completed within a year, the Bureau received verification that the corrective actions had been completed within fifteen months following identification.



For the other finding of noncompliance for which the corrective action was not completed within one year of identification, the LEA requested technical assistance from the Bureau.


2005 (2005-2006)

15 A – 100 percent of noncompliance findings related to monitoring priority areas and indicators corrected within one year of identification.

15 B – 100 percent of noncompliance findings related to areas not included in the above monitoring priority areas and indicators are corrected within one year of identification.

15 C – 100 percent of noncompliance findings identified though other mechanisms (complaints, due process hearings, mediations, etc.) are corrected within one year of identification.

2006 (2006-2007)

15 A – 100 percent of noncompliance findings related to monitoring priority areas and indicators corrected within one year of identification.

15 B – 100 percent of noncompliance findings related to areas not included in the above monitoring priority areas and indicators are corrected within one year of identification.

15 C – 100 percent of noncompliance findings identified though other mechanisms (complaints, due process hearings, mediations, etc.) are corrected within one year of identification.

Revised Measurable and Rigorous Target: Based on guidance provided to Florida in its Part B FFY 2005 SPP/APR Response Table, the state is revising its target for all subsequent years as follows:

100 percent of noncompliance findings identified through the general supervision system will be corrected as soon as possible, but in no case later than one year from identification.

2007 (2007-2008)


2008 (2008-2009)


2009 (2009-2010)


2010 (2010-2011)


2011 (2011-2012)


2012 (2012-2013)





Activities Timelines Resources 2006-2007 through 2008-2009

Implement IDEA 2004 regulations by developing and/or revising guidance, forms, Technical Assistance Papers, and State Board of Education Rules.

Within 1-12 months of release of regulations

FDOE/BEESS Stakeholder Workgroup Parent Liaisons

Provide training to families Within 1-12 months of release FDOE/BEESS with focus on procedural of regulations Parent-focused discretionary safeguards; consider co projects training with parents. Revise the current monitoring system to align with the State Performance Plan and the IDEA 2004 regulations, including the development and implementation of a Web-based compliance self-assessment that tracks Bureau validation activities and district corrective actions to correct identified noncompliance.

January 2006 – June 2008 FDOE/BEESS National Center for Special Education Accountability and Monitoring (NCSEAM) Contracted consultants

Provide training, staff development, and technical assistance materials using various media to target districts and other interested parties including advocacy groups.

July 2006 – June 2008 FDOE/BEESS Contracted consultants

Provide monitoring reports and dispute resolution summary information on DOE/Bureau website.

September 2006 – June 2009 FDOE/BEESS

Incorporate data collected through monitoring, dispute resolution, correspondence, phone calls, and other sources into targeted planning activities implemented by districts selected to participate in the Bureau’s SPP Indicator Teams.

September 2006 – June 2009 FDOE/BEESS

Develop and implement a system for making LEA determinations that incorporates districts’ SPP indicator data as well as data from all components of general supervision (e.g., monitoring, dispute resolution, SPP Indicator Team targeted planning activities).

July 2007 – June 2008 FDOE/BEESS Monitoring Stakeholder Workgroup



Activities Timelines Resources Complete development of a data management system to ensure accurate and timely tracking of the components of monitoring and dispute resolution including corrective actions and an alert system to notify of interim deadlines.

July 2007 – December 2008 FDOE/BEESS Contracted staff Stakeholder Workgroup

Revise the Policies and Procedures for the Provision of Specially Designed Instruction and Related Services for Exceptional Students (SP&P).

January 2008 – June 2009 LEAs FDOE/BEESS

Restructure monitoring stakeholder workgroup to incorporate dispute resolution and SPP indicator teams.

January 2008 – July 2008 FDOE/BEESS LEA, family and community resources

Based on the results of the revised self-assessment monitoring process implemented in 2007-08, develop and implement a leveled system of monitoring that incorporates self-assessment, site visits, desk reviews, and other quality assurance activities.

July 2008 – June 2009 FDOE/BEESS Monitoring Stakeholder Workgroup Contracted consultants

Implement data management system for monitoring and dispute resolution. Monitor for quality and efficiency.

January 2009 – June 2009 FDOE/BEESS Contracted consultant

2009-10 Provide ongoing technical assistance and support (e.g., presentations; training sessions; Technical Assistance Papers, FAQs, Q&A documents; informal communication via phone and email) to districts and families regarding implementation of IDEA and related State requirements.




Incorporate data collected through monitoring, dispute resolution, correspondence, phone calls, and other sources into targeted planning activities implemented by




Activities Timelines Resources districts selected to participate in the Bureau’s SPP Indicator Teams. Based on the results of the self-assessment monitoring process implemented in 200809, implement a leveled system of monitoring that incorporates self-assessment, site visits, desk reviews, and other quality assurance activities.

July 2009 – June 2010 FLDOE/BEESS FCIM

Implement data management system for monitoring and dispute resolution. Monitor for quality and efficiency. Continue to enhance functionality (e.g., alert system for tracking timelines; report generation).


Monitor systems in place to ensure quality of data, protocols, and processes.


2010-2011 Provide ongoing technical assistance and support (e.g., presentations; training sessions; Technical Assistance Papers, FAQs, Q&A documents; informal communication via phone and email) to districts and families regarding implementation of IDEA and related State requirements.






Based on the results of the self-assessment monitoring process implemented in 20092010, implement the leveled system of monitoring that incorporates self-assessment,




Activities Timelines Resources site visits, desk reviews, and other quality assurance activities. Implement data management system for monitoring and dispute resolution. Monitor for quality and efficiency. Continue to enhance functionality (e.g. simplify process for generating reports).


Monitor systems in place to ensure quality of data, protocols, and processes.


Evaluate monitoring and dispute resolution systems to ensure the compliance with State statutes and rules and federal laws and regulations.

July 2010 – June 2011 Third party evaluator FLDOE/BEESS

2011-2012 Review dispute resolution activities, parent database reports, and telephone/email logs to identify patterns of noncompliance and/or topics for which stakeholders require additional technical assistance.

July 2011 –January 2012 FLDOE/BEESS

Provide technical assistance related to identified patterns of noncompliance and concerns through periodic conference calls with district compliance contacts; presentations and training sessions at AMM, ISRD mid-year institutes, CASE, and Family Café; Technical Assistance Papers, FAQs, and Q&A documents; and informal communication via phone and email to districts and families.


Identify (1) ESE procedures to target through Level 1 and Level 2 self-assessment monitoring and (2) effective strategies for verifying timely correction of noncompliance; incorporate into 2011-12 compliance manual.

July – September 2011 FLDOE/BEESS District ESE Representatives

Implement a leveled system of monitoring that incorporates self-assessment, site visits, desk reviews, and other

July 2011 – June 2012 FLDOE/BEESS Contracted Peer Monitors FCIM



Activities Timelines Resources quality assurance activities. Post monitoring reports and dispute resolution summary information on FDOE/BEESS website.




Expand the Portal to Exceptional Education Resources (PEER) to include documentation of referral and evaluation procedures and enhance existing functionality based on user feedback.


Monitor systems in place to ensure quality and accuracy of data, protocols, and processes.


Review, and revise or update as needed, data management system for monitoring and dispute resolution to ensure accurate and efficient tracking (e.g., timelines, correction of noncompliance), automated communication, and report generation.

January 2012 – June 2012 FLDOE/BEESS FCIM

2012-2013 Review dispute resolution activities, parent database reports, and telephone/email logs to identify patterns of noncompliance and/or topics for which stakeholders require additional technical assistance.

July 2012 –January 2013 FLDOE/BEESS

Provide technical assistance related to identified patterns of noncompliance and concerns through periodic conference calls with district compliance contacts; presentations and training sessions at AMM, ISRD mid-year institutes, CASE, and Family Café; Technical Assistance Papers, FAQs, and Q&A documents;




Activities Timelines Resources and informal communication via phone and email to districts and families. Identify (1) ESE procedures to target through Level 1 and Level 2 self-assessment monitoring and (2) effective strategies for verifying timely correction of noncompliance; incorporate into 2011-12 compliance manual.

July – September 2012 FLDOE/BEESS District ESE Representatives

Implement a leveled system of monitoring that incorporates self-assessment, site visits, desk reviews, and other quality assurance activities.

July 2012 – June 2013 FLDOE/BEESS Contracted Peer Monitors FCIM

Post monitoring reports and dispute resolution summary information on FDOE/BEESS website.




Expand the Portal to Exceptional Education Resources (PEER) to include documentation of referral and evaluation procedures and enhance existing functionality based on user feedback.


Monitor systems in place to ensure quality and accuracy of data, protocols, and processes.


Review and revise or update, as needed, data management system for monitoring and dispute resolution to ensure accurate and efficient tracking (e.g., timelines, correction of noncompliance), automated communication, and report generation.

January 2013 – June 2013 FLDOE/BEESS FCIM





Indicator 16 – 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.


A discussion of the Complaint Management System can be found in Indicator 15. Data related to complaint resolution is currently maintained by FLDOE in a Microsoft Access database. The database is being revised to integrate with the monitoring and dispute resolution processes and the new data requirements of the State Performance Plan. Responses to all formal complaints, and investigations as required, are conducted by the Bureau. The complaint management system was revised in 2004 to ensure the 60-day timeline is met and to focus investigations on facts, conclusions, and findings. In addition, the Bureau tracks the LEAs’ completion of corrective actions. The changes supported the completion of the complaint inquiries within the 60 day timeline.


Data required is provided in Attachment 1. During the 2004-05 the Bureau Chief received 83 signed, written complaints. Orders were issued for 26 complaints; including those that were resolved between the district and family as an early resolution agreement. The remaining complaints were either withdrawn, dismissed, resolved through mediation or due process, or resolution was facilitated through communication between the complainant and the LEA.


Of the signed written complaints for which a Bureau Determination order was written, 96% were resolved within a 60-day timeline or a timeline extended for exceptional circumstances with respect to a particular complaint.

One complaint was not resolved within the 60-day or extended timeline. This was a systemic complaint from the largest district in the state, and had been filed prior to the revision to the complaint management process that became effective November 18, 2004. Since that time, all complaints have been resolved within the 60-day or extended timeline.


2005 (2005-2006)

100% of signed written complaints are resolved within 60-day timeline have their timeline extended for exceptional circumstances with respect to a particular complaint.

2006 100% of signed written complaints are resolved within 60-day timeline have their



(2006-2007) timeline extended for exceptional circumstances with respect to a particular complaint.

2007 (2007-2008)


2008 (2008-2009)


2009 (2009-2010)


2010 (2010-2011)


2011 (2011-2012)


2012 (2012-2013)

100% of signed written complaints are resolved within the 60-day timeline or have their timeline extended for exceptional circumstances with respect to a particular complaint.



Provide information and technical assistance to increase complainants’ and districts’ participation in the state’s Early Resolution Agreement process.

Within 1 week of receipt of each complaint.

Each year

FLDOE/BEESS Complaint Resolution Technical Assistance document

Fill vacant staff positions; provide staff development in timely complaint investigation procedures and techniques. Monitor staff performance and training needs.

March 2006

At least annually

FLDOE/BEESS

2006-07 Provide information and technical assistance to increase complainants’ and districts’ participation in the state’s Early Resolution Agreement process.

Fill vacant staff positions; provide staff development in timely complaint investigation procedures and techniques.

Revise Complaint Management Technical Assistance Documents to include tips for parents or individuals regarding contacts for

Each year

Each year

June 2006 – December 2007

FLDOE/BEESS



dispute resolution. Develop database to track components of the dispute resolution system including complaint management timelines.

January – December: development

July – December: implementation

FLDOE/BEESS Contracted Consultants

2007-08 Provide information and technical assistance to increase complainants’ and districts’ participation in the state’s Early Resolution Agreement and mediation processes.

July 2007 – June 2008 FLDOE/BEESS Complaint resolution technical assistance documents



Revise complaint management technical assistance documents to include tips for parents or individuals regarding contacts for dispute resolution.


Database Continue development Implement Monitor quality Retrieve reports

July 2007 – June 2008 FLDOE/BEESS Contracted Consultants

Monitor staff performance and training needs.






Database Continue development Implement Monitor quality Retrieve reports

July 2008 – December 2009 FLDOE/BEESS Contracted Consultants

Monitor quality of data quarterly to produce annual reports to stakeholders.




2009-10 Provide information and technical assistance to increase complainants’ and districts’ participation in the state’s Early




Resolution Agreement and mediation processes. Fill vacant staff positions; provide staff development in timely complaint investigation procedures and techniques.


Implement data management system for monitoring and dispute resolution. Monitor for quality and efficiency. Continue to enhance functionality (e.g., alert system for tracking timelines; report generation).










Monitor data management system for quality and efficiency. Continue to enhance functionality (e.g., alert system for tracking timelines; report generation).
















Indicator 17 – 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: Data collected on Attachment 1.

Percent = [(3.2(a) + 3.2(b)) divided by (3.2)] times 100.


A discussion of the Due Process Hearing system can be found in Indicator 15. Data related to due process hearing requests are currently maintained by the Florida Department of Education (FDOE) in a Microsoft Access database. The data system of the State of Florida Division of Administration Hearings (DOAH) is not currently sufficient to retrieve the SPP data requirements, specifically those pertinent to due process. The FDOE database is being revised to integrate with the monitoring and dispute resolution processes and the new data requirements of the State Performance Plan. Currently the due process information is verified through the individual review of each order by Dispute Resolution staff. Requests for due process hearings are sent to DOAH, which is the agency that provides the Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) to conduct the hearings. In addition, DOAH follows through with each of the requests and provides the records to the FDOE throughout the process and at the closure of each case for review and archiving.


In 2004-05, 32% of fully adjudicated due process hearing requests were fully adjudicated within the 45-day timeline or a timeline that is properly extended by the hearing officer at the request of either party.


There were 186 requests for due process hearings in 2004-05. Of the total number of requests, 158 were resolved without a hearing. The database system of DOAH does not track hearings’ timelines; we rely on the ALJs to document the extensions and timelines within the final order. Of those documented only 9 or 32% of the final orders were issued within the 45-day timeline or extensions granted and had timelines documented within the order DOE will work with DOAH to develop an appropriate procedure to accurately track the timelines. It is possible that extensions that have been granted have either not been documented or have not allowed adequate time for the completion of the hearing and the provision of the final order to the parties.


2005 (2005-2006)

100% of fully adjudicated due process hearing requests are fully adjudicated within the 45-day timeline or a timeline is properly extended by the hearing officer at the request of either party.

2006 (2006-2007)




2007 (2007-2008)


2008 (2008-2009)


2009 (2009-2010)


2010 (2010-2011)


2011 (2011-2012)


2012 (2012-2013)




Strengthen the liaison between Bureau staff and DOAH staff to: Meet quarterly to review data Identify issues related to

timelines Resolve issues

January, April, July, October FDOE/BEESS DOAH Office of General Counsel

Provide Training and technical assistance for districts, and ALJs on IDEA 2004 law and regulations.

July-December 2006 FDOE/BEESS

2006-07 Strengthen the liaison between Bureau staff and DOAH staff to: Meet quarterly to review data Identify issues related to


At least quarterly FDOE/BEESS DOAH Office of General Counsel

Provide Training and technical assistance for districts, parents, and ALJs on IDEA 2004 law and regulations.

As opportunities are available throughout the year

FDOE/BEESS Office of General Counsel

Develop database to track required components for SPP: Implement, monitor, and

produce reports with DOAH

Anticipated completion in December 2008 Implement and Monitor: Annually

FDOE/BEESS DOAH Contracted Consultants

2007-08 Strengthen the liaison July 2007 – June 2008 FDOE/BEESS



between Bureau staff and DOAH staff to: Meet quarterly to review data Identify issues related to


DOAH Office of General Counsel

Develop database to track components of the dispute resolution system including due process hearing timelines.

July 2007 – December 2008 FDOE/BEESS Contracted Consultants

Provide Training for ALJs on pertinent topics including state and federal requirements

July 2007 – June 2008 FDOE/BEESS DOE

2008-09

Strengthen the liaison between Bureau staff and DOAH staff to: Meet periodically to review

data Identify issues related to


July 2008 – June 2009 FDOE/BEESS DOAH Office of General Counsel

Develop and implement database to track components of the dispute resolution system including due process hearing timelines.


Provide training for ALJs on pertinent topics including state and federal requirements.

July 2008 – June 2009 FDOE/BEESS DOE staff

2009-10

Strengthen the liaison between Bureau staff and DOAH staff to: Meet periodically to review



July 2009 – June 2010 FLDOE/BEESS DOAH Office of General Counsel

Implement data management system for monitoring and dispute resolution. Monitor for quality and efficiency. Continue to enhance functionality (e.g., alert system for tracking due process hearing timelines; report generation).



July 2009 – June 2010 FLDOE/BEESS DOE staff



2010-11 Strengthen the liaison between Bureau staff and DOAH staff to: Meet periodically to review




Monitor data management system for quality and efficiency. Continue to enhance functionality (e.g., alert system for tracking due process hearing timelines; report generation).
























Indicator 18 – Percent of hearing requests that went to resolution sessions that were resolved through resolution session settlement agreements.


Percent = 3.1(a) divided by (3.1) times 100.


Currently, DOE staff must read each order to retrieve the required information; staff will develop a more efficient system in the next year and a half.


Baseline data was collected in the 2005-06 school year as follows: Given 177 requests for due process hearings, 82 resolution sessions were held. 47 (57%) of the 82 resolution sessions that were held, resulted in settlement agreements.


Given 177 requests for due process hearings, 46% of the due process hearing requests went to a resolution session, even though this option was new for districts and parents during the 2005-06 year. A more comprehensive system of data tracking will enable DOE to determine what alternatives the parties are choosing (for example, mediation, resolution session, or waiver of resolution session). Of the resolution sessions held, 57% resulted in settlement agreements and is an encouraging rate of response to the less litigious alternative.


2005 (2005-2006)

no target – baseline year.

2006 (2006-2007)

57% of the resolution sessions will result in settlement agreements.

2007 (2007-2008)

57.5% of the resolution sessions will result in settlement agreements.

2008 (2008-2009)


2009 (2009-2010)


2010 (2010-2011)


2011 (2011-2012)


2012 (2012-2013)






Staff will communicate with districts to report information regarding resolution sessions.

January – June 2007 FDOE/BEESS

Develop a database to collect the data electronically.

December 2007 FDOE/BEESS Contracted Consultant

Provide technical assistance to districts and families regarding the due process hearing resolution process.

July 2006 – June 2007 FDOE/BEESS Contracted Consultant

2007-08 Provide training to districts and parents in communication and conflict resolution during 200708 which may include Web cast, audio conference, conference call, and/or DVD.

July 2007 – June 2008 FDOE/BEESS DOAH Contracted consultant

Develop and implement database to track components of the dispute resolution system including resolution sessions held and agreements reached.

July 2007 – June 2008 FDOE/BEESS Contracted Consultants

2008-09 Provide training to districts and parents in communication and dispute resolution which may include Web cast, audio conference, conference call, and/or DVD.


Develop and implement database to track components of the dispute resolution system including resolution sessions held and agreements reached.




Implement data management system for monitoring and dispute resolution. Monitor for quality and efficiency. Continue to enhance functionality (e.g., resolution sessions held; agreements reached).


2010-11 Provide training to districts and July 2010 – June 2011 FDOE/BEESS



parents in communication and dispute resolution which may include Web cast, audio conference, conference call, and/or DVD.

DOAH Contracted consultant

Implement data management system for monitoring and dispute resolution. Monitor for quality and efficiency. Continue to enhance functionality (e.g., resolution sessions held; agreements reached).


Provide technical assistance to districts regarding resolution sessions scheduling and outcome reporting.




Monitor data management system for quality and efficiency. Continue to enhance functionality (e.g., resolution sessions held; agreements reached).






Monitor data management system for quality and efficiency. Continue to enhance functionality (e.g., resolution sessions held; agreements reached).








Indicator 19 – Percent of mediations held that resulted in mediation agreements.


Percent = [(2.1(a)(i) + 2.1(b)(i)) divided by 2.1] times 100.


In Florida, mediation is offered when any dispute exists between any party and school districts regarding the education of students with disabilities. It has never been limited to as an alternative to due process. Mediation activities are promoted as an alternative dispute resolution by the Department’s ESE Dispute Resolution staff.

Data related to mediations held that resulted in mediation agreements are currently maintained by the Bureau in a Microsoft Access database. The mediation process is also coordinated by the Bureau. Requests for mediation, scheduling, mediator selection, mediator training and follow-up, including results (agreement or not), mediator evaluation, and satisfaction surveys are items for which data is collected. Although targets will be established, the emphasis will be in providing training to all the parties, technical assistance papers, and focusing on the results of the satisfaction survey to evaluate the process and make changes, if appropriate.

Baseline Data from FFY 2004 (2004-2005): In 2004-05, 67% of mediations held resulted in full agreements.


The Baseline Data reflects the percentage of mediations held that resulted in full agreement. An additional 17% of the mediations held resulted in partial agreement. (83% reached full or partial agreement)

Setting Targets We recognize the value and success of mediation; however, it is voluntary and subject to the interactions of the participants. Any pressure placed upon the mediators or participants to reach an agreement may very well undermine the original intent to have the parties communicate with a third party facilitator (mediator). Florida recognizes that a partial agreement is noteworthy and is indicative of parties’ willingness to resolve issues.


2005 (2005-2006)

84% of mediations will result in full or partial agreement.

2006 (2006-2007)

80% of mediations will result in full or partial agreement.

2007 (2007-2008)

75%-85% of mediations will result in full or partial agreement.

2008 (2008-2009)


2009 (2009-2010)




2010 (2010-2011)


2011 (2011-2012)


2012 (2012-2013)




Mediator training by the Justice Center of Atlanta for new mediators, district, and advocacy organization representatives.

January 24 – 26, 2006 FLDOE/BEESS Justice Center of Atlanta

Mediator update training for continuing mediators.

July – October 2006 and annually thereafter

FLDOE/BEESS

2007-08 Develop and implement database to track components of the dispute resolution system, including mediation agreements.

July 2007 – June 2008 FLDOE/BEESS Contracted Consultants

Develop/revise/distribute mediation: Forms Brochure Participant Feedback Form

July 2007 – June 2008 FLDOE/BEESS Stakeholders

Analyze possible correlation between non-agreement and the issues.

November 2007 – June 2008 FLDOE/BEESS

2008-09 Develop/revise/distribute mediation: Forms and information

documents Brochure Participant Feedback

Evaluation form

July 2008 – June 2009 FLDOE/BEESS Mediators

Analyze possible correlation between non-agreement and the issues and/or other factors.


Provide technical assistance to districts regarding specific issues that appear more resistant to agreement.

July 2008 – June 2009 FLDOE/BEESS Discretionary Projects



Evaluation form




Analyze data on mediation issues from agreements and non-agreements to identify patterns or relationships between issues and outcomes.






Evaluation form




Review/revise mediator pre-session communication procedures.




Evaluation form








Evaluation form










Indicator 20 – State reported data (618 and State Performance Plan and Annual Performance Report) are timely and accurate.

Measurement:

State reported data, including 618 data and annual performance reports, are:

a. Submitted on or before due dates (February 1 for child count, including race and ethnicity, placement; November 1 for exiting, discipline, personnel and dispute resolution; and February 1 for Annual Performance Reports and assessment);

b. Accurate, including covering the correct year and following the correct measurement.


Florida’s automated student database was implemented in 1987 and has been fully operational since January 1991. In this integrated pupil-based information system, data is submitted electronically through surveys with data elements organized in formats (Student Demographic, Exceptional Student, Exceptional Student Program, Student End-of-Year Status, student Discipline/Referral Action, etc.) The database operates the funding mechanism OCR reporting, OSEP reporting, NCES reporting and also serves other areas. The system collects information six times a year in July, October, December, February, June, and August. Districts have nine months to update submissions.

Florida contracts with private national testing contractors for the administration of the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test. These contractors produce and score the assessments, providing Florida with paper and electronic versions of the test results.

Florida has one of the most comprehensive student data bases in the country. The consistent use of unique student identifiers in both the student database and assessment files allows Florida to aggregate/disaggregate data from the individual student, school, district, and state level. Data can be linked across formats and years. Reliability is achieved through consistent directions provided through technical assistance and database manuals. Edits are build into the automated student database; State validation and exceptions reports are produced and districts are given time to correct errors. A data quality review process is available for districts needing assistance.


Part B data reports, Tables 1 and 3 for the 2004-05 school year were submitted February 2, 2005. Tables 2, 4, and 5 were submitted October 28, 2005. The Annual Performance Report was submitted March 31, 2005.

Prior to the publication of the 2005 LEA Profiles, districts were provided another opportunity to review and make corrections to data related to standard diploma, dropout, third grade promotion/retention, discipline, and placement settings.


All state reported data are submitted in a timely fashion with updates provided as needed (based on districts submitting updates within Florida’s guidelines.




2005 (2005-2006)

All state reported data (618 and State Performance Plan and Annual Performance Report) are timely and accurate.

2006 (2006-2007)


2007 (2007-2008)


2008 (2008-2009)


2009 (2009-2010)


2010 (2010-2011)


2011 (2011-2012)


2012 (2012-2013)




Update data elements, formats as needed to ensure accurate reporting.

July 2009 – June 2010 FLDOE

Share information about changes with LEAs through presentations and memoranda.


Conduct data verification activities with districts.


2010-11 Update data elements, formats as needed to ensure accurate reporting.









