Performance Indicator Template

Document Sample
Performance Indicator Template Powered By Docstoc
					APR Template – Part B (4)                                                                                                       FLORIDA
                                                                                                                                      State

Table of Contents
Part B State Annual Performance Report (APR) for 2009-10 (FFY 2009)....... 1
  Overview of the Annual Performance Report Development ........................................................ 1


Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE ............................................................... 2
  Indicator 1: Graduation ................................................................................................................. 2
  Indicator 2: Dropouts .................................................................................................................... 6
  Indicator 3: Assessments ........................................................................................................... 10
  Indicator 4: Discipline ................................................................................................................. 18
  Indicator 5: Educational environments, ages 6-21 ..................................................................... 27
  Indicator 7: Preschool Performance ........................................................................................... 34
  Indicator 8: Parent involvement .................................................................................................. 40


Monitoring Priority: Disproportionality .......................................................... 45
  Indicator 9: Disproportionality ..................................................................................................... 45
  Indicator 10: Disproportionality, specific disability categories .................................................... 46


Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision, Part B .......................... 49
  Indicator 11: Evaluation .............................................................................................................. 49
  Indicator 12: Transition from Part C to Part B ............................................................................ 52
  Indicator 15: Noncompliance ...................................................................................................... 55
  Indicator 16: Complaints ............................................................................................................. 63
  Indicator 17: Due process hearings ............................................................................................ 65
  Indicator 18: Hearing requests ................................................................................................... 67
  Indicator 19: Mediations ............................................................................................................. 68
  Indicator 20: State-reported data ................................................................................................ 70


Appendix A: Terms Used in APR .................................................................... 72




Part B State Annual Performance Report for FFY 2009
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 2/29/2012)
APR Template – Part B (4)                                                                 FLORIDA
                                                                                              State

          Part B State Annual Performance Report (APR) for 2009-10 (FFY 2009)

Overview of the Annual Performance Report Development:
This section of the APR includes a discussion of the process Florida used to develop the APR for all
indicators. It includes information about stakeholder input and public reporting at both the LEA and the
SEA levels. (See Appendix A for a list of terms used in the APR.)
Florida has 67 traditional LEAs that receive funding through IDEA, Part B. In addition, there are four
university lab schools, the Florida School for the Deaf and Blind, and the Department of Corrections that
are designated LEAs and receive IDEA, Part B funds. While Florida includes the additional LEAs in their
general supervision processes the extent to which they are included in the indicators is based on whether
or not they offer relevant programs (e.g. preschool programs) or submit data to the FDOE.
APR Development
The development of Florida’s APR is primarily the responsibility of indicator teams which include staff
from the FLDOE, staff from discretionary projects funded by the Department and, in some cases,
individuals from other agencies. Each team includes individuals with expertise pertinent to the indicator.
Stakeholder Input
Florida’s State Advisory Committee (SAC) has been a critical stakeholder group for the development of
the SPP and the APR. A draft of the APR was presented to this group at their December 6, 2010 meeting
and opportunities for input were provided.
We have established an interagency advisory work group for indicators 1, 2, 13, and 14. This group
provides recommendations to the BEESS regarding work in these indicators. We have also established
an interagency advisory committee for indicators 7 and 12 including representatives from BEESS,
Department of Health (Part C Agency), LEAs, and local Part C providers.
BEESS has an advisory group that represents LEAs, Bureau/District Partnership. This group is also
offered opportunities to provide input to the SPP and APR.
Public Reporting
Florida has historically used the LEA Profile to provide data in key areas to districts and other
stakeholders. Since the implementation of the SPP, the profile has been modified to include the public
reporting requirements. On the last page of each LEA Profile, the indicators, state level target, LEA data
and whether or not the target was met is incorporated into each district’s profile. The profiles can be
viewed at http://www.fldoe.org/ese/datapage.asp. It is anticipated that the 2011 profiles will be posted
during the month of April, 2011.
The revised SPP and the FFY 2009 APR will be posted at http://www.fldoe.org/ese/ on February 1, 2011
unless there are unforeseen technical difficulties.




                                                                                                      Page 1
APR Template – Part B (4)                                                               FLORIDA
                                                                                              State

         Part B State Annual Performance Report (APR) for 2009-10 (FFY 2009)


Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE


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

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

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

     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
                                    st      th                       st                                st
                   graduate [i.e., 1 time 9 graders in 2005-06, 1 –time10th graders in 2006-07, 1 -
                                                         st
                   time 11th graders in 2007-08, and 1 -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 Title I




       FFY                                   Measurable and Rigorous Target


       2009        The percent of youth with IEPs graduating from high school with a regular diploma in
     (2009-10)     2008-09 will increase to 43.5%.


Actual Target Data for 2009-10 (FFY 2009):
In 2008-09, the percent of youth with IEPs graduating from high school with a regular diploma was 47.0%
(11,642/24,793).
Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed for 2009-10 (FFY 2009):
Evaluate data and target districts for additional support and technical assistance
The twelve districts identified during 2008-09, based on data from 2007-2008, remained targeted for
support and technical assistance during 2009-10. Beyond these twelve districts, five additional districts
were targeted for support and technical assistance. The criterion below was used to select districts in
2008-09 and 2009-10. The Secondary Transition Indicator Team voted to only target districts based on
outcomes for all four of the Secondary Transition Indicators (1, 2, 13, and 14).
        Percent of youth with IEPs graduating from high school in 2008-09 with a regular diploma at a
        rate below the state target of 43.5 percent AND
     Percent of youth with IEPs dropping out of high school in 2008-09 at a rate above the state target
        of 3.75 percent AND
     Districts with findings of systemic noncompliance (greater than 25 percent) on the ESE
        Compliance Monitoring 2008-09 Self Assessment Transition (STB-16) AND


                                                                                                      Page 2
APR Template – Part B (4)                                                                    FLORIDA
                                                                                                  State

       Percent of youth exiting in 2007-08 found employed and/or in continuing education in the fall of
        2008-09 at a rate below the state target of 56.2 percent.

Develop and monitor action plans
The twelve previously targeted districts, along with the five newly identified districts, were notified in
March 2010 of the requirements for developing or revising an action plan through an SEA conference call.
Plans required the districts to address all four transition SPP Indicators in a holistic manner. Action plans
were submitted and reviewed during April and May 2010. Feedback on the plans was provided to the
districts at the beginning of June 2010.

Focused compliance self-assessment
All districts complete a self-assessment for SPP Indicator 13 in the fall, addressing transition components
in the IEP, which contribute to graduation. All targeted districts were required to complete Level 2
compliance self-assessment for SPP 1 – Graduation with a Standard Diploma or SPP 2 – Dropout Rate
by the spring of 2010. In addition, three districts participated in on-site monitoring for SPP Indicator 1
during the year. On-site monitoring teams included members from the monitoring, dispute resolution, and
program development and services’ sections of BEESS. Feedback was provided to districts on
compliance, non-compliance, program concerns and use of systems level evidence-based practices (e.g.,
academic engagement, mentoring) as well as any noncompliance identified.

Training and technical assistance on use of data
Project 10 Regional Transition Representatives conducted district specific needs assessment on all
transition indicators with Florida’s 67 school districts. Subsequently, the project provided district specific
technical assistance and training as identified through the needs assessment. It was determined that
districts needed additional support in analyzing indicator-specific data. The training, Understanding the
Data, was developed and provided to districts upon request. As a result, five training events were
provided for three of the targeted districts, and five training events were provided for five districts not
targeted for additional support and assistance.

Training and technical assistance on analysis of policies and procedures
Feedback on policies and procedures related to graduation rate (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) were provided during on-site monitoring visits in February and May
2010 as well as via conference calls to all 17 targeted districts.

Technical assistance on problem-solving method
The twelve previously targeted districts received information about problem-solving methods when they
developed their plans in the spring of 2009. Information on problem-solving and evidence-based practices
is also available on the GSW. All targeted districts received additional information on problem-solving and
implementation of evidence-based practices through action plan development and/or revisions during
March, April, and May 2010.

Training, technical assistance, resources and support on evidence-based practices
BEESS provided the following resources to support Indicator 1:
       Webinar on ― Dropout Prevention for Youth with Disabilities‖ sponsored by the National Dropout
       Prevention Center for Students with Disabilities
       Information briefs created by Project 10 on the Interagency Collaboration and Summary of
       Performance
       Development and dissemination of the TAP: Waiver of the FCAT Graduation Requirement for
       Students with Disabilities
       Information on the Youth Info website and its applications
       Professor Garfield and SparkTop Web resources (These are educational websites that help
       engage students in learning.)
       Using ACT and SAT concordant scores for graduation purposes


                                                                                                          Page 3
APR Template – Part B (4)                                                                   FLORIDA
                                                                                                State

        Disability-Friendly Colleges
        Major Areas of Interest

Project 10 provided training, technical assistance, resources or support related to improving the
graduation rate and dropout rate to 14 of the 17 targeted districts, and 51 districts not targeted for
improvement. Specific areas of focus related to improving the graduation rate included the following:
        Accommodations for Career and Technical Education
        Career Academies
        Higher Education Funding Opportunities
        State Performance Plan Transition Indicator Areas

Work with state partners and school districts to increase parent involvement
Participants in focus groups reported that more knowledge is needed regarding postsecondary
educational requirements and supports; students need to be better prepared for postsecondary education
and have access to a variety of programs, planning opportunities and skills development; and students
would benefit from skills in self-advocacy and self-determination. Agencies, school personnel, and
parents identified the need for information about transition beginning in elementary school. Parents
indicated that their preferred communication mode was training and presentations, but they also
mentioned electronic communications and print materials as helpful. The focus group results were shared
with all five SSTIC subcommittees during 2009-10. Each of the subcommittees has initiated development
of resources and materials related to priority topics identified through the focus groups. BEESS staff and
Project 10 are working on developing resources related to these areas as well. It is anticipated that many
of the resources and materials will be completed during 2010-11.

During 2009-10, BEESS staff worked with Florida Colleges, the State University System, Career and
Technical Education, and the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation to develop materials specifically
targeted to students with disabilities and their families for Florida’s Academic Counseling and Tracking for
Students, FACTS.org, which is an online student advising system to help students make informed
choices about their education. All students, including students with disabilities, are required to complete
an electronic Personal Education Planner (ePEP) in middle school and update the planner annually in
                                                   o
high school. BEESS staff also developed the ―Pstsecondary Counseling for Students with Disabilities‖
section of the annual Counseling for Future Education Handbook. The information developed addressed
many of the concerns identified via focus groups (e.g., postsecondary requirements and supports,
preparing for postsecondary education, self-advocacy and self-determination).

During 2009-10, BEESS supported the annual Youth Leadership Forum (YLF), which brings high school
juniors and seniors from across the state together for an extended weekend each summer to learn about
community and academic resources, disability history, career options and personal leadership. Numerous
youth who participate in the YLF subsequently enter into postsecondary education or training and return
in following years to share their experiences with younger students.

Collaborate with national and state partners
The SSTIC is a state level interagency team that meets twice per year and is designed to 1) facilitate
inter-organizational understanding, 2) identify needs grounded in data, 3) identify and realign capacity
building resources, 4) facilitate collaboration and avoid duplication, 5) share responsibility and planning to
improve secondary transition. The committee has five subcommittees comprised of SSTIC members, in
the following areas: 1) Data, 2) Dropout, 3) Employment, 4) Family involvement, and 5) Postsecondary
education. The purpose of the subcommittees is to identify gaps, barriers, and potential solutions; review
recommendations from various partners with secondary transition interests; and may include identifying
issues that need to be taken back to respective agencies. The subcommittees meet as needed, generally
via monthly conference calls. The work of the subcommittees is expected to culminate in goals for
implementation and targets or outcomes for each sub-committee (e.g., products, papers) vetted by full
committee. Membership includes representation of all major secondary transition stakeholders in Florida.
Completely restructured in 2009-10, it is anticipated that major activities will be conducted during 2010-
11.


                                                                                                        Page 4
APR Template – Part B (4)                                                                FLORIDA
                                                                                              State

Both state and district level staff attended the NDPC-SD conference held in the fall of 2009; BEESS staff
also participated in teleconferences held by the NDPC and NSTTAC. Dropout prevention training and
technical assistance at these conferences included discussion of increasing graduation rates and
evidence-based practices to keep students in school. Subsequently, information was shared with
appropriate discretionary projects, districts targeted for support and assistance, and via the BEESS
Weekly as appropriate.

The Bureau worked with Partners in Transition from the Institute for Educational Leadership, the NPDC-
SD, and Miami-Dade Public Schools personnel to schedule two webinars on dropout prevention. The first
webinar presented on May 25, 2010, provided information on dropout prevention for students with
disabilities related to the four SPP Transition Indicators 1, 2, 13, and 14, which are grouped for the
purposes of training and technical assistance. Information was also shared on the NPDC-SD dropout
prevention framework. The second webinar held June 2, 2010, provided information on evidence-based
practices and programs being implemented in Miami-Dade Public Schools.

The Bureau revised and disseminated Transition Planning for Students with Disabilities: A Guide for
Families in May 2010. In addition to providing a wealth of information and resources on secondary
transition, it also addresses graduation options and associated outcomes.

Explanation of Progress or Slippage that occurred for 2009-10 (FFY 2009):

The state exceeded its target of 43.5% by 3.5% with a 47.0% graduation rate. This represents a 4.0%
increase from the 2007-08 graduation rate of 43.0%. We hypothesize that increased attention to data and
provision of additional awareness of postsecondary opportunities for students with disabilities led to the
increase in the graduation rate. Moreover, state and federal expectations for students with disabilities to
participate in the general curriculum and graduate with a regular diploma can be attributed to the increase
in the graduation rate.

Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines /
Resources for FFY 2010

The target was revised to align with the annual graduation rate targets under Title I of the ESEA.



     2010        The percent of youth with IEPs graduating from high school with a regular diploma in
  (2010-2011)    2009-10 will increase to 49%.




                                                                                                      Page 5
APR Template – Part B (4)                                                                  FLORIDA
                                                                                                State

         Part B State Annual Performance Report (APR) for 2009-10 (FFY 2009)


Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE


Indicator 2: Percent of youth with IEPs dropping out of high school. (20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A))

     Measurement: States must report using the dropout data used in the ESEA 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



      FFY                                     Measurable and Rigorous Target


      2009        The percent of youth with IEPs dropping out of high school in 2008-09 will decrease to
    (2009-10)     3.75%.

Actual Target Data for 2009-10 (FFY 2009):
In 2008-09, the percent of youth with IEPs dropping out of school was 4.24% (5,202/122,688).
Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed for 2009-10 (FFY 2009):
Evaluate data target districts
The twelve districts identified during 2008-09, based on data from 2007-2008, remained targeted for
support and technical assistance during 2009-10. Beyond these twelve districts, five additional districts
were targeted for support and technical assistance. The criterion below was used to select districts in
2008-09 and 2009-10. The Secondary Transition Indicator Team voted to only target districts based on
outcomes for all four of the Secondary Transition Indicators (1, 2, 13, and 14).
     Percent of youth with IEPs graduating from high school in 2008-09 with a regular diploma at a
        rate below the state target of 43.5 percent AND
     Percent of youth with IEPs dropping out of high school in 2008-09 at a rate above the state target
        of 3.75 percent AND
     Districts with findings of systemic noncompliance (greater than 25 percent) on the ESE
        Compliance Monitoring 2008-09Self Assessment Transition (STB-16) AND
     Percent of youth exiting in 2007-08 found employed and/or in continuing education in the fall of
        2008-09 at a rate below the state target of 56.2 percent.

Develop and monitor action plans
The twelve previously targeted districts, along with the five newly targeted districts, were notified in March
2010 of the requirements for developing or revising an action plan through an SEA conference call. Plans
required the districts to address all four transition SPP Indicators in a holistic manner. Action plans were
submitted and reviewed during April and May 2010. Feedback on the plans was provided at the beginning
of June 2010.



                                                                                                        Page 6
APR Template – Part B (4)                                                                    FLORIDA
                                                                                                  State

Focused compliance self-assessment
All districts complete a self-assessment for SPP Indicator 13 in the fall, addressing transition components
in the IEP, which contribute to graduation. All targeted districts were required to complete Level 2
compliance self-assessment for SPP 1 – Graduation with a Standard Diploma or SPP 2 – Dropout Rate
by the spring of 2010. In addition, five districts participated in on-site monitoring for SPP Indicator 2 during
the year. On-site monitoring teams included members from the monitoring, dispute resolution, and
program development and services’ sections of BEESS. Feedback was provided to districts on
compliance, non-compliance, program concerns and use of systems level evidence-based practices (e.g.,
academic engagement, mentoring) as well as any noncompliance identified.

Training and technical assistance on use of data
In February 2010, BEESS provided training resources on tracking dropout warning signs (predictors of
potential dropout) through the BEESS Weekly Memo.

Project 10 Regional Transition Representatives conducted district specific needs assessment on all
transition indicators with Florida’s 67 school districts. Subsequently, the project provided district specific
technical assistance and training as identified through the needs assessment. It was determined that
districts needed additional support in analyzing indicator-specific data. The training, Utilizing Data for
Program Evaluation & Improvement, was developed and provided to districts upon request. Seventeen
districts requested training, seven of which were targeted for additional support and assistance.

Training and technical assistance on analysis of policies and procedures
Feedback on policies and procedures related to the dropout rate (e.g., student progression plan; district
and school discipline; district and school attendance policies) were provided during on-site monitoring
visits in February, April, and May 2010 as well as via conference calls to all 17 targeted districts.

Technical assistance on problem-solving method
The twelve previously targeted districts received information about problem-solving methods when they
developed their plans in the spring of 2009. Information on problem-solving and evidence-based practices
is also available on the GSW. All targeted districts received additional information on problem-solving and
implementation of evidence-based practices through action plan development and/or revisions during
March, April, and May 2010.

Training, technical assistance, resources and support on evidence-based practices
BEESS provided the following resources to support Indicator 2:
       Webinar on ― Dropout Prevention for Youth with Disabilities‖ sponsored by the National Dropout
       Prevention Center for Students with Disabilities
                                  The
       Information on accessing ― High School Tiered Interventions Initiative‖ webinar and “Reap
       What You Sow: Harvesting Support Systems‖ training event
       Training resources on tracking dropout warning signs (predictors of potential dropout)
       Information on grant availability to increase student involvement in extracurricular activities and
       sports
       Information on the GED Exit Option

Project 10 provided training, technical assistance, resources or support related to improving the
graduation rate and dropout rate to 14 of the 17 targeted districts, and 51 districts not targeted for
improvement. Specific areas of focus related to improving the dropout rate included the following:
        Career Development Training
        Check and Connect Training
        EBD Summer Programs and Transition Programs
        Mentoring
        Special Diploma Options
        State Performance Plan Transition Indicator Areas




                                                                                                          Page 7
APR Template – Part B (4)                                                                   FLORIDA
                                                                                                State

        School-Based Enterprises (In addition to training, 24 pilot school-based enterprise sites were
        established in 2009-10, representing 17 districts, five of which were targeted for additional
        support and assistance.)

Work with state partners and school districts to increase parent involvement
Participants in focus groups reported concerns about students dropping out of school and indicated that
students need to have access to a variety of programs, planning opportunities, individual supports, and
skills development; and that students would benefit from self-advocacy and self-determination training.
Life pressures/choices and emphasis on academic standards/assessment were reflected in the
discussion of why students leave school. Agencies, school personnel, and parents identified the need for
information about transition beginning in elementary school. Parents indicated that their preferred
communication mode was training and presentations, but they also mentioned electronic communications
and print materials as helpful. The focus group results were shared with all five SSTIC subcommittees
during 2009-10. Each of the subcommittees has initiated development of resources and materials related
to priority topics identified through the focus groups. BEESS staff and Project 10 are working on
developing resources related to these areas as well. It is anticipated that many of the resources will be
completed during 2010-11.

Collaborate with national and state partners
The SSTIC is a state level interagency team that meets twice per year and is designed to 1) facilitate
inter-organizational understanding, 2) identify needs grounded in data, 3) identify and realign capacity
building resources, 4) facilitate collaboration and avoid duplication, 5) share responsibility and planning to
improve secondary transition. The committee has five subcommittees comprised of SSTIC members, in
the following areas: 1) Data, 2) Dropout, 3) Employment, 4) Family involvement, and 5) Postsecondary
education. The purpose of the subcommittees is to identify gaps, barriers, and potential solutions; review
recommendations from various partners with secondary transition interests; and may include identifying
issues that need to be taken back to respective agencies. The subcommittees meet as needed, generally
via monthly conference calls. The work of the subcommittees is expected to culminate in goals for
implementation and targets or outcomes for each sub-committee (e.g., products, papers) vetted by full
committee. Membership includes representation of all major secondary transition stakeholders in Florida.
Completely restructured in 2009-10, it is anticipated that major activities will be conducted during 2010-
11.

Both state and district level staff attended the NDPC-SD conference held in the fall of 2009; BEESS staff
also participated in teleconferences held by the NDPC and NSTTAC. Dropout prevention training and
technical assistance at these conferences included discussion of increasing graduation rates and
evidence-based practices to keep students in school. Subsequently, information was shared with
appropriate discretionary projects, districts targeted for support and assistance, and via the BEESS
Weekly as appropriate.

BEESS and the Bureau of Family and Community Outreach–Dropout Prevention worked together in
planning for the Effective Strategies Institute on Dropout Prevention/School Attendance Symposium held
in October 2009. Support for the conference was provided through IDEA Part B funds.

The Bureau worked with Partners in Transition from the Institute for Educational Leadership, the NPDC-
SD, and Miami-Dade Public Schools personnel to schedule two webinars on dropout prevention. The first
webinar, presented on May 25, 2010, provided information on dropout prevention for students with
disabilities related to the four SPP Transition Indicators 1, 2, 13, and 14, which are grouped for the
purposes of training and technical assistance. Information was also shared on the NPDC-SD dropout
prevention framework. The second webinar held June 2, 2010, provided information on evidence-based
practices and programs being implemented in Miami-Dade Public Schools.

Explanation of Progress or Slippage that occurred for 2009-10 (FFY 2009):
While Florida did not meet its target of 3.75%, there was a 0.2% improvement in the dropout rate from
4.44% in 2007-08 to 4.24% in 2008-09. We hypothesize that increased attention to data and provision of
additional awareness of postsecondary opportunities (e.g., university, college, career and technical, 18-

                                                                                                        Page 8
APR Template – Part B (4)                                                                FLORIDA
                                                                                              State

22) for students with disabilities led to the decrease in the dropout rate. Additionally, we feel that
increased awareness and implementation of specific interventions (e.g., attendance and truancy
prevention, self-management strategies, mentoring) and resources (e.g., National Dropout Prevention
Center for Students with Disabilities, National High School Center) that contribute to retention impacted
the dropout rate.

Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines /
Resources for FFY 2010

None.




                                                                                                      Page 9
APR Template – Part B (4)                                                                  FLORIDA
                                                                                               State

         Part B State Annual Performance Report (APR) for 2009-10 (FFY 2009)


Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE


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 ― size that
                                                                                          n‖
       meet the State’s AYP targets for the disability subgroup.
    B. Participation rate for children with IEPs.
    C. Proficiency rate for children with IEPs against grade level, modified and alternate academic
       achievement standards.

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


      Measurement:
      A. AYP Percent = [(# of districts with a disability subgroup that meets the State’s minimum ― size
                                                                                                     n‖
         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 ― size)] times 100.
                                                                            n‖
      B. Participation rate percent = [(# of children with IEPs participating in the assessment) divided by
         the (total # of children with IEPs enrolled during the testing window, calculated separately for
         reading and math)]. The participation rate is based on all children with IEPs, including both
         children with IEPs enrolled for a full academic year and those not enrolled for a full academic
         year.
      C. Proficiency rate percent = [(# of children with IEPs enrolled for a full academic year scoring at
         or above proficient) divided by the (total # of children with IEPs enrolled for a full academic
         year, calculated separately for reading and math)].
      Data Source: AYP data used for accountability reporting under Title I




         FFY                                  Measurable and Rigorous Target


        2009       Indicator 3A – 58% of school districts will meet AYP targets in reading and 58% will
       (2009-10)   meet AYP targets in math (students with disabilities subgroup)

                   Indicator 3B – 98% of students with IEPs in grades three through ten will participate in
                   statewide assessment, calculated separately for reading and math

                   Indicator 3C – 48% of students with IEPs enrolled for a full academic year in grades
                   three through ten will demonstrate proficiency in reading

                   Indicator 3C –50% of students with IEPs enrolled for a full academic year in grades
                   three through ten will demonstrate proficiency in math




                                                                                                    Page 10
APR Template – Part B (4)                                                                     FLORIDA
                                                                                                  State
Actual Target Data for 2009-10 (FFY 2009):
       Indicator 3A: In 2009-10, 1% (1/72) of districts met AYP targets in reading; 4% (3/72) of districts
        met AYP targets in math for the students with disabilities subgroup.
       Indicator 3B: In 2009-10, 98.0% of students with disabilities in grades three through ten
        participated in reading statewide assessments (224,452/228,950). 97.9% participated in math
        statewide assessments (223,935/228,758).
       Indicator 3C: In 2009-10, 35.6% of students with IEPs enrolled for a full academic year in grades
        three through ten demonstrated proficiency in reading (77,653/218,094).
       Indicator 3C: in 2009-10, 40.7% of students with IEPs enrolled for a full academic year in grades
        three through ten demonstrated proficiency in math (87,764/215,538).

Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed for 2009-10 (FFY 2009):

Data Analysis
Data for 2010 assessments were compiled by district to show the number and percent of students
participating and scoring proficient on the FCAT with accommodations, without accommodations, or on
the Florida Alternate Assessment. The data were published in the 2010 AMM Databook and posted on
the BEESS website at http://www.fldoe.org/ese/datapage.asp. Results for all students on the state
assessment can be found at https://app1.fldoe.org/FCATDemographics/.

A state-level team, consisting of representatives of BEESS and various supporting discretionary projects,
conducted the annual analysis of data concerning student placement outside of regular classrooms to
provide information on districts/schools to target for technical assistance on inclusion. In addition to
analyzing student performance on statewide assessments, BEESS reviewed across all indicators its
procedures for targeting districts for required improvement activities. Research has shown that academic
engaged time (AET) is a key factor in student achievement and is influenced by student behavior and
educational placement (i.e., access to instruction). Therefore, for the purpose of identifying districts for
targeted technical assistance and improvement planning, the decision was made to integrate indicator 4
into the existing indicator 3/5 cluster, creating the indicator 3/4/5 cluster. Targeting criteria assigned points
for educational placement and assessment results as follows:
      Three points for regular class placement above the state rate
      One point proficiency in reading above the state rate
      One point for proficiency in math above the state rate
      One point for being under the 1% cap for students identified as proficient via the Florida Alternate
         Assessment

Districts met the criteria for targeting if they obtained a score of less than two and were currently targeted
for indicator 4, or if they obtained a score of zero regardless of indicator 4 status. Two districts met the
criteria and were therefore the 2009-10 targeted districts for the Indicator 3/4/5 Cluster. On September
21, 2009, the two districts targeted for the 3/4/5 cluster were formally notified via memorandum, while the
pre-existing districts targeted only for Indicator 4 remained targeted for 2009-10.

Identify exemplar models
Those districts that had previously been targeted for improvement activities as a result of poor
performance on indicator 3, 4, or 5 and subsequently demonstrated sufficient progress to no longer meet
the targeting criteria were identified. Indicator 3/4/5 team members looked for activities conducted by
those districts that indicated a relationship between assessment performance, low rates of
suspension/expulsion, and LRE for the purpose of identifying effective activities. On October 12, 2009, a
conference call was conducted with targeted districts to discuss action planning requirements and review
the problem-solving process and use of the GSW. Lessons learned from previously targeted districts were
shared and follow-up with the targeted districts occurred on a one-to-one basis. Activities implemented by
districts previously targeted for indicators 3, 4, or 5 that had demonstrated improvement were replicated
to varying degrees by targeted districts during this reporting period, and included the following:




                                                                                                       Page 11
APR Template – Part B (4)                                                                 FLORIDA
                                                                                              State
    Awareness and Collaboration Activities
     Distribute LEA Profiles to district staff, schools, and leadership and review for planning purposes
     Identify, recruit, and orient members of a district problem-solving team
     Analyze inclusion data (inclusion percentage, AYP, student growth)
     Analyze LEA Profiles for data trends
     Identify new LEA targeted schools based on end-of-the-year data trends
     Analyze existing sources of behavioral data
     Gather stakeholder input, create, edit and disseminate plans of action
     Require administrator attendance and oversight for team’s meeting to engage in the problem-
       solving process
     Link new administrators with mentors to receive on-going support and guidance
     Implement accommodation suggestions from Assisting Students with Disabilities
     Disseminate and provide awareness training on Next Generation Sunshine State Standards
       Resources
     Meet with targeted schools’ School Based Leadership Teams engaging in the problem-solving
       process to update Action Plan based on data trends

    Professional Development Activities
     Develop a long-term schedule for professional development, support, monitoring and follow up to
        targeted schools
     Provide professional development to build internal district capacity for training: Differentiated
        Instruction, Inclusive Practices, Accommodations, Flexible Scheduling, Collaborative Practices,
        PS/RtI, Behavior PBS
     Implement PS/RtI
     Implement PBS at schoolwide, supplemental, and individual student levels
     Require staff to complete the on-line RtI Introductory Course and/or other professional learning
        activities within the context of a PLC
     Develop/implement a program for students without disabilities to raise awareness and
        understanding of students with disabilities
     Disseminate, discuss, and apply current literature in PLCs
     Conduct case studies in PLCs to practice application for proficiency

    Organization and Scheduling Activities
     Access FIN expertise to facilitate schoolwide inclusion
     Review/update and clearly define district guidelines used by IEP teams to make data-based
       assessment and instructional decisions
     Develop and implement a plan to increase school to work transition opportunities on general
       education campuses
     Develop collaborative schedules to support co-planning and team problem-solving
     Conduct resource mapping as part of district and school problem-solving
     Develop strategic resource allocation plan through district level problem-solving

Identify successful resources
Indicator team members identified resources, projects, and successful inclusion models, and shared with
districts via paperless communication, TAPs, presentations and professional development and training.
The resources were disseminated to schools and education professionals and parents as appropriate
through BEESS or projects funded by the BEESS. BEESS funded various statewide discretionary
projects to support districts and schools in improving educational outcomes for all students, especially
students with disabilities. Each project had a unique focus area with specific expectations and was
monitored by BEESS staff, with the intent that each project contribute meaningfully to the
accomplishments related to Florida’s SPP Indicators by participating in and supporting state, district, and
school level problem-solving and implementation of improvement activities. Project leaders contributed to
the problem-solving process by helping to identify existing barriers, suggesting proven solutions, assisting
with implementation of improvement activities, and monitoring the effectiveness of those activities.



                                                                                                   Page 12
APR Template – Part B (4)                                                                      FLORIDA
                                                                                                    State

Discretionary projects also produced resources, which are made available to districts and schools to
assist in their improvement efforts. Examples can be accessed at the following discretionary project
websites:
     FIN at http://www.floridainclusionnetwork.com/page265.aspx
     FDLRS at http://www.paec.org/fdlrsweb/index.htm
     RtI-TLC at http://rtitlc.ucf.edu/
     Florida PBS at http://flpbs.fmhi.usf.edu/
     PS-RtI at http://floridarti.usf.edu/
     SEDNET at http://www.fldoe.org/ese/sedhome.asp

The GSW was used as the primary method of communication between the Bureau and targeted districts.
During the conference call on October 12, 2009, resources were outlined and guidance was provided on
the GSW. BEESS state-level team offered to facilitate problem-solving to improve Florida’s performance
related to Indicators 3, 4, and 5. At the districts’ request for a written product to orient district personnel to
the 3-4-5 cluster, the state-level team created a Brief that addresses an overview of Indictors 3, 4 and 5;
the purpose for clustering; lessons learned; the GSW site; timelines; and the role of projects. The Brief
can be accessed at http://www.florida-rti.org/weekly/attachments/040810.pdf.

Identify barriers
Barriers to students with disabilities accessing instruction in the least restrictive environment, so that
participation and performance in statewide assessment is improved, are formally identified through an
annual survey conducted by FIN and, additionally, through one-on-one correspondence and on-site visits
conducted in May 2010. District level ESE administrators, school administrators, teachers, and families
were asked to identify major barriers to inclusive practices. Three of the top barriers identified by
educators were consistent with responses from 2005 through 2009:
     Lack of time for professional development
     Lack of administrative support
     Funding
Families identified barriers similar to those above, but also listed the teacher attitudes towards students
with disabilities as a major barrier. The new barriers that emerged for districts during 2009-10 were:
     Highly qualified teacher requirements
     Class size requirements
Districts stated that the interaction of these two mandates has produced the unintended consequence of
a decline in the use of the co-teaching model for inclusion.

Develop action plans
The indicator team collaborated with targeted school districts to develop action plans to address
performance on 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, we provided
feedback and monitored progress toward performance targets making revisions as necessary based on
annual outcome data. The nine districts previously identified that had shown improvement were
encouraged to continue monitoring their improvement activities. The two newly targeted district’s plans
were submitted November 16, 2009, through the GSW and districts were given individual feedback by
team leaders. Amended plans were reviewed by the indicator 3/4/5 team and additional feedback was
provided to districts. Ongoing communication about improvement activities and action planning was
conducted via telephone, electronic mail, and the GSW. This information was used to document types of
activities engaged in by the districts. These reports were reviewed for a relationship between particular
activities and improvements in data. Districts reported that activities related to ongoing professional
development and leadership training in differentiated instruction, inclusive practices, accommodations,
flexible scheduling, collaborative practices, PS/RtI, and PBS resulted in improvements in indicators 3, 4,
and 5.

Provide professional development
BEESS staff provided professional development at the annual state administrator conference. Specific
professional development sessions provided at AMM in 2009 included:
     District and Building Implementation of RtI – Reports from the Field

                                                                                                         Page 13
APR Template – Part B (4)                                                                FLORIDA
                                                                                             State

      Implementation of the SLD Eligibility Rule
      Effective Instructional Technology
      Accessing the General Curriculum
      RtI for Behavior – Critical Features/Training Requirements/Systems Issues
      Differentiated Accountability
Along with five other states, Florida was selected by the USDOE on July 1, 2008, for participation in the
DA Pilot Program allowing flexibility in implementing ESEA to target interventions in the neediest schools.
The model fully integrates two accountability systems: (1) Florida’s school grades and (2) ESEA, requiring
both district and school-level planning that specifically identifies which interventions should be applied
and who is responsible for implementation, support, and monitoring. In collaboration between BEESS and
the Bureau of School Improvement, five PS-RtI specialists, focused on improving effectiveness of
instruction, were hired to align with the five DA regions. As a result of this collaboration, the following
professional development activities occurred:
      187 instruction reviews of low performing schools
      Technical assistance provided every 7-14 days to each of the low performing schools in the DA
         regions
      62 school-level, district-level, and regional trainings, reaching 5,175 individuals

To illustrate the magnitude and potential impact of training, services and products, the following
summarizes additional professional development provided by BEESS discretionary projects to support
data-based problem solving, inclusive practices, and the use of positive behavioral interventions on
strategies to increase AET:

    PS/RtI
     30 Statewide School-based Team Training Days completed at 10 locations: 695 individuals
       trained
     15 Train-the-Trainer Days at 5 locations, 460 individuals from 70 districts (including lab schools &
       FLDOC) completed August 2009
     5 Train-the-Trainer Technical Assistance Days at 5 locations, 253 individuals from 48 districts
       (including lab schools and FLDOC), completed February 2010
     3 Statewide Newsletters featuring model schools/districts and research
     40 Training sessions for pilot school-based teams in 10 locations — 464 individuals
     168 Training sessions conducted in demonstration districts by District Coaches
     2 Data Collection training sessions
     47 Technical Assistance sessions conducted by Regional Coordinators
     1,057 Technical Assistance sessions conducted in demonstration districts by Coaches
     14 Technical Assistance sessions conducted on Data Collection by project evaluation
       coordinators
     32,395 Beliefs, Satisfaction, Practices, and Skills surveys completed to guide on-going
       adjustments to professional development efforts
     191 Self Assessments of Problem-Solving Implementation completed to assist districts in
       targeted planning for implementation improvement
     4,300 Integrity measures completed by coaches to support effectiveness of implementation
     2,486 Direct Skill Assessments completed to inform district and school leaders of areas of
       professional development need
     Annual evaluation report disseminated to share data and lessons learned from pilot sites
     Completed a 3-Day conference on the application of RtI to Secondary Schools

    FIN
     Provide awareness level training to school staff: 7,849 participants
     Provide focused skill-building training to school staff: 9,767 participants
     Provide technical assistance or awareness level workshops to families: 1,410 participants
     Provide discussion forums, problem-solving sessions, or peer coaching for school and/or district
        staff: 4,124 participants
     Disseminate awareness level information to schools and/or districts: 16,425 documents


                                                                                                  Page 14
APR Template – Part B (4)                                                                FLORIDA
                                                                                             State

       Disseminate implementation level information to schools and/or districts: 18,575 documents
       Disseminate awareness level information to families: 12,115 documents

    PBS
     Statewide, 821 schools have been trained in school-wide PBS and 757 (92%) of these schools
       remain active across the following grade levels: 7 preschools, 434 elementary, 175 middle, 91
       high, 64 alternative/center schools, and 50 other schools.
     Over 62% of all active schools were implementing PBS with fidelity and 133 schools from across
       the State were identified as PBS Model Schools.
     53 of Florida’s 67 districts (79%) had active PBS District Leadership Teams with schools that
       were trained in school-wide PBS and met with PBS project staff at least annually to plan for PBS
       sustainability and expansion efforts within the district.
     The PBS website was updated on a regular basis. Training, technical assistance materials and all
       evaluation data/entries for participating schools were accessible on the website at
       http://flpbs.fmhi.usf.edu/index.asp, with almost 5,600,000 hits annually.
     During the past year, the Project gave over 30 lectures, awareness presentations, and
       conference presentations at the local, state, and national levels. At least three articles on PBS
       implementation were published in peer reviewed journals.
     At least 10 new products were developed and disseminated, including (1) an online PBS
       newsletters, (2) revised training materials for Tier 2, (3) a technical assistance paper on RtI and
       PBS, (4) online trainings for Tier 2, Benchmark for Advanced Tiers (BAT) and Benchmarks of
       Quality (BOQ) completions, district coordinators meetings, coaches meetings, and Coaches 101
       training, (5) four revised or new evaluation instruments (BAT, BOQ, PIC and Walkthrough).

Conduct compliance self-assessments
The indicator team required two targeted districts to conduct a focused compliance self-assessment on
the related requirements identified by OSEP. The Fall Cycle Level 2 self-assessment was completed by
targeted districts on January 29, 2010. The information gleaned from this activity was analyzed by
districts to better address internal needs in developing and implementing district-level improvement
activities. From this analysis, districts were able to validate their perceived areas of weakness as they
proceeded with the problem-solving process.

Develop instructional strategies for students with significant cognitive disabilities
During the 2009-10 school year, the CLASP discretionary project engaged in the following activities:
     Supported writing teams for the development of access points that align to the NGSSS
     Developed ESE courses and course descriptions to align to access points
     Developed web based training modules that provide the conceptual framework on access, and
        involvement in the general education curriculum through Access Points and Access Courses for
        students with significant cognitive disabilities
     Developed an instructional materials and resources review guide

Refine/implement Florida Alternate Assessment
During the 2009-10 school years, FLDOE:
     Developed new items for 2011 assessment
     Conducted 3 studies to support reliability and validity
     Conducted new item content and bias reviews for the 2011 assessment
     Compiled and distributed released Florida Alternate Assessment items to teachers of students
        with significant cognitive disabilities

Explanation of Progress or Slippage that occurred for 2009-10 (FFY 2009):

The state met its participation target of 98% in reading (98.0%), but narrowly missed the same target in
math (97.9%). In both reading and math, however, there was an increase of 0.2% over last year’s
participation rate, continuing the upward trend from 92% in 2004-05 to 97.9%-98.0% in 2009-10.



                                                                                                  Page 15
APR Template – Part B (4)                                                                    FLORIDA
                                                                                                  State

Proficiency targets were not met. The reading proficiency rate remained the same as in 2008-09 (35.6%)
while the math proficiency rate increased 0.8% (from 39.9% to 40.7%). From the period covering 2004-05
through 2009-10, however, there has been an 11% increase in reading proficiency and a 14% increase in
math proficiency.

Targets for the percentage of districts meeting AYP targets in both reading and math were not met.
Similar to previous years, only one district (1%) met the AYP target in reading and only three districts
(4%) met the AYP target in math.

While steady progress continues, it remains slower than we had hoped to accomplish. Since the inception
of NCLB, implementation of Reading First, and PBS, there has been a decline in the rate of referring
students for evaluation for ESE eligibility. These practices are being further strengthened by state-wide
scale-up efforts with problem-solving/response to intervention. This results in higher success rates for
students in general education settings including students who have traditionally been found eligible for
special education. The reduced number of students now accessing special education resources require
significantly more intense instruction/interventions in order to succeed and tend to progress at a slower
rate. This slower rate then becomes evident in our statewide progression toward these performance
targets.

Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines /
Resources for FFY 2010

The phrase to target was changed to to inform in order to reflect application of this activity to all districts.
The phrase in collaboration with related projects was added to reflect our intent to maintain the link
between our analyses and the findings of the project staff working directly with the districts. The phrase
rates of suspension/expulsion was added to more directly align with indicator 4. The phrases for targeted
districts, via paperless communication, notes, and to be disseminated were removed because they are
considered no longer necessary. The phrase including the impact of computer-based testing on student
performance was added to address the potential barriers lifted or created due to the upcoming
computerized assessment method. The RtI/TLC project was removed from resources listed because it
was discontinued with PS/RtI assuming some of the activities. The PS/RtI project was added as a
resource because this project formally assesses barriers that districts experience related to improvements
in these indicators. The phrase from exemplar districts was replaced with from districts to reflect that
lessons are learned from various districts. The activity provide professional development using lessons
learned from districts at the annual state administrator conference was changed to through presentations,
workshops, technical assistance papers, conference calls, and other methods, provide training and
technical assistance to school districts and families that incorporates effective practices identified through
collaboration with districts, project staff, and other professionals to broaden the scope of provision.

         Revised Activity                       Timelines                             Resources
                                                2010-2011
 Conduct annual analysis of data       September 2010                       FLDOE/BEESS, in
 concerning student participation                                           collaboration with related
 and performance on annual                                                  projects
 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.

                                                                                                         Page 16
APR Template – Part B (4)                                                          FLORIDA
                                                                                       State

Identify successful resources,        September 2011–May 2012     FLDOE/BEESS, in
projects, and high student                                        collaboration with related
achievement rates as                                              projects.
demonstrated on annual
statewide assessments, and
share with districts, on line
module development, Technical
Assistance Papers,
presentations and professional
development/training to
schools, education
professionals, and parents as
appropriate.
Assist districts in identifying       October 2010–May 2011       FLDOE/BEESS
district/school specific barriers                                 FIN
to students with disabilities                                     PBS
performing adequately on                                          PS/RtI
annual statewide assessments,
including the impact of
computer-based testing on
student performance.
Require targeted school               September 2010–May 2011     FLDOE/BEESS
districts to develop action plans                                 LEA and school personnel
to address participation and                                      Resources for Districts to
performance on annual                                             Access as Needed for Planning
statewide assessments for                                         and Implementation:
students with disabilities using a                                     PS/RtI
systems change framework and                                           PBS
the problem solving-model.                                             FIN
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.
Through presentations,                September 2010 – May 2011   FLDOE/BEESS and LEAs, in
workshops, technical                                              collaboration with related
assistance papers, conference                                     discretionary projects
calls, and other methods,
provide training and technical
assistance to school districts
and families that incorporates
effective practices identified
through collaboration with
districts, project staff, and other
professionals.




                                                                                               Page 17
APR Template – Part B (4)                                                                   FLORIDA
                                                                                                State

        Part B State Annual Performance Report (APR) for 2009-10 (FFY 2009)


Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE


Indicator 4: Rates of suspension and expulsion:
    Percent of districts that have a significant discrepancy in the rates of suspensions and expulsions of
    greater than 10 days in a school year for children with IEPs. (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A); 1412(a)(22))


     Measurement:
     Percent = [(# of districts that have a significant discrepancy in the rates of suspensions and
         expulsions of children with disabilities for greater than 10 days in a school year) divided by the (#
         of districts in the State)] times 100.
     Include State’s definition of ―  significant discrepancy.‖
     Significant discrepancy is defined as a risk ratio of three or higher when comparing children with
     IEPs to nondisabled children within the LEA.

     Data Source: State student database; data reported on Table 5


      FFY                                     Measurable and Rigorous Target

                 3% or fewer districts are identified by the state as having a significant discrepancy in the
     2009        rates of suspensions and expulsions of children with IEPs for greater than 10 days in
    (2009-10)
                 school year 2008-09.
Requirements from OSEP Response Table
The State did not report the results of the review it conducted pursuant to 34 CFR §300.170(b) for two of
the six LEAs identified with significant discrepancies in FFY 2007 based on 2007-2008 data. In the FFY
2009 APR, the State must report whether, as a result of the review, the State revised, or required the
affected LEAs to revise, policies, procedures and practices relating to the development and
implementation of the IEPs….

Review of Policies, Procedures, and Practices Related to IEPs, Positive Behavioral Supports, and
Procedural Safeguards for the six LEAs Identified with Significant Discrepancies in FFY 2007

In the APR submitted in February 2010 FLDOE inadvertently addressed the prior year districts of which
there were four. The following provides of accurate summary of state and local activities for the six
districts identified in FFY 2007.

   As part of the technical assistance provided in 2008-09 to the six districts identified with significant
    discrepancies in FFY 2007, BEESS staff reviewed the policies, procedures, and practices relating to
    the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and
    supports, and procedural safeguards to ensure compliance with the IDEA for each of the six districts.
    Noncompliance was not identified by BEESS staff, but districts were required to make some revisions
    to their procedures for purposes of clarity and to ensure that staff involved in implementation were
    knowledgeable of the requirements.
   In addition, all six identified districts conducted a compliance self-assessment that addressed policies,
    procedures, and practices related to suspension and expulsion. The results of the self-assessment
    were validated by BEESS staff. Three of the four districts identified noncompliance. Correction of the
    noncompliance was demonstrated prior to the submission of the FFY 2008 APR.

                                                                                                     Page 18
APR Template – Part B (4)                                                                   FLORIDA
                                                                                                 State

   Lastly, two of the six districts participated in a voluntary review process whereby the PBS project
    assessed the districts’ policies, procedures, and practices in relation to tier 3 behavioral interventions.
    The review process included formal interviews and desk reviews of FBAs and BIPs. Based on
    feedback from PBS, both districts developed action plans to improve the effectiveness and district-
    wide consistency of tier 3 interventions.

Actual Target Data for 2009-10 (FFY 2009):
For the 2008-09 school year, 9.7% of districts (7/72) were 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.

Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed for 2009-10 (FFY 2009):

Data analysis
Seven districts were identified as having a significant discrepancy (i.e., a risk ratio of three or higher) in
the rates of suspension and expulsion of students with IEPs for more than ten days during 2008-09.
Analysis of trend data for the 2006-07, 2007-08, and 2008-09 school years indicated the following:
 Four of the seven districts had a significant discrepancy for the second consecutive year. Each of the
    four demonstrated a continuous upward trend in risk ratio and in the actual number of students
    suspended or expelled over the three year period.
 Two of the seven districts had a significant discrepancy for the third consecutive year. One of the two
    demonstrated a continuous upward trend in risk ratio over the three year period. The other
    demonstrated a continuous downward trend in risk ratio but an increase in the actual number of
    students suspended or expelled over the three year period.
 The seventh (newly identified) district was a small district that demonstrated a consistent decrease in
    the actual number of students suspended or expelled for both students with IEPs and nondisabled
    students, and, at 3.30, had the lowest risk ratio of the identified districts.
 The state-level risk ratio comparing suspension and expulsion rates for students with IEPs and
    nondisabled students decreased from 1.64 in 2006-07 to 1.59 in 2007-08, and again to 1.56 in 2008-
    09.
 Statewide, the number of students with disabilities who were suspended or expelled for more than ten
    days in the school year increased from 6,625 in 2007-08 to 6,829 in 2008-09, while total enrollment of
    students with disabilities decreased over the same time period from 452,512 to 447,515. This reflects
    a slight increase in the rate of suspension/expulsion from 1.46 percent to 1.53 percent.
 Statewide, the number of nondisabled students who were suspended or expelled for more than ten
    days in the school year increased from 22,596 in 2007-08 to 23,697, while total enrollment in the
    state decreased over the same time period from 2,459,795 to 2,428,948. This reflects a slight
    increase in suspension/expulsion from .92 percent to .97 percent.

In addition to identifying districts with significant discrepancies, BEESS reviewed its procedures for
targeting districts for required improvement activities across all applicable indicators. Research has
shown that academic engaged time (AET) is a key factor in student achievement and is influenced by
student behavior and educational placement (i.e., access to instruction). Therefore, for the purpose of
identifying districts for targeted technical assistance and improvement planning, the decision was made to
integrate indicator 4 into the existing indicator 3/5 cluster, creating the indicator 3/4/5 cluster. Targeting
criteria assigned points for educational placement and assessment results as follows:
 Three points for regular class placement above the state rate
 One point proficiency in reading above the state rate
 One point for proficiency in math above the state rate
 One point for being under the 1% cap for students identified as proficient via the Florida Alternate
     Assessment

Districts met the criteria for targeting during 2009-10 if they obtained a score of less than two and were
currently targeted for indicator 4, or if they obtained a score of zero regardless of indicator 4 status. Two
districts met the criteria during 2009-10. On September 21, 2009, the districts targeted for the 3/4/5
cluster were formally notified via memorandum.

                                                                                                      Page 19
APR Template – Part B (4)                                                                 FLORIDA
                                                                                               State


Identify exemplar models
Those districts that had previously been targeted for improvement activities as a result of poor
performance on indicator 3, 4, or 5 and subsequently demonstrated sufficient progress to no longer meet
the targeting criteria were identified. Indicator 3/4/5 team members looked for activities conducted by
those districts that indicated a relationship between assessment performance, low rates of
suspension/expulsion, and LRE for the purpose of identifying effective activities. On October 12, 2009, a
conference call was conducted with targeted districts to discuss action planning requirements and review
the problem-solving process and use of the GSW. Lessons learned from previously targeted districts were
shared and follow-up with the targeted districts occurred on a one-to-one basis. Activities implemented by
districts previously targeted for indicators 3, 4, or 5 that had demonstrated improvement were replicated
to varying degrees by targeted districts during this reporting period, and included the following:
 Awareness and Collaboration
      Distribute LEA Profiles to district staff, schools, and leadership and review for planning purposes
      Identify, recruit, and orient district problem-solving team members
      Analyze inclusion data (inclusion percentage, AYP, student growth)
      Analyze LEA Profiles for data trends
      Identify new LEA targeted schools based on end-of-the-year data trends
      Analyze existing sources of behavioral data
      Gather stakeholder input; create, edit, and disseminate plans of action
      Require administrator attendance and oversight regarding problem-solving process
      Link administrators with mentors
      Disseminate and provide training on Next Generation Sunshine State Standards resources
      Meet with School Based Leadership Teams to update action plans based on data trends
 Professional Development
      Develop a long-term schedule for professional development, support, monitoring, and follow up to
          targeted schools
      Provide professional development to build internal district capacity for training on topics including
          differentiated instruction, inclusive practices, accommodations, flexible scheduling, collaborative
          practices, PS/RtI, and PBS
      Implement PBS at schoolwide, supplemental, and individual student levels
      Require staff to complete the On-line RtI Introductory Course and/or other professional learning
          activities within the context of a professional learning community (PLC); implement RtI
      Develop/implement a program for students without disabilities to raise awareness and
          understanding of students with disabilities
      Disseminate, discuss, and apply current literature in PLCs
      Conduct case studies in PLCs to practice application for proficiency
 Organization and Scheduling
      Access FIN expertise to facilitate schoolwide inclusion
      Review/update and clearly define district guidelines used by IEP teams
      Develop and implement a plan to increase school-to-work transition opportunities on traditional
          school campus
      Develop collaborative schedules to support co-planning and team problem-solving
      Conduct resource mapping as part of district and school problem-solving
      Develop strategic resource allocation plans through district level problem-solving

Identify successful resources
The six targeted districts with improvement plans submitted progress reports and consulted at least
monthly with the team leader on their action plan activities. The team leader worked closely with targeted
districts on the problem-solving process and accessing necessary supports and training. Progress reports
submitted by the targeted districts were reviewed to identify successes and continued areas of concern.
Results included the following:
 Schools with training in PBS strategies took a more comprehensive, systematic, and explicit
     approach to discipline plans, procedures, and expectations of faculty, students, and parents.
 Data entry errors were identified, prompting the districts to examine their suspension/expulsion data
     more frequently than in the past. Some districts created ―flags‖ within their data systems to notify

                                                                                                    Page 20
APR Template – Part B (4)                                                                      FLORIDA
                                                                                                    State

    administrators when any student with a disability was suspended for more than five days in any
    school year. Some districts added procedures to train data entry clerks to cross reference discipline
    and attendance data for accuracy on a regular basis.
   The transition to a problem solving/response to instruction and intervention (PS/RtI) framework for
    behavior enhanced schools’ ability to function in a more preventative manner for all students with
    regard to discipline. As a result, schools focused on training staff to conduct more thorough functional
    behavioral assessments (FBAs) and individually tailor behavioral interventions for students at-risk of
    suspension or expulsion.

In addition, BEESS provides professional development and technical assistance related to suspension
and expulsion in part through its PBS, SEDNET, and FDLRS discretionary projects. Based on feedback
from project staff and districts, the results of improvement plans implemented by targeted districts, and
information from regional or national sources such as the Center on Positive Behavior and Support and
the Association for Positive Behavior Support, the indicator team identified successful evidence-based
practices, strategies, and resources to share with districts. The information was incorporated into on-
going professional development provided by the projects (see Provide professional development below)
and into the indicator improvement planning components of the GSW (e.g., recommended activities lists,
electronic links to outside resources).

Identify barriers
Ongoing consultation was provided to the seven identified districts through conference calls and
individual communication with the indicator team leader and the districts’ monitoring liaisons. Five of the
targeted districts were selected for Level 3 on-site visits due to a pattern of poor performance over time
on Indicator 4 or other indicators. BEESS made a decision to have the Indicator 4 team leader
accompany and assist the monitoring team on all of these site-visits. This allowed the team leader to
observe districts’ particular challenges and provided ample opportunity to work in collaboration with
district administrators and Bureau monitoring staff on both corrective action and targeted technical
assistance.

Develop action plans
Six of the seven districts identified as having a significant discrepancy in the rates of suspensions and
expulsions based on 2008-09 data also had been identified during one or more prior year(s) and had
developed and implemented action plans in consultation with BEESS. The plans were on-going during
2009-10 and included technical assistance from FLDOE staff and BEESS-supported projects. The six
districts continued to submit regular progress reports to the state. BEESS made on-site technical
assistance available in addition to supports from existing discretionary projects. Two districts requested
and received on-site technical assistance from BEESS and all six participated in ongoing electronic and
telephone consultation with the team leader.

Based on the results of the data analysis activity described above, the decision was made to conduct an
on-site monitoring visit to the seventh (newly identified) district in lieu of requiring the district to develop an
action plan. The monitoring visit focused, in part, on the district’s initial implementation of PBS and
identifying areas in need of targeted technical assistance, as well as a review of policies, procedures, and
practices related to suspension and expulsion. Interviews, observations, and record reviews revealed no
findings of noncompliance or concerns related to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of
positive behavioral interventions and supports, or the implementation of procedural safeguards related to
discipline of students with disabilities, and the district was progressing in its initial implementation of PBS.
As a result, an action plan related to indicator 4 was not required. However, this decision will be revisited
upon review of data for the 2009-10 school year.

Provide professional development
BEESS staff provided professional development at the annual Administrators’ Management Meeting
(AMM) state conference. Specific professional development sessions that addressed the indicator 3/4/5
cluster included:
 District and Building Implementation of RtI – Reports from the Field
 Implementation of the SLD Eligibility Rule

                                                                                                         Page 21
APR Template – Part B (4)                                                                   FLORIDA
                                                                                                 State

   Effective Instructional Technology
   Accessing the General Curriculum
   RtI for Behavior – Critical Features/Training Requirements/Systems Issues
   Differentiated Accountability

In addition, professional development and technical assistance related to suspension and expulsion was
provided statewide and to targeted districts by BEESS discretionary projects. Activities and
accomplishments of specific projects are summarized below:
 PBS
     Six of the seven districts identified as having a significant discrepancy in suspension and
         expulsion of students with IEPs continued to implement PBS in their schools and received on-
         going support from the PBS project; the seventh worked with the PBS project to initiate PBS in its
         schools during 2009-10.
     Statewide, 821 schools have been trained in school-wide PBS and 757 (92%) of these schools
         remain active across the following grade levels and types of schools: seven preschool, 434
         elementary, 175 middle, 91 high, 64 alternative/center schools, and 50 other schools.
     Over 62% of all active schools were implementing PBS with fidelity and 133 schools from across
         the State were identified as PBS Model Schools.
     Fifty-three of Florida’s 67 districts (79%) had active PBS District Leadership Teams with schools
         that were trained in school-wide PBS and met with PBS project staff at least annually to plan for
         PBS sustainability and expansion efforts within the district.
     The PBS website was updated on a regular basis and semi-annual newsletters were
         disseminated. Training, technical assistance materials, and evaluation/data entries for
         participating schools were accessible on the website at http://flpbs.fmhi.usf.edu/index.asp.
     PBS project staff presented at more than 30 local, state, and national levels conferences and
         professional meetings.
     Newly developed or revised/updated products included four evaluation instruments (Benchmarks
         for Advanced Tiers (BAT), Benchmarks of Quality (BoQ), PBS Implementation Checklist (PIC),
         and On-site Walkthrough); materials and on-line training for Tier 2 interventions; and, online
         trainings for BAT and BoQ, Coaches 101, and conducting district coordinators and coaches
         meetings.
 SEDNET
     During 2009-10, SEDNET provided direct services to students and collaborated with PBS to
         provide direct training and technical assistance to school districts, focusing on sites with high risk
         students.
     In one of the targeted districts, SEDNET participated as part of the District Leadership Team for
         PBS schools, and chairs the PBS parent sub-committee for PBS schools district-wide.
     SEDNET Project Managers participated in new and ongoing development of plans for PBS
         implementation and coordinated and provided PBS training.
     A total of 17,005 individuals participated in SEDNET trainings related to indicator 4. This
         represents a 33% increase over the total number of SEDNET training participants in 2008-09.
         Training topics with the potential to directly influence rates of suspension and expulsion included
         behavior and classroom management, diversity and disability awareness, ESE policies and
         procedures, parent and family support, and student support services.
 FDLRS
     The Professional Development Alternatives (PDA) online module for implementation of PBS was
         offered 28 times and was accessed by 290 participants, with an average course satisfaction
         rating of 9.28 out of 10.
     Professional development directly related to behavior and classroom management was provided
         through a total of 781 workshops, summer institutes, consultation and mentoring, distance
         learning, and other delivery models, and was accessed by 14,153 participants. Session topics
         included General Behavior Management, Classroom Management, Tough Kids, CHAMPS,
         Discipline in the Secondary Classroom, and CPI.
     There were 1,671 opportunities for professional development related to effective instructional
         strategies accessed by 28,546 participants. Effective instructional strategies are expected to
         increase AET of students and have a positive impact on student behavior, resulting in decreased

                                                                                                      Page 22
APR Template – Part B (4)                                                                  FLORIDA
                                                                                                State

        incidents of suspension and expulsion.

Conduct compliance self-assessment
Four of the seven districts identified during 2009-10 as having a significant discrepancy in the rates of
suspension or expulsion for students with IEPs based on 2008-09 data conducted a web-based focused
compliance self-assessment that addressed policies, procedures, and practices related to suspension
and expulsion (e.g., IEP development, the use of positive behavioral supports, procedural safeguards
related to discipline). Each district had findings of noncompliance. Student-specific correction was verified
within 60 days of identification. Demonstration of 100% compliance is required during 2010-11.

Two of the seven districts had completed the required focused self-assessment during the prior year
(2008-09), corrected all noncompliance within the required timelines, and implemented action plans to
support future compliance. Therefore, in accordance with established BEESS policy, those two districts
were not required to complete the self-assessment again in 2009-10.

In lieu of completing the web-based self-assessment, the seventh, newly identified, district participated in
an on-site focused monitoring visit by BEESS staff that incorporated the regulatory components of the
focused self-assessment. All student specific findings of noncompliance were corrected within timelines
established by the Bureau. Demonstration of 100% compliance with the relevant requirements is required
during 2010-11.

Review policies, procedures, and practices
The policies, procedures, and practices related to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use
of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards to ensure compliance with
IDEA were reviewed in 2008-09 for six of the seven districts identified as having a significant discrepancy
during 2009-10. At that time, the districts made required revisions and it was determined that the revised
policies and procedures aligned with the requirements of IDEA. Because the review and revision process
extended throughout the 2008-09 school year, it was determined that a formal desk review of those same
districts’ policies, procedures, and practices would not be conducted during 2009-10, but they would be
monitored through the on-going progress reporting and communication between the targeted districts and
the indicator team.

Through the problem-solving process districts frequently identified areas where additional refinements to
policies, procedures, or practices might be beneficial. The state assisted and supported these districts as
they worked proactively to reduce suspension rates through the actions such as the following:
 Enhancing district-level data collection and reporting procedures to ensure accurate reporting of in
     and out-of-school suspensions; allow for systematic sharing of discipline reports with schools to better
     inform monitoring and action planning processes; and support school-level coordination of parental
     notice of suspensions, conferences, and manifestation determination meetings
 Adding staff positions to enhance implementation of positive behavioral support training and
     mentoring; assisting in the development and implementation of FBAs and BIPs; and assisting in
     implementation of Tier 2 and Tier 3 interventions.
 Clarifying and streamlining the process for creating, implementing, monitoring, and revising BIPs
 Revising guidelines for assigning time for in-school suspension to result in shorter intervals (class
     periods instead of days), and reducing the amount of out-of-school suspension assigned when
     students fail to serve in-school suspension.
 Requiring district-level ESE program specialists to participate in all manifestation determination
     meetings and FBA/BIP proceedings for students in middle and high school
 Requiring district-level ESE program specialists to cross-check discipline and attendance records
     every 4-5 weeks and work with data entry clerks to correct any inaccuracies in a timely manner

The seventh district participated in a monitoring visit that included a review of policies, procedures, and
practices related to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral
interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards related to discipline of students with disabilities.
Policies, procedures, and practices were determined to align with the requirements of IDEA and there


                                                                                                     Page 23
APR Template – Part B (4)                                                                    FLORIDA
                                                                                                  State

were no findings of noncompliance identified through the interviews, observations, and record reviews
conducted on-site. No revisions were required of this district.

Explanation of Progress or Slippage that occurred for 2009-10 (FFY 2009):

In 2008-09, the state did not meet its identified target of 3% or fewer districts identified as having a
significant discrepancy in the rates of suspensions and expulsions of children with disabilities for greater
than ten days. The actual data revealed that 9.8% of districts (seven of the 71 districts for which
suspension or expulsion apply), had a significant discrepancy. This reflects an increase of one district
from 2007-08. In contrast, the state-level risk ratio comparing suspension and expulsion rates for students
with IEPs and nondisabled students decreased from 1.64 in 2006-07 to 1.59 in 2007-08, and again to
1.56 in 2008-09, and the percentage of districts with a significant discrepancy has decreased significantly
from the baseline rate of 20.9% in 2004-05.

All districts that had a significant discrepancy in 2007-08 also had a significant discrepancy in 2008-09.
The reason for this is unclear. Because the suspension or expulsion of relatively few students can have a
greater impact on the risk ratio calculation for smaller districts compared to larger districts, it is expected
that the data reported for smaller districts will reflect more variability from year to year than for larger
districts. The addition of a newly identified district in 2008-09 may explained by the fact that it is a small
district (total enrollment in 2008-09 of fewer than 4,000 students) and the actual number of students
suspended or expelled has consistently decreased (35 students in 2008-09, 18 students with disabilities
and 17 nondisabled students). In general, it is believed that the relative number of students needing
highly specialized supports coupled with the impact of local and state budget cuts creates unique
challenges for smaller districts with regard to alternatives to suspension and expulsion.

The seven identified districts represented the following size-alike designations: very large – one; large –
one; medium – one; medium/small – two; small – two. The district that has demonstrated a consistent
decrease in its risk ratio over the past three years is considered very large district, with a total enrollment
in 2008-09 of over 370,000 students. Based on its comparative size, that district’s downward trend in risk
ratio is encouraging.

Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines /
Resources for FFY 2010

For purposes of clarity and to create a fully integrated Indicator 3/4/5 cluster, revisions were made to the
timelines in following activities and to the descriptions related to identification of effective practices,
development of action plans, professional development, and review of policies, procedures, and
practices. We see these indicators as interdependent and have worked to apply integrated targeting
criteria and technical assistance. The revised activities for Indicator 4 reflect the desired consistency and
integration with Indicators 3 and 5 while retaining those requirements specific to Indicator 4 (i.e., review of
policies, procedures, and practices).

         Revised Activity                       Timelines                             Resources
                                                 2010-11
 Analyze of data concerning            September-October 2010              FLDOE/BEESS
 student suspension and                                                    PBS
 expulsion for technical                                                   PS/RtI
 assistance on practices that
 improve student behavior in
 school.
 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
 positive behavior for the
 purpose of identifying exemplar

                                                                                                       Page 24
APR Template – Part B (4)                                                    FLORIDA
                                                                               State

         Revised Activity                     Timelines               Resources
models for targeted districts.
Collaborate with districts,          September 2010–May 2011   FLDOE/BEESS
project staff, and other                                       PBS
professionals to identify                                      FIN
effective strategies, resources,                               FDLRS
projects, alternatives to                                      PS/RtI
suspension and expulsion, and                                  ISRD
positive behavior support
models.
Assist districts in identifying      October 2010–May 2011     FLDOE/BEESS
district/school specific barriers                              PBS
that impact students with                                      SEDNET
disabilities being                                             PS/RtI
disproportionately suspended or
expelled.
Require targeted school districts    September 2010–May 2011   FLDOE/BEESS
to develop and implement                                       LEAs
action plans to address                                        PBS
suspension and expulsion of                                    SEDNET
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.
Through presentations,               September 2010            FLDOE/BEESS
workshops, technical assistance                                LEAs
papers, conference calls, and                                  PBS
other methods, provide training                                FIN
and technical assistance to                                    FDLRS
school districts and families that                             PS/RtI
incorporates effective practices                               ISRD
identified through collaboration
with districts, project staff, and
other professionals.
Require newly targeted districts     October 2010-May 2011     FLDOE/BEESS
to conduct a focused                                           LEAs
compliance self-assessment on
the related requirements
identified by OSEP.
Collaborate with districts           October 2010–May 2011     FLDOE/BEESS
identified as having a significant                             LEAs
discrepancy in the rates of
suspension and expulsion of
students with IEPs for more
than ten days in a school year
to develop a plan to review and,
if appropriate, revise policies,
procedures and practices
related to the development and


                                                                                   Page 25
APR Template – Part B (4)                          FLORIDA
                                                      State

        Revised Activity          Timelines   Resources
implementation of IEPs, the use
of positive behavioral
interventions and supports, and
procedural safeguards to
ensure compliance with IDEA.




                                                          Page 26
APR Template – Part B (4)                                                                   FLORIDA
                                                                                                State

             Part B State Annual Performance Report (APR) for 2009-10 (FFY 2009)


Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE


Indicator 5: Percent of children with IEPs aged 6 through 21:
    A. Inside the regular class less 80% or more of the day;
    B. Inside the regular class less than 40% of the day; and
    C. In separate schools, residential facilities, or homebound/hospital placements.

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


        Measurement:
        A. Percent = [(# of children with IEPs served inside the regular class 80% or more of the day)
           divided by the (total # of students aged 6 through 21 with IEPs)] times 100.
        B. Percent = [(# of children with IEPs served inside the regular class less than 40% of the day)
           divided by the (total # of students aged 6 through 21 with IEPs)] times 100.
        C. Percent = [(# of children with IEPs served separate schools, residential facilities, or homebound
           /hospital placements) divided by the (total # of students aged 6 through 21 with IEPs)] times 100.
        Data Source: State student database; data reported on Table 3




          FFY                                   Measurable and Rigorous Target


         2009         Indicator 5A - Increase the percentage of students with IEPs aged 6 to 21 years served
        (2009-10)     inside the regular class for 80% or more of the day to 60.8%.

                      Indicator 5B - Decrease the percentage of students with IEPs aged 6 to 21 years
                      served inside the regular class for less than 40% of the day to 19.3%.

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


Actual Target Data for 2009-10 (FFY 2009):
          Indicator 5A: In 2009-10, 67.4% of students with IEPs aged 6-21 years were served inside the
           regular class for 80% or more of the day (226,053/335,370).
          Indicator 5B: In 2009-10, 15.8% of students with IEPs aged 6-21 years were served inside the
           regular class less than 40% of the day (53,006/335,370).
          Indicator 5C: In 2009-10, 3.6% of students with IEPs aged 6-21 years were served in separate
           schools, residential placement or homebound/hospital placements (11,917/335,370).

Discussion of Improvement Activities for 2009-10 (FFY 2009):
Data Analysis
A state-level team, consisting of representatives from BEESS and various supporting discretionary
projects, conducted the annual analysis of data concerning student placement outside of regular

                                                                                                     Page 27
APR Template – Part B (4)                                                                   FLORIDA
                                                                                                 State

classrooms to provide information on districts/schools to target for technical assistance on inclusion. In
addition to analyzing student placement data, BEESS reviewed across all indicators its procedures for
targeting districts for required improvement activities. Research has shown that academic engaged time
(AET) is a key factor in student achievement and is influenced by student behavior and educational
placement (i.e., access to instruction). Therefore, for the purpose of identifying districts for targeted
technical assistance and improvement planning, the decision was made to integrate indicator 4 into the
existing indicator 3/5 cluster, creating the indicator 3/4/5 cluster. Targeting criteria assigned points for
educational placement and assessment results as follows:
 Three points for regular class placement above the state rate
 One point proficiency in reading above the state rate
 One point for proficiency in math above the state rate
 One point for being under the 1% cap for students identified as proficient via the Florida Alternate
    Assessment

Districts met the criteria for targeting if they obtained a score of less than two and were currently targeted
for indicator 4, or if they obtained a score of zero regardless of indicator 4 status. Two districts met the
criteria during 2009-10. On September 21, 2009, the two districts targeted for the 3/4/5 cluster were
formally notified via memorandum, while the pre-existing districts targeted only for Indicator 4 remained
targeted for 2009-10.

Identify exemplar models
Those districts that had previously been targeted for improvement activities as a result of poor
performance on indicator 3, 4, or 5 and subsequently demonstrated sufficient progress to no longer meet
the targeting criteria were identified. Indicator 3/4/5 team members looked for activities conducted by
those districts that indicated a relationship between assessment performance, low rates of
suspension/expulsion, and LRE for the purpose of identifying effective activities. On October 12, 2009, a
conference call was conducted with targeted districts to discuss action planning requirements and review
the problem-solving process and use of the GSW. Lessons learned from previously targeted districts were
shared and follow-up with the targeted districts occurred on a one-to-one basis. Activities implemented by
districts previously targeted for indicators 3, 4, or 5 that had demonstrated improvement were replicated
to varying degrees by targeted districts during this reporting period, and included the following:

    Awareness and Collaboration Activities
     Distribute LEA Profiles to district staff, schools, and leadership
     Identify, recruit, and orient members of a district problem-solving team
     Analyze inclusion data (inclusion percentage, AYP, student growth)
     Analyze LEA Profiles for data trends
     Identify new LEA targeted schools based on end-of-the-year data trends
     Analyze existing sources of behavioral data
     Gather stakeholder input, create, edit and disseminate plans of action
     Require administrator attendance and oversight for team’s meeting to engage in the problem-
       solving process
     Link new administrators with mentors to receive on-going support and guidance
     Disseminate and implement suggestions from Accommodations: Services to Students with
       Disabilities
     Disseminate and provide awareness training on Next Generation Sunshine State Standards
       Resources
     Meet with targeted schools’ School Based Leadership Teams engaging in the problem-solving
       process to update Action Plan based on data trends

    Professional Development Activities
     Develop a long-term schedule for professional development, support, monitoring and follow up to
        targeted schools
     Provide professional development to build internal district capacity for training:
            o Differentiated Instruction, Inclusive Practices, Accommodations, Flexible Scheduling,
                Collaborative Practices, PS/RtI, PBS

                                                                                                      Page 28
APR Template – Part B (4)                                                                      FLORIDA
                                                                                                    State

       Implement PS/RtI
       Implement PBS at the schoolwide, supplemental, and individual student levels
       Require staff to complete the on-line Response to Intervention Introductory Course and/or other
        professional learning activities within the context of a PLC
       Develop/implement a program for students without disabilities to raise awareness and
        understanding of students with disabilities
       Disseminate, discuss and plan instruction according to current literature in PLCs
       Conduct case studies in PLCs to practice application for proficiency

    Organization and Scheduling Activities
     Access FIN expertise to facilitate schoolwide inclusion
     Review/update and clearly define district guidelines used by IEP teams to make data-based
       assessment and instructional decisions
     Develop and implement a plan to increase school to work transition opportunities on general
       education campuses
     Develop collaborative schedules to support co-planning and team problem-solving
     Conduct resource mapping as part of district and school problem-solving
     Develop strategic resource allocation plan through district level problem-solving

Identify successful resources
The indicator team identified resources, projects, and successful inclusion models, and shared with
districts via paperless communication, TAPs, presentations and professional development and training.
These resources were disseminated to schools and education professionals and parents as appropriate
through BEESS and through various projects funded by the BEESS. BEESS funded various statewide
discretionary projects to support districts and schools in improving educational outcomes for all students,
especially students with disabilities. Each project had a unique focus area with specific expectations and
was monitored by BEESS staff with the intent that each project contribute meaningfully to the
accomplishments related to Florida’s SPP Indicators by participating in and supporting state, district, and
school level problem-solving and implementation of improvement activities. Project leaders contributed to
the problem-solving process by helping to identify existing barriers, suggesting proven solutions, assisting
with implementation of improvement activities, and monitoring the effectiveness of those activities.

Discretionary projects also produced resources, which are made available to districts and schools to
assist in their improvement efforts. Examples can be accessed at the following discretionary project
websites:
     FIN at http://www.floridainclusionnetwork.com/page265.aspx
     FDLRS at http://www.paec.org/fdlrsweb/index.htm
     RtI-TLC at http://rtitlc.ucf.edu/
     Florida PBS at http://flpbs.fmhi.usf.edu/
     PS-RtI at http://floridarti.usf.edu/
     SEDNET at http://www.fldoe.org/ese/sedhome.asp

The GSW was used as a primary method of communications between BEESS and targeted districts.
During the conference call on October 12, 2009, resources were outlined and guidance was provided on
the GSW. BEESS state-level team offered to facilitate problem-solving to improve Florida’s performance
related to Indicators 3, 4, and 5. At the districts’ request for a written product to orient district personnel to
the 3-4-5 cluster, the state-level team created a Brief that addresses an overview of Indictors 3, 4 and 5;
the purpose for clustering; lessons learned; the GSW site; timelines; and the role of projects. The Brief
can be accessed at http://www.florida-rti.org/weekly/attachments/040810.pdf.

Identify barriers
Barriers to students with disabilities being placed in the least restrictive environment are formally
identified through an annual survey conducted by FIN and, additionally, through one-on-one
correspondence and on-site visits conducted in May 2010. District level ESE administrators, school
administrators, teachers, and families were asked to identify major barriers to inclusive practices. Three
of the top barriers identified by educators were consistent with responses from 2005 through 2009:

                                                                                                         Page 29
APR Template – Part B (4)                                                                 FLORIDA
                                                                                               State

     Lack of time for professional development
     Lack of administrative support
     Funding
Families identified barriers similar to those above, but also listed the teacher attitudes towards students
with disabilities as a major barrier. The new barriers that emerged for districts during 2009-10 were:
     Highly qualified teacher requirements
     Class size requirements
Districts stated that the interaction of these two mandates has produced the unintended consequence of
a decline in the use of the co-teaching model for inclusion.

Develop action plans
The indicator team collaborated 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 on
the action plans submitted for BEESS review, we provided feedback and monitored progress toward
performance targets making revisions as necessary based on annual outcome data. The nine districts
previously identified that had shown improvement were encouraged to continue monitoring their
improvement activities. The two newly targeted district’s plans were submitted November 16, 2009,
through the GSW and districts were given individual feedback by team leaders. Amended plans were
reviewed by the indicator 3/4/5 team and additional feedback was provided to districts. Ongoing
communication about improvement activities and action planning was conducted via telephone, electronic
mail, and the GSW. This information was used to document types of activities engaged in by the districts.
These reports were reviewed for a relationship between particular activities and improvements in data.
Districts reported that activities related to ongoing professional development and leadership training in
differentiated instruction, inclusive practices, accommodations, flexible scheduling, collaborative
practices, PS/RtI, and PBS resulted in improvements in indicators 3, 4, and 5.

Provide professional development
BEESS staff provided professional development at the annual state administrator conference. Specific
professional development sessions provided at AMM in 2009 included:
     District and Building Implementation of RtI – Reports from the Field
     Implementation of the Specific Learning Disabilities Eligibility Rule
     Effective Instructional Technology
     Accessing the General Curriculum
     RtI for Behavior – Critical Features/Training Requirements/Systems Issues
     Differentiated Accountability

To illustrate the magnitude and potential impact of training, services and products, the following
summarizes professional development provided by BEESS discretionary projects to support data-based
problem-solving, inclusive practices, and the use of positive behavioral interventions and strategies to
increase AET:

    FIN
     Provide awareness level training to school staff: 7,849 participants
     Provide focused skill-building training to school staff: 9,767 participants
     Provide technical assistance or awareness level workshops to families: 1,410 participants
     Provide discussion forums, problem-solving sessions, or peer coaching for school and/or district
        staff: 4,124 participants
     Disseminate awareness level information to schools and/or districts: 16,425 documents
     Disseminate implementation level information to schools and/or districts: 18,575 documents
     Disseminate awareness level information to families: 12,115 documents

    PBS
     Statewide, 821 schools have been trained in school-wide PBS and 757 (92%) of these schools
       remain active across the following grade levels: 7 preschools, 434 elementary, 175 middle, 91
       high, 64 alternative/center schools, and 50 other schools.


                                                                                                    Page 30
APR Template – Part B (4)                                                                 FLORIDA
                                                                                              State

       Over 62% of all active schools were implementing PBS with fidelity and 133 schools from across
        the State were identified as PBS Model Schools.
       53 of Florida’s 67 districts (79%) had active PBS District Leadership Teams with schools that
        were trained in school-wide PBS and met with PBS project staff at least annually to plan for PBS
        sustainability and expansion efforts within the district.
       The PBS website was updated on a regular basis. Training, technical assistance materials and all
        evaluation data/entries for participating schools were accessible on the website at
        http://flpbs.fmhi.usf.edu/index.asp, with almost 5,600,000 hits annually.
       During the past year, the Project gave over 30 lectures, awareness presentations, and
        conference presentations at the local, state, and national levels. At least three articles on PBS
        implementation were published in peer reviewed journals.
       At least 10 new products were developed and disseminated, including (1) an online PBS
        newsletters, (2) revised training materials for Tier 2, (3) a technical assistance paper on RtI and
        PBS, (4) online trainings for Tier 2, Benchmark for Advanced Tiers (BAT) and Benchmarks of
        Quality (BOQ) completions, district coordinators meetings, coaches meetings, and Coaches 101
        training, (5) four revised or new evaluation instruments (BAT, BOQ, PIC and Walkthrough).

    PS/RtI
     30 Statewide School-based Team Training Days completed at 10 locations: 695 individuals
       trained
     15 train-the-trainer days at 5 locations, 460 individuals from 70 districts (including lab schools &
       FLDOC) completed August 2009
     5 train-the-trainer Technical Assistance Days at 5 locations, 253 individuals from 48 districts
       (including lab schools and FLDOC), completed February 2010
     3 Statewide Newsletters featuring model schools/districts and research
     187 Instruction Reviews of low performing schools completed by the 5 Regional RtI Specialists
       assigned to the Differentiated Accountability (DA) Regions
     Technical assistance provided every 7-14 days to each of the low performing schools in the DA
       regions by the 5 Regional RtI Specialists assigned to the DA Regions
     62 school-level, district-level, and regional trainings provided by the 5 Regional RtI Specialists
       assigned to the DA Regions: 5,175 individuals
     40 Training sessions for pilot school-based teams in 10 locations — 464 individuals
     168 Training sessions conducted in demonstration districts by District Coaches
     2 Data Collection training sessions
     47 Technical Assistance sessions conducted by Regional Coordinators
     1,057 Technical Assistance sessions conducted in demonstration districts by Coaches
     14 Technical Assistance sessions conducted on Data Collection by project evaluation
       coordinators
     32,395 Beliefs, Satisfaction, Practices, and Skills surveys completed to guide on-going
       adjustments to professional development efforts
     191 Self Assessments of Problem-Solving Implementation completed to assist districts in
       targeted planning for implementation improvement
     4,300 Integrity measures completed by coaches to support effectiveness of implementation
     2,486 Direct Skill Assessments completed to inform district and school leaders of areas of
       professional development need
     Annual evaluation report disseminated to share data and lessons learned from pilot sites
     Completed a 3-Day conference on the application of RtI to Secondary Schools

Conduct compliance self-assessments
The indicator team required two targeted districts to conduct a focused compliance self-assessment on
the related requirements identified by OSEP. The Fall Cycle Level 2 self-assessment was completed by
targeted districts on January 29, 2010. The information gleaned from this activity was analyzed by
districts to better address internal needs in developing and implementing district-level improvement
activities. From this analysis, districts were able to validate their perceived areas of weakness as they
proceeded with the problem-solving process.


                                                                                                   Page 31
APR Template – Part B (4)                                                                    FLORIDA
                                                                                                  State
Explanation of Progress/Slippage for 2009-10 (FFY 2009):

Data demonstrating FAPE in the LRE exceeded the state targets in two of the three indicators:
 Indicator 5A: 67.4% of students were served inside the regular classroom for 80% of more of the day
   exceeding the target of 60.8% and increasing 3.1% over the previous year. The percentage of
   students served inside the regular classroom for 80% of more of the day has increased every year
   since baseline data were reported for 2004-05 with an overall increase from 49.8% to 67.4%.
 Indicator 5B:15.8% of students were served inside the regular classroom less than 40% of the day—
   less than the target of 19.3% and 1.1% less than the previous year. The percentage of students who
   were served inside the regular classroom less than 40% of the day has decreased every year since
   baseline data were reported for 2004-05 with an overall decrease from 26.3% to 15.8%
 Indicator 5C: 3.6% of students were served in other separate environments—exceeding the target of
   2.6% and increasing 0.1% over the previous year. Data for indicator 5C have fluctuated between
   1.8% and 3.6% since 2004-05.

Similar to data reported in the 2008-09 APR, the state met its 2009-10 performance targets in two of the
three elements of indicator 5. The state did not meet its target for decreasing the number of students
served in other separate environments. Florida continues to see increasing numbers of students with
disabilities receiving educational services in the general education setting as a result of its policy and
support for inclusive education and meaningful access to general education instruction. As part-time or
resource placements are declining in favor of more inclusive placements, students who had been served
in part-time settings are now being placed differently. Most students who formerly were served via part-
time placements are now being served in regular class placements; however, some students formerly
served via part-time placements are now being served in separate environments. The result is slight
increases and fluctuations in separate environments, as schools adjust and readjust their service delivery
models over time.

Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines /
Resources for FFY 2010:

The phrase to target was changed to to inform in order to reflect application of this activity to all districts.
The phrase in collaboration with related projects was added to reflect our intent to maintain the link
between our analyses and the findings of the project staff working directly with the districts. The phrase
rates of suspension/expulsion was added to more directly align with indicator 4. The phrases via
paperless communication, notes, and to be disseminated were removed because they are no longer
necessary. The RtI/TLC project was removed from resources listed because it was discontinued with
PS/RtI assuming some of the activities. The PS/RtI project was added as a resource because this project
formally assesses barriers that districts experience related to improvements in these indicators. The
phrase from exemplar districts was replaced with from districts to reflect that lessons are learned from
various districts. The activity provide professional development using lessons learned from districts at the
annual state administrator conference was changed to through presentations, workshops, technical
assistance papers, conference calls, and other methods, provide training and technical assistance to
school districts and families that incorporates effective practices identified through collaboration with
districts, project staff, and other professionals to broaden the scope of provision.

         Revised Activity                      Timelines                              Resources
                                                2010-11
 Identify successful resources,       September 2010–May 2011               FLDOE/BEESS, in
 projects, and successful                                                   collaboration with related
 inclusion models, and share                                                projects
 with districts, Technical
 Assistance Papers,
 presentations and professional
 development/training to schools
 and education professionals
 and parents as appropriate.

                                                                                                       Page 32
APR Template – Part B (4)                                                    FLORIDA
                                                                                 State

Identify district/school specific    October 2010–May 2011     FLDOE/BEESS
barriers to students with                                      FIN
disabilities being placed in the                               PBS
least restrictive environment.                                 PS/RtI
Require targeted school districts    September 2010–May 2011   FLDOE/BEESS
to develop action plans to                                     LEA and school personnel
address LRE for students with                                  Resources for Districts to
disabilities using a systems                                   Access as Needed for
change framework and the                                       Planning and Implementation:
problem-solving model. Based                                        PS/RtI
on the action plans submitted                                       PBS
for BEESS review, provide                                           FIN
feedback and monitor progress
toward performance targets
making revisions as necessary
based on annual outcome data
for LRE.
Through presentations,               September 2010-May 2011   FLDOE/BEESS and LEAs, in
workshops, technical assistance                                collaboration with related
papers, conference calls, and                                  discretionary projects
other methods, provide training
and technical assistance to
school districts and families that
incorporates effective practices
identified through collaboration
with districts, project staff, and
other professionals.




                                                                                      Page 33
APR Template – Part B (4)                                                                FLORIDA
                                                                                              State

          Part B State Annual Performance Report (APR) for 2009-10 (FFY 2009)


Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE


Indicator 7: Percent of preschool children aged 3 through 5 with IEPs who demonstrate improved:
    A. Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships);
    B. Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/ communication and early
       literacy); and
    C. Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs.

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

     Measurement:
     Outcomes:
     A. Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships);
     B.   Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/communication and early
          literacy); and
     C. Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs.
     Progress categories for A, B and C:
          a. Percent of preschool children who did not improve functioning = [(# of preschool children
             who did not improve functioning) divided by (# of preschool children with IEPs assessed)]
             times 100.
          b. Percent of preschool children who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to
             functioning comparable to same-aged peers = [(# of preschool children who improved
             functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-aged peers)
             divided by (# of preschool children with IEPs assessed)] times 100.
          c. Percent of preschool children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged
             peers but did not reach it = [(# of preschool children who improved functioning to a level
             nearer to 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:
     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 #

                                                                                                   Page 34
APR Template – Part B (4)                                                                 FLORIDA
                                                                                                State

    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.


    Data Source: Florida’s child outcomes measurement system uses scores from the Personal-Social
    domain of the Battelle Developmental Inventory-2 (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 >-1.5 SD is considered to represent a level of functioning that is
    ―comparable to same-aged peers.‖




     FFY                                    Measurable and Rigorous Target

                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%
    2009                 Outcome C: 59.5%
   (2009-10)    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.
                         Outcome A: 75.8%
                         Outcome B: 52.9%
                         Outcome C: 73.3%
   Actual Target Data for 2009-10 (FFY 2009):
                                                                  Acquisition and
                                           Positive social-      use of knowledge            Use of
                                           emotional skills           and skills           appropriate
                                          (including social       (including early      behaviors to meet
                                            relationships)            language/            their needs
                                                                  communication
                                                                 and early literacy)
OSEP Categories                              n          %            n          %          n             %
a. Percent of preschool children who
                                            54          1.5        67          1.9         92           2.6
   did not improve functioning
b. Percent of preschool children who
   improved functioning but not
   sufficient to move nearer to             355        10.0        699        19.7        438           12.3
   functioning comparable to same-
   aged peers
c. Percent of preschool children who
   improved functioning to a level
                                            156         4.4        498        14.0        152           4.3
   nearer to same-aged peers but did
   not reach


                                                                                                    Page 35
APR Template – Part B (4)                                                                FLORIDA
                                                                                               State

d. Percent of preschool children who
   improved functioning to reach a
                                           827         23.3       960        27.0        668           18.8
   level comparable to same-aged
   peers
e. Percent of preschool children who
   maintained functioning at a level       2157        60.8       1325       37.3       2199           62.0
   comparable to same-aged peers
   Total                                 N=3,549      100%      N=3,549      100%      N=3,549         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.
   Measurement:
   Outcome A (personal-social domain):            983/1,392 = 70.6%
   Outcome B (communication domain):              1,458/2,224 = 65.6%
   Outcome C (adaptive domain):                   820/1,350 = 60.7%

   SUMMARY STATEMENT #2: The percent of preschool children who were functioning within age
   expectations in each Outcome by the time they exited the preschool program.
   Measurement:
   Outcome A (personal-social domain):            2,984/3,549 = 84.1%
   Outcome B (communication domain):              2,285/3,549 = 64.4%
   Outcome C (adaptive domain):                   2,867/3,549 = 80.8%

   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 peers


                                                                                                   Page 36
APR Template – Part B (4)                                                                  FLORIDA
                                                                                               State
      This category includes only children who were functioning at a level comparable to same-aged
      peers at both entry and exit.

  Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that
  occurred for 2009-10 (FFY 2009):

  The system and processes described in the SPP document remain unchanged. Because Florida
  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. The
  Indicators C3/B7 Leadership Team met one or two times monthly via conference call with extensive
  and frequent contact via electronic mail during the intervening weeks. Facilitation of the meetings
  rotated among state agency staff members. During 2009-10, the membership of the leadership team
  was expanded to include four local representatives representing two school districts and two Local
  Early Steps.

  Discretionary projects awarded to the University of Miami and the University of Central Florida (TATS)
  continue to provide essential support for system implementation. The following update is provided on
  the activities identified for the 2009-10 year.

  Assess ongoing training needs of school districts on selected instrument
  In preparation for the Child Outcomes Advisory Committee meeting for indicators C3/B7 (see
  additional information below), during November 2009, school district contacts for the prekindergarten
  program for children with disabilities and Local Early Steps contacts were asked to provide feedback
  on implementation issues and quality assurance measures in place. Based on the feedback received,
  and input from the Child Outcomes Advisory Committee, training needs of the highest priority were
  identified. Those training needs related to:
       How to export and analyze data in the web-based data system
       Identifying, correcting, and providing feedback on common errors made when entering data
       Additional support/information on assessment items that are more difficult to administer
           and/or score
       ―   Refresher course‖ on administration, especially for classroom teachers at the preschool level

  In response to the needs identified, the development of training regarding exporting data and analysis
  of data was initiated. Development of additional written guidance on producing reports from the web-
  based system was initiated, with more training planned during the 2010-11 year following the addition
  of new enhancements to the web management system by the publisher.

  Additionally, planning was initiated and action taken to create on-line modules that can be used as a
  ―refresher‖ for individuals already trained in the administration of the instrument. In collaboration with
  the publisher, filming of training sessions was conducted with school district practitioners and
  modules are now in production.

  Convene Child Outcomes Advisory Committee
  During December 2009, the Child Outcomes Advisory Committee was convened. The committee was
  composed of school district and Local Early Steps representatives as well as those on the leadership
  team. Three primary issues were identified for consideration and proposal of recommendations.
  Those issues included: (1) target-setting for the SPP that was submitted on February 2010; (2) the
  submission of raw score only versus item-level data in the web-based data management system; and
  (3) additional supports and assistance needed to ensure quality implementation. Those
  recommendations were used to guide subsequent decision-making on the part of FLDOE and
  FLDOH.

  Provide training on web-based data management system
  In collaboration with the publisher of the assessment instrument and web-based data management
  system, 19 webinars were held during 2009-10 on data entry procedures. Through the efforts of the
                                                                           lorida-specific‖ manual was
  discretionary projects that support the activities of this indicator, a ―F

                                                                                                    Page 37
APR Template – Part B (4)                                                               FLORIDA
                                                                                             State

  created as a source of information. This manual was updated as needed throughout the year and
  made accessible on the TATS website at http://www.tats.ucf.edu/evaluation_COMSM.php.

  Implement train-the-trainer materials/process
  During 2009-10, train-the-trainer sessions were conducted for school district and LES staff in
  districts/regions that were in the final phase-in of the child outcomes measurement system. A process
  established in 2008-09 for reviewing candidates nominated by school districts as potential trainers
  was continued. In November, 2009, two 2-day train-the-trainer workshops were implemented.
  Training was provided by staff from the publisher. A total of 61 individuals participated in these
  training workshops. Since the inception of the train-the-trainer workshops, 161 individuals have been
  trained.

  During 2009, a survey was conducted with trainers from Phases 1, 2, and 3. Data from that survey
  revealed that these individuals conducted a total of 105 workshops and trained approximately 2,500
  individuals in the administration of the assessment instrument.

  Review data quality
  Prior to 2009-10, school districts provided assessment data to the University of Miami subcontractor
  for electronic data entry and processing. Beginning with 2009-10, this process changed, and school
  districts were required to enter data in the web-based data management system that is available from
  the publisher. The data were then downloaded by the subcontractor for analysis at periodic intervals.
  Staff from the University of Miami and the sub-contractor periodically review data quality and provide
  feedback to state and local staff.

  Review and revise documents/maintain communication
  The TATS project maintained current documents related to the child outcome measurement system
  on the project web site. Periodically, calls with all school districts and LES contacts were conducted to
  update guidance on the child outcomes management system. During May, 2010, a statewide meeting
  for all of the contacts for the prekindergarten program for children with disabilities was conducted.
  One of the topics addressed was the child outcomes measurement system.

  A guidance document was drafted to serve as a synthesis of multiple documents that have been
  developed over time. The document will be reviewed and edited by the leadership team and then
  distributed to school districts and LES.

  A key document that was revised during the year includes guidance related to the BDI-2 Screening
  Test when the results indicate that a child’s performance in a domain is comparable to same age
  peers. The revisions made during 2009-10 allowed greater flexibility for the use of the Screening Test
  in certain circumstances. This document can be found on the TATS website at
  http://www.tats.ucf.edu/evaluation_COMSM.php.

  Explanation of Progress and Slippage for 2009-2010

  The explanation of progress and slippage is organized by each summary statement for each
  outcome. In all outcome areas for both summary statements, the 2009-10 performance exceeded the
  targets established.

  Summary Statement #1
           Outcome Area                                          Exceeded Target By
     Outcome A – positive social/emotional skills                      4.7%
     Outcome B – acquisition of knowledge and skills                   6.6%
     Outcome C – use of appropriate behaviors to meet
                                                                         1.2%
     needs




                                                                                                  Page 38
APR Template – Part B (4)                                                              FLORIDA
                                                                                           State
  Summary Statement #2
           Outcome Area                                         Exceeded Target By
     Outcome A – positive social/emotional skills                      8.3%
     Outcome B – acquisition of knowledge and skills                  11.5%
     Outcome C – use of appropriate behaviors to meet
                                                                        7.5%
     needs

  Florida has demonstrated significant rates of progress in this first year of APR reporting for this
  indicator. FLDOE looks forward to establishing a trend line over at least three years at both state and
  local levels.

  Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines /
  Resources for 2009-10 (FFY 2009):

  Data reported for 2008-09 – It was determined that an error in rounding a calculation was made for
  the data reported for Summary Statement 1/Outcome B. The corrected calculation is 59% rather than
  58.8% as previously reported.

  Improvement Activities – The improvement activity identified as ―    assess ongoing needs of school
  districts for assessment materials and acquire additional material as appropriate‖ has been deleted
  from the State Performance Plan as an activity for 2010-2011. During prior years, the Department
  provided extensive assistance for school districts in the acquisition of materials. Districts were
  advised to use the available stimulus funding for such acquisitions. Improvement activities for 2011 –
  12 and 2012-13 have been added to the State Performance Plan.

  Additionally, the Child Outcomes Advisory Committee was added as a resource for the analysis of
  data.




                                                                                                Page 39
APR Template – Part B (4)                                                                   FLORIDA
                                                                                                State

         Part B State Annual Performance Report (APR) for 2009-10 (FFY 2009)


Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE


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


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. Calculation is competed separately for preschool children and
children in grades K-12.

Data Source: NCSEAM Family/Parent Involvement Measure School Efforts to Partner with Parent Scale
(SEPPS)


     FFY                                     Measurable and Rigorous Target


     2009         50% of parents with a preschool child receiving special education services report that
  (2009-2010)     schools facilitate parent involvement as a means of improving services and results for
                  children with disabilities.

                  40% 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.


Actual Target Data for 2009-10 (FFY 2009):
For FFY 2009, 53% (1,112/2,106) 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.

K-12 survey data show that 39.6% (5,225/13,211) 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.

Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed for 2009-10 (FFY 2009):

Report Parent Survey Data
Previous year parent survey data was reported to designated district contacts during statewide
conference calls and monthly updates on current year survey data was provided via electronic messages
and through posting of Annual Performance Report and LEA Profiles posted on the BEESS website.

Share Parent Survey Data with Stakeholders
Data was shared with BEESS State Advisory Committee, parents of children with disabilities, and district-
level parent survey contacts via face-to-face meetings, conferences, and e-mail messages.



                                                                                                     Page 40
APR Template – Part B (4)                                                                     FLORIDA
                                                                                                   State

Provide Technical Assistance to Districts Concerning Outreach
Technical assistance was conducted by BEESS through the year via six statewide conference calls as
well as e-mail communication. Two statewide teleconferences hosted by BEESS with district contacts
reviewed the details of the parent survey instrument, the scale used to measure parent response, and the
 met
― standard‖ criteria.

The BEESS contact person answered phone and e-mail inquiries from district contacts and parents.
Numerous comments and suggestions were received from parents. Announcement flyers in multiple
languages (Spanish, English, and Creole) were developed by BEESS and distributed electronically to
district contacts.

This was the first year that Florida utilized the online system as the primary means for parents to respond
to the surveys. District contacts were invited to try out the online survey prior to its availability to parents.
This provided an opportunity for districts to become familiar with its use and give valuable feedback to
BEESS. Follow-up conference calls were conducted to share with district contacts some of the ―bes           t
practices‖ reported by districts and address any concerns before the survey period began.

Awareness and outreach activities have been a priority for BEESS, and this year districts assumed more
of this responsibility to ensure increased parent participation in respective district. In preparation for the
survey period, it was important that districts disseminated information to parents about accessing these
surveys online, since surveys would no longer be mailed directly to parents. The following are some
examples of districts’ outreach to parents encouraging their participation:

        Adding the ESE Parent Survey as a web link located on district and school websites
       Distributing flyers announcing the ESE Parent Survey during parent trainings and meetings
       Providing parents computer access at convenient locations in the community, including schools
        and parent meetings
       Providing assistance to parents using the online survey, which may occur in conjunction with
        parent-related meetings and at select schools
       Utilizing Connect Edu to provide automated telephone messages reminding parents about the
        ESE Parent Survey and the importance of their participation
       Distributing memorandums to principals and school-based ESE staff concerning the ESE Parent
        Survey
       Mailing postcards to parents about the ESE Parent Survey
       Sending e-mail messages with hyperlinks to the ESE Parent Survey website for parents of ESE
        students

Expand Access to Online Survey to All Parents
The paper survey has been the primary means of collecting parent survey data since 2005. In response
to parent requests, and to reduce costs, in FFY 2009 the online survey was expanded so that all parents
of PK-12 public school children identified with a disability could participate. Paper surveys were still
available upon request for parents unable to access the online form or who strongly preferred using the
paper survey.

Analyze Parent Survey Data
During the survey period, BEESS e-mailed monthly data reports to districts to keep them apprised of how
many parents had responded to the preschool and K-12 surveys from their respective district. These
electronic reports included previous year’s total responses and previous month total for district’s own
analysis of their efforts to reach parents and make them aware of the parent survey.

Preliminary parent survey data for the FFY 2009 were provided to BEESS in July 2010. Final parent
survey data for the FFY 2009 were reported to BEESS in the fall of 2010.




                                                                                                        Page 41
APR Template – Part B (4)                                                                                                               FLORIDA
                                                                                                                                             State
Explanation of Progress or Slippage that Occurred for 2009-10 (FFY 2009):
Florida met the measurable and rigorous targets projected for parents of preschool children with
respondent data from parents of preschool students exceeding the target by 3%. Florida missed the 40%
target for parents of K-12 students by 0.4% with 39.6% of K-12 parents reporting that schools facilitate
parent involvement as a means of improving services and results for children with disabilities (see Table
1).

                                    Table 1: Parent Survey Data and Targets for FFY 2009


                                                Surveys                 Surveys          Measures            Met               Targets
                                                                       With Valid         At Or              Std.
                                               Completed                                                                          (%)
                                                                       Responses          Above
                                                                                                             (%)
                                                                                           Std.



                        PRESCHOOL                        2,111                2,106             1,112          52.8                     50

                             K-12                    13,211                  13,211             5,225          39.6                     40


Overall, these measures represent a significant increase when compared with parent survey results for
FFY 2009.The percentage of preschool survey respondents for which the standard was met or exceeded
increased 10% from the percentage reported in FFY 2008. The percentage of K-12 survey respondents
for which the standard was met or exceeded increased 8% from the percentage reported in FFY 2008.

                                    Figure 1: Parent Survey Data for FFY 2005 – FFY 2009
                        60


                                                                        53

                        50
                                                    46
                                          43                    43

                                40                                                                                                 40
                        40



                                                                                                             32          32
           Percentage




                        30                                                                         29
                                                                                           27




                        20




                        10




                        0
                                               % Met Standard                                           % Met Standard

                                                 Preschool                                                   K-12
                                     2005-06                 2006-07           2007-08             2008-09                    2009-10


In FFY 2009, the improvement activities were based on strategies developed in the sales and marketing
industry. The training from these industries indicates important steps include establishing credibility,
building relationships with customers, and creating comfort zones for the customers. Similar
recommendations can be found in research related to schools creating partnerships with families.

                                                                                                                                                 Page 42
APR Template – Part B (4)                                                                  FLORIDA
                                                                                                State

Additionally, sales and marketing literature indicates it takes 7 to 12 contacts with a customer before
receiving a response.
To encourage relationships and enhance the comfort level of parents, the primary responsibility for raising
awareness of the survey was transferred from the state to districts and local schools. Districts responded
by offering parents various ways to obtain assistance in completing the survey on line. Local schools and
districts tried to create comfort zones by offering access to computers and assistance at local
conferences, parent meetings, and/or at specific times during the day that correlated with parent dropping
or picking up students from schools.
Each district was responsible for designating a local contact for the parent survey. Additionally, within the
introduction to the web-based survey instrument information was provided for a contact at BEESS who
would be available to answer questions and respond to comments. All comments from parents which
included contact information were responded to by this contact person.
A series of messages were designed by districts utilizing different media and released at various times
during the survey period. Examples of these are listed under the paragraph titled, Provide Technical
Assistance to Districts Concerning Outreach. BEESS also provided basic marketing materials such as
flyers.
Analysis of FFY 2009 data results could be interpreted to indicate that schools’ facilitation of parent
involvement is relatively high in preschool and drops significantly in elementary grades. The data results
dropped again in the middle school grades. The data remains the same level through grade 11 but rise in
grade 12 to a level comparable to that occurring at the elementary school level. One hypothesis for the
higher levels is that interactions between schools and parents increases significantly at these key
                                                          th
transition periods in their child’s life (preschool and 12 grade.) This would tend to prompt parents to
respond in a more positive light resulting in an increased percentage of responses that met or exceeded
the standard.
Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines /
Resources for FFY 2010:
The timeline for soliciting stakeholders input will be expanded to cover the ¾ of FFY 2010. More activities
to receive more feedback concerning the survey include posting updated information concerning the
parent survey on the Bureau’s website. More presentations concerning the parent survey will be done
during FFY 2010 and forms will be designed to solicit input from the presentations’ audience and from
community based parent organizations.
Technical assistance to districts will be expanded to include more time and more information. Monthly
response data will be provided to each district. Response data will be analyzed to determine the schools
with highest number of parents completing the survey. Follow up activities with these schools designed to
solicit information about their process of outreach to parents will be conducted. Results will be shared
with all districts. Additional training concerning the survey instrument and facilitating parent involvement
will be developed and shared with districts.

The revised improvement activities, timelines, and resources for 2010-11:
                                                2010-11
Expand activities to solicit             September 2010-June 2010          BEESS
stakeholders input.                                                        State Advisory Committee
                                                                           LEA Parent Liaisons and ESE
                                                                           Parent Advisory Committees
                                                                           FDLRS
Expand technical assistance to           December 2010 – May 2011          BEESS
districts regarding best practices to                                      LEA Parent Liaisons and ESE
enhanced parental involvement.                                             Parent Advisory Committees
                                                                           FDLRS




                                                                                                     Page 43
APR Template – Part B (4)                                                         FLORIDA
                                                                                    State


Open web based survey to all             February 2011 –June 2011   MOPC
parents of preschool children with                                  FLDOE/BEESS
disabilities and students in K-12 with
disabilities.




                                                                                        Page 44
APR Template – Part B (4)                                                                   FLORIDA
                                                                                                 State

         Part B State Annual Performance Report (APR) for 2009-10 (FFY 2009)


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


     Measurement:
     Percent = [(# of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special
     education and related services that is the result of inappropriate identification) divided by the (# of
     districts in the State)] times 100.
     Westat’s risk ratio method is used for calculating disproportionate representation with a minimum ―   n‖
     size of 30.
     Florida defines disproportionate representation as a risk ratio of 3.5 or higher for overrepresentation
     and a risk ratio of 0.20 or less for underrepresentation.

     Data Source: State student database; data reported on Table 1; state analysis using Westat’s risk
     ratio method.


      FFY                                     Measurable and Rigorous Target


     2009         In 0% of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in
    (2009-10)     special education and related services, the disproportionality can be attributed to
                  inappropriate identification.


Actual Target Data for 2009-10 (FFY 2009):
In 2009-10 there were 0% of districts identified as being disproportionate where the disproportionality can
be attributed to inappropriate identification.
Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that
occurred for 2009-10 (FFY 2009):

Since no districts were found to be disproportionate due to inappropriate identification, the indicator team
continues to integrate this indicator with indicator 10 in order to ensure that districts are still focused on
providing appropriate evaluation practices for students with disabilities.

Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines /
Resources for FFY 2010
None.




                                                                                                      Page 45
APR Template – Part B (4)                                                                        FLORIDA
                                                                                                     State

          Part B State Annual Performance Report (APR) for 2009-10 (FFY 2009)


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


Measurement:
Percent = [(# of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific
disability categories that is the result of inappropriate identification) divided by the (# of districts in the
State)] times 100.
Westat’s risk ratio method is used for calculating disproportionate representation with a minimum ― size
                                                                                                      n‖
of 30.
Florida defines disproportionate representation as a risk ratio of 3.5 or higher for over-representation and
a risk ratio of 0.20 or less for under-representation.

Data Source: State student database; data reported on Table 1, state analysis using Westat’s risk ratio
method.


      FFY                                        Measurable and Rigorous Target


                   In 0% of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in
     2009
                   specific disability categories, the disproportionality can be attributed to inappropriate
   (2009-10)
                   identification.

Requirements from OSEP Response Table

Correction of FFY 2008 Findings of Noncompliance (if State reported more than 0% compliance):
For the one district identified in FFY 2008 that was in noncompliance related to this indicator, the State
verified timely correction of noncompliance, and the district is in compliance with 34 CFR Sections
300.111, 300.201, and 300.301 through 300.311. FLDOE staff met with the district to discuss findings and
required the district to change practices and procedures that contributed to the noncompliance. The
district provided additional training in evaluation procedures to its charter schools to target areas of
concern related to documentation of parental involvement and functional behavior assessments. FLDOE
staff also conducted an on-site monitoring visit to this district to review a sample of records. During this
visit, the state determined that the district had corrected the policies and procedures, as requested, and
corrected the noncompliance in a timely manner. Additionally, the evaluation report that was incomplete
was completed to reflect full evaluation results, as requested by the state.
Actual Target Data for 2009-10 (FFY 2009):
The percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific
disability categories that are the result of inappropriate identification is 4.17% (three out of seventy-two
districts).

Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed for 2009-10 (FFY 2009):

Provide support to targeted district(s)


                                                                                                           Page 46
APR Template – Part B (4)                                                                   FLORIDA
                                                                                                 State

During the FFY 2009, the State met with the one district identified with inappropriate identification in FFY
2008 due to noncompliance and the district developed a plan to address over-identification of Black EBD.
FLDOE staff also conducted an onsite visit in December 2009. The visit was at the school where the
identification issue was discovered, and subsequently training was conducted with school staff. During
this visit, additional training was scheduled to ensure inappropriate practices did not reoccur.

Review data to determine identification patterns
October 2009 data was used to calculate risk ratios by district and race for selected exceptionalities. Ten
districts (unduplicated) were identified as having overidentified (risk ratio above 3.5) students with
disabilities: White OHI in two districts, Black EBD in six districts, and Black IND in three districts. One of
these districts had a risk ratio of over 3.5 for both Black EBD and Black IND.

Meet with selected districts to target areas of need
After data was reviewed and districts notified that the data showed disproportionate representation,
FLDOE staff contacted each district to determine areas in need of support for each district. These
discussions led to the formulation of technical assistance activities for the selected districts.

Provide technical assistance
FLDOE staff has provided technical assistance via phone calls and e-mail when requested by the
districts. Additionally, support to participate in a Culturally Responsive Teaching seminar was provided to
targeted districts. This seminar was held in June 2010. During the seminar, districts shared progress
made toward reducing disproportionate representation, and developed action plans to address this issue
in their district.

FLDOE continues to provide technical assistance to districts regarding policies and procedures for
referral, evaluation and eligibility determination. FLDOE and district staff met on a quarterly basis to
address policy and procedural concerns related to curriculum and the identification of students with
disabilities.

Require selected districts to complete a self-assessment and provide clarification of policies and
procedures
The ten identified districts were contacted via letters dated March 4, 2010 indicating that they had been
selected for further review as a result exceeding the risk ratio criteria. The districts were required to
review a sample of records (selected by BEESS) using the initial eligibility protocol in the Compliance
Self-Assessment Manual and submit the results of the review to FLDOE via the GSW.

All targeted districts submitted their documentation via the web program in a timely manner. FLDOE
conducted a review of the self-assessment reports submitted by the districts to ensure that the
appropriate policies and procedures were followed for eligibility determination, and found that three
districts had findings of inappropriate identification. Specifically, the State found that the one district was
not in compliance with state eligibility for IND due to a lack of documentation of hearing and vision
screenings (Rule 6A-6.0331(1)(d) and (2)(b), F.A.C.), and lack of documentation of ongoing progress
monitoring of academic and/or behavioral concerns (Rule 6A-6.0331(1)(5), F.A.C.). One district was not in
compliance with state eligibility for EBD due to a lack of documentation that a student with excessive
absences (at least five in a calendar month or at least ten in a 90-calendar-day period) was referred to the
school’s child study team (Section 1003.26(1), F.S.). Additionally, a third district was not in compliance
with state eligibility for EBD or IND due to a lack of documentation that existing data in the student’s
educational record was reviewed as part of the initial eligibility process (Rule 6A-6.0331(1)(c) and (2)(a),
F.A.C.), nor was there documentation that the school district provided a copy of the evaluation report and
the documentation of determination of eligibility to the parent [34 CFR 300.306(a)(2)]. The state directed
these districts to correct individual noncompliance and to develop an improvement plan to correct the
systemic noncompliance.
Explanation of Progress/Slippage for 2009-10 (FFY 2009):




                                                                                                      Page 47
APR Template – Part B (4)                                                                   FLORIDA
                                                                                                State

In FFY 2009, the state did not meet its identified target. FFY 2009 data were analyzed similarly to
previous years. All races and ethnicities were examined for each specific disability area in all districts. The
FLDOE also conducted a review of each district’s policies and procedures document to ensure
compliance with state eligibility procedures. While 10 districts had disproportionate representation, it was
determined that three districts had inappropriate practices that resulted in disproportionate representation.
Slippage may be the result of the districts’ inability to obtain full evaluation records of students who have
transferred into the district.
Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines /
Resources for FFY 2010
None.




                                                                                                     Page 48
APR Template – Part B (4)                                                                 FLORIDA
                                                                                               State

         Part B State Annual Performance Report (APR) for 2009-10 (FFY 2009)


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 establishes a timeframe within which the evaluation must be conducted,
within that timeframe. (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B))

     Measurement:
     a. # of children for whom parental consent to evaluate was received.
     b. # of children whose evaluations were completed within 60 school days of which the student is in
     attendance (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.

     Data Source: State data collection tool



     FFY                                     Measurable and Rigorous Target


    2009         100% of children were evaluated within 60 school days (of which the student is in
   (2009-10)     attendance) of receiving parental consent for initial evaluation.


Requirements from OSEP Response Table
Correction of FFY 2008 Findings of Noncompliance (if State reported less than 100% compliance):
The State must report that it has verified that each LEA with noncompliance on this indicator: (1) is
correctly implementing 34 CFR §300.301(c)(1) (i.e., achieved 100% compliance) based on a review of
updated data such as data subsequently collected through on-site monitoring or a State data system; and
(2) has completed the evaluation, although late, for any child whose initial evaluation was not timely,
unless the child is no longer within the jurisdiction of the LEA, consistent with OSEP Memorandum 09-02.
The State must describe the specific actions that were taken to verify the correction.

FLDOE verified correction of noncompliance for all districts whose 2008-09 data reflected less than100%
compliance. At the time of district submission of 2008-09 data, correction of each individual instance of
noncompliance was provided by districts through reporting on all students (including those with
evaluations completed after the 60-day timeline and those who left the district’s jurisdiction prior to
completion of the evaluation). Evidence of correctly implementing 34 CFR §300.301(c)(1) (i.e., achieved
100% compliance) was provided by each district through a review of a random sample of records of
students initially evaluated during 2009-10. Results from these reviews were verified by FLDOE through
the State data system. Districts continued to pull random samples over time until they could demonstrate
100% compliance with 34 CFR §300.301(c)(1).

Actual Target Data for 2009-10 (FFY 2009):
Statewide, 98% of students were evaluated within 60 school days of receiving parental consent for an
initial evaluation (45,524 of 46,375). Evaluations completed outside the 60-day timeline were reported for
837 students, reflecting fewer than 2% of the total number of evaluations completed. Of these students,

                                                                                                   Page 49
APR Template – Part B (4)                                                                     FLORIDA
                                                                                                   State

355 were evaluated within ten days following the end of the timeline; 175 were evaluated between 11 and
20 days following the end of the timeline; and 307 were evaluated between 21 days and the reporting
deadline following the end of the timeline. There were 14 students for whom evaluations were still
pending at the time districts reported the data. Districts reported that these evaluations were scheduled to
be completed, while citing the following reasons for delays: student refused to participate in evaluation;
evaluation reassigned to bilingual evaluators; rescheduled meetings to accommodate parent; corrective
lens needed for visually impaired student; and limited use of problem-solving process for identifying
specific barriers to timely completion of evaluations. The results of this follow-up will be reported under
correction of noncompliance in the APR due February 2012.

Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed for 2009-10 (FFY 2009):

Data Review
Analysis of the 2008-09 Indicator 11 data revealed that 85% of the districts had improved overall when
compared with 2007-08 data. Districts reporting percentages below 100% were asked to continue
implementing their improvement plans, even if improvement had been evidenced. Districts that did not
demonstrate improvement were asked to revise their plan for improvement.

Identify target districts
For 2008-09, only two districts reported noncompliance rates that fell below the 95% measure of students
evaluated within 60 days of receiving parental consent for initial evaluation. These districts were targeted
for additional information and were notified by phone that they were targeted following submission of the
data in November 2009.

Conference Calls
Conference calls were held with the targeted districts and technical assistance was provided to assist in
identifying strategies to improve the rate of completions with the 60-day timeline. Conference calls
assisted in clarifying the criteria for reporting Indicator 11 data.

Review of Plans
The indicator team reviewed the plans of targeted districts and continued to provide technical assistance
via telephone.

Explanation of Progress or Slippage that occurred for 2009-10 (FFY 2009):
Data show a statewide improvement of 1% over last year’s results, increasing from 97% to 98%.This
progress can be attributed to the fact that districts are focusing on training for school level staff in entering
correct data and eliminating students who have moved out of the district. In 2009-10, 43 of 70 districts
(61 percent) reported 100% of the evaluations were completed within the 60-day timeline. Of those 43
districts, 27 had achieved 100% last year, while 16 of the 43 improved their percentage to 100%. Overall
progress was reported by 35 (44 percent) districts, with the highest increase achieved by an individual
district of 9%. Twelve districts out of 70 (17 percent) reported decreases when compared with last year’s
data. Only one district reported fewer than 95% of students evaluated within 60 days. In this district, there
was one student whose evaluation was completed beyond the 60-day period.
Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines /
Resources for FFY 2010:
A new activity was added to formalize procedures for demonstrating correction of noncompliance.
Beginning in January 2011, districts will be required to begin sampling of data to determine if compliance
is being achieved. If 100% compliance is met based on the sample of student evaluations,
noncompliance will have been corrected.
                                                2010-11
Districts with rates under 100%      January 2011 – June 2011             FLDOE/BEESS
begin sampling of data for                                                SSS
correction of noncompliance.
Sampling results showing 100%

                                                                                                        Page 50
APR Template – Part B (4)          FLORIDA
                                     State

compliance must be
documented to show timely
corrective action conducted by
the district and verified by the
FLDOE.




                                         Page 51
APR Template – Part B (4)                                                                 FLORIDA
                                                                                              State

         Part B State Annual Performance Report (APR) for 2009-10 (FFY 2009)


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

     Measurement:
     a. # of children who have been served in Part C and referred to Part B (LEA notified pursuant to
        637(a)(9)(A)) 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-e)] times 100.
     Data Source: State Part C and Part B data systems


     FFY                                     Measurable and Rigorous Target


     2009        100% of children served and referred by Part C prior to age 3, who are found eligible for
   (2009-10)     Part B, and have an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthday.

Requirements from OSEP Response Table
Correction of FFY 2008 Findings of Noncompliance (if State reported less than 100% compliance):
The State must report that it has verified that each LEA with noncompliance reflected in the data the State
reported for this indicator: (1) is correctly implementing 34 CFR §300.124(b)(i.e., achieved 100%
compliance) based on a review of updated data such as data subsequently collected through on-site
monitoring or a State data system; and (2) has developed and implemented the IEP, although late, for
any child for whom implementation of the IEP was not timely, unless the child is no longer within the
jurisdiction of the LEA, consistent with OSEP Memorandum 09-02. The State must describe the specific
actions that were taken to verify the correction.

FLDOE verified correction of noncompliance for all districts whose 2008-09 data reflected less than100%
compliance. At the time of district submission of 2008-09 data, correction of each individual instance of
noncompliance was provided by districts through reporting on all children (including those whose IEP was
developed and implemented after their third birthday and those who left the district’s jurisdiction prior to
development and implementation of the IEP). Evidence of correctly implementing 34 CFR §300.124(b)
(i.e., achieved 100% compliance) was provided by each district through a review of a random sample of
records of children referred by Part C and found eligible for Part B whose third birthday fell within 2009-
10. Results from these reviews were verified by FLDOE through the State data system. Districts
continued to pull random samples over time until they could demonstrate 100% compliance with 34 CFR
§300.124(b).
.

                                                                                                   Page 52
APR Template – Part B (4)                                                                     FLORIDA
                                                                                                   State


Actual Target Data for 2009-10 (FFY 2009):
In 2009-10, 99.6% of children served and referred by Part C prior to age 3, who were found eligible for
Part B, had an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthday.
a = 6,795 children were served in Part C and referred to Part B for eligibility determination in 2009-10
b = 169 of those referred were determined to be NOT eligible prior to their third birthday
c = 5,960 of those found eligible who had IEP developed and implemented by their third birthdays
d = 266 children for whom parent refusal to provide consent caused delays in evaluation or initial services
e = 374 children who were referred to Part C less than 90 days before their third birthdays

Calculation:
(c/a-b-d-e)
=5,960/6,795-169-266-374
=5,960/5,986
=99.6%

The number and percent of late IEPs (after the child’s third birthday):
       within 30 days after third birthday= <1% (13/6,201)
       within 45 days after third birthday= <1% (2/6,201)
       within 60 days after third birthday= 0% (0/6,201)
       within 90 days after third birthday= 0% (0/6,201)
       more than 90 days after third birthday= <1% (11/6,201)

Reasons given for delay in IEP development included: district staff unavailable and evaluations and/or
eligibility determination meetings either not completed or not scheduled in a timely manner.

Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed that occurred for 2009-10 (FFY 2009):

Exchange of data
FLDOE received a file from the FLDOH containing information on children who were served in Part C in
October 2010. All records of Part C children who were referred to Part B and had a third birthday between
July 1, 2009, and June 30, 2010 were matched with FLDOE student database in preparation for data
verification conducted by districts

District data verification activity
In Florida, there are 67 school districts that have preschool programs that receive children from Part C.
The verification activity was conducted by the 67 districts using 2009-10 data on all children that were
matched across databases. This activity was conducted in the fall of 2010 and included all children who
transitioned during the 2009-10 school year. The verification elements for the activity included
identification of IEP development date, the reasons for delays in IEP development, parent refusal for
evaluation and/or Part B services, and determination of ineligibility for Part B services.

Provide technical assistance and training
As mentioned in the previous reporting period, a cadre of six districts that demonstrated 75% or less
compliance for Indicator 12 was identified in May 2009. After each district completed an assessment of
current transition practices, they submitted an action plan to the GSW. After a review at the Bureau, each
district implemented the plan of action and conference calls were held bi-monthly to allow districts to
share progress, ask questions, and for BEESS staff to monitor improvement. All districts’ plan included
the use of a tracking form to be completed by both Part C and Part B which enables both programs to
identify patterns that are barriers to timely transition. Each district used a version of the form that is on the
TATS website (www.tats.ucf.edu.) Each district showed significant progress and, as a result, all of the
districts will be continuing the use of the tracking form. One district was identified for technical assistance
when completing the next verification activity due to data entry errors.


                                                                                                        Page 53
APR Template – Part B (4)                                                                   FLORIDA
                                                                                                 State


A state-wide Pre-K Contacts meeting was held in May 2010. Part C service coordinators were invited as
well as FDLRS child find specialists. During the meeting, findings of the verification activity as well as
identified issues regarding transition were shared. In addition, the Early Steps Performance Improvement
Unit Director presented Part C’s performance on the transition indicators and areas which continue to
need attention. Break-out sessions included successful transition practices used by the districts and Early
Steps programs. Presentations from the meeting can be found on the TATS website.

Throughout the reporting year, TATS facilitators provided technical assistance and/or training to 65
districts and the Seminole tribe on a district-by-district or regional basis. Activities included: training on
interagency agreement development, implementation, and follow-up activities; collaborative relationships
around transition processes for Native American children, facilitating regularly scheduled group meetings
with early childhood partners involved in transition from Part C to Part B; facilitating meetings to resolve
transition issues between the districts and Early Steps or other early childhood partners; discussing
district and Early Steps data on the transition indicators, problem solving, and identifying activities to
improve performance. Additionally, the TATS website contains information on transition from Part C to
Part B, resources and links for families, teaching staff, and program administrators, electronic briefs
(eUdates) on transition, a guide (TATS Talks) for families regarding transition, and information on
Florida’s Transition Project with documents and brochures on transition.

Support school districts and Local Early Steps in development and maintenance of interagency
agreements
The TATS facilitators and the Transition Coordinator for Florida’s Transition Project worked with 51 school
districts to either revise existing or expired interagency agreements on transition or develop new
agreements. This work involved many local and regional meetings to ensure that all early childhood
partners are working collaboratively to ensure a smooth transition for children and the procedures are
written into the interagency agreements.

Revise technical assistance paper on transition
This activity has been place on hold until the final Part C regulations are released. Additionally, BEESS
and Early Steps have requested clarification from OSEP as to the definition of notification and referral of
children in Part C to Part B. BEESS and Early Steps have also requested clarification on the recent FAQ
that OSEP has disseminated. Once this clarification is provided, revisions will be made to this technical
assistance paper and disseminated to school districts and LESs.

Explanation of Progress/Slippage that occurred for 2009-10 (FFY 2009):
Florida increased performance from 99.2% to 99.6%. There were 55 districts out of the 67 districts with
100% compliance (an increase of 5 districts from the previous year). There were 13 districts that
demonstrated progress from the prior year performance.

Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines /
Resources for FFY 2010
The activity from 2009-10: ― Revise and disseminate the previously developed technical assistance paper
on transition policies.‖ was added to 2010-11 activities, because it had not been previously completed.
BEESS is waiting for the Part C regulations to be released in order to complete this activity.

The revised improvement activities, timelines, and resources for 2010-11:
             Activities                     Timelines                      Resources
                                            2010-2011
Revise and disseminate the       July 2010-June 2011               FLDOE/BEESS
previously developed technical                                     FLDOH/Early Steps
assistance paper on transition
policies once Part C regulations
are finalized.


                                                                                                      Page 54
APR Template – Part B (4)                                                                 FLORIDA
                                                                                              State

Part B State Annual Performance Report (APR) for 2009-10 (FFY 2009)


Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B / General Supervision


Indicator 15: General supervision system (including monitoring, complaints, hearings, etc.) identified
and corrects noncompliance as soon as possible but in no case later than one year from identification.
(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B))

Measurement:
Percent of noncompliance corrected within one year of identification:
    a. # of findings of noncompliance.
    b. # of corrections completed as soon as possible but in no case later than one year from
        identification.
Percent = [(b) divided by (a)] times 100.

In accordance with OSEP’s guidance regarding findings that are identified through monitoring processes,
within a given school district a finding of noncompliance is identified by the standard (i.e., regulation or
requirement) that is violated, not by the number of times the standard is violated or the source(s) used to
identify the finding (e.g., record review, database report, interview). Therefore, multiple incidents of
noncompliance regarding a given standard that are identified through monitoring activities are reported as
a single finding of noncompliance for that district. In contrast, all findings identified through state
complaints and due process hearings in a given school district are reported in the SPP/APR as separate
and distinct findings of noncompliance.

Noncompliance is deemed to be corrected when state has verified that (1) the noncompliance has been
corrected for the individual student involved and (b) the district has demonstrated 100% compliance with
the given requirement in a subsequent sampling of data.

Data Source: State monitoring system; dispute resolution database


     FFY                                     Measurable and Rigorous Target


     2009        100% of noncompliance findings identified through the general supervision system will
   (2009-10)     be corrected as soon as possible, but in no case later than one year from identification.

Actual Target Data for 2009-10 (FFY 2009):
Of the 539 findings of noncompliance identified through the general supervision system during 2008-09,
390 (72.4%) were corrected for the individual student as soon as possible, but in no case later than one
year from identification, and BEESS verified within the timeline that the district subsequently
demonstrated 100% compliance with the requirement in question.
The remaining 149 findings (27.6%) also had been corrected for the individual student as soon as
possible, but in no case later than one year from identification, but BEESS did not verify within the
timeline that the district subsequently demonstrated 100% compliance with the requirement in question.
However, verification was completed prior to submission of this report. There are no outstanding findings
of noncompliance.
The status of timely correction of noncompliance identified in 2008-09 is reported in the Indicator B-15
Worksheet below. Findings are disaggregated by SPP indicator cluster and the following three additional


                                                                                                   Page 55
APR Template – Part B (4)                                                                                    FLORIDA
                                                                                                                  State

categories: IEP development, IEP implementation, and miscellaneous (e.g., findings related to services
plans, provision of prior written notice, participation in field trips).
                       Optional APR Template‖ for this indicator, the status of subsequent correction of
In accordance with the ―
noncompliance identified in 2008-09 is reported (see column (c) added to the worksheet below).
                                                                                           (b)                   (c)
                                                                       (a)                 # of findings of      # of findings of
                                General             # of LEAs issued   # of findings of    noncompliance         noncompliance
                                Supervision         findings in FFY    noncompliance       from (a) for which    from (a) for which
Indicator/Indicator Clusters
                                System              2008 (7/1/08 to    identified in FFY   correction was        correction was
                                Components          6/30/09)           2008 (7/1/08 to     verified no later     verified more
                                                                       6/30/09)            than one year         than one year
                                                                                           from identification   from identification
1. Percent of youth with        Monitoring
IEPs graduating from high       Activities: Self-
school with a regular           Assessment/
diploma.                        Local APR,
                                Data Review,
                                                           32                171                  101                    70
2. Percent of youth with        Desk Audit,
IEPs dropping out of high       On-Site Visits,
school.                         or Other
                                Dispute
14. Percent of youth who        Resolution:
had IEPs, are no longer in      Complaints,
secondary school and who        Hearings
have been competitively
employed, enrolled in                                      0                   0                   0                      0
some type of
postsecondary school or
training program, or both,
within one year of leaving
high school.
3. Participation and            Monitoring
performance of children         Activities: Self-
with disabilities on            Assessment/
statewide assessments.          Local APR,
                                                           0                   0                   0                      0
                                Data Review,
7. Percent of preschool         Desk Audit,
children with IEPs who          On-Site Visits,
demonstrated improved           or Other
outcomes.                       Dispute
                                Resolution:
                                                           1                   1                   1                      0
                                Complaints,
                                Hearings
4A. Percent of districts        Monitoring
identified as having a          Activities: Self-
significant discrepancy in      Assessment/
the rates of suspensions        Local APR,
                                                           3                   24                  10                    14
and expulsions of children      Data Review,
with disabilities for greater   Desk Audit,
than 10 days in a school        On-Site Visits,
year.                           or Other
                                Dispute
4B. Percent of districts that   Resolution:                3                   5                   4                      1
have: (a) a significant         Complaints,


                                                                                                                        Page 56
   APR Template – Part B (4)                                                                                   FLORIDA
                                                                                                                    State

                                                                                             (b)                   (c)
                                                                         (a)                 # of findings of      # of findings of
                                  General             # of LEAs issued   # of findings of    noncompliance         noncompliance
                                  Supervision         findings in FFY    noncompliance       from (a) for which    from (a) for which
   Indicator/Indicator Clusters
                                  System              2008 (7/1/08 to    identified in FFY   correction was        correction was
                                  Components          6/30/09)           2008 (7/1/08 to     verified no later     verified more
                                                                         6/30/09)            than one year         than one year
                                                                                             from identification   from identification
   discrepancy, by race or        Hearings
   ethnicity, in the rate of
   suspensions and
   expulsions of greater than
   10 days in a school year
   for children with IEPs; and
   (b) policies, procedures or
   practices that contribute to
   the significant discrepancy
   and do not comply with
   requirements relating to
   the development and
   implementation of IEPs,
   the use of positive
   behavioral interventions
   and supports, and
   procedural safeguards.

   5. Percent of children with    Monitoring
   IEPs aged 6 through 21 -       Activities: Self-
   educational placements.        Assessment/
                                  Local APR,
                                                             3                   33                  15                    18
   6. Percent of preschool        Data Review,
   children aged 3 through 5      Desk Audit,
   – early childhood              On-Site Visits,
   placement.                     or Other
                                  Dispute
                                  Resolution:
                                                             3                   3                   3                      0
                                  Complaints,
                                  Hearings
   8. Percent of parents          Monitoring
   with a child receiving         Activities: Self-
   special education services     Assessment/
   who report that schools        Local APR,
                                                             0                   0                   0                      0
   facilitated parent             Data Review,
   involvement as a means of      Desk Audit,
   improving services and         On-Site Visits,
   results for children with      or Other
   disabilities.                  Dispute
                                  Resolution:
                                                             14                  23                  22                     1
                                  Complaints,
                                  Hearings
9. Percent of districts with      Monitoring
   disproportionate               Activities: Self-
   representation of racial       Assessment/
                                                             1                   1                   1                      0
   and ethnic groups in           Local APR,
   special education that is      Data Review,
                                  Desk Audit,

                                                                                                                          Page 57
APR Template – Part B (4)                                                                                    FLORIDA
                                                                                                                  State

                                                                                           (b)                   (c)
                                                                       (a)                 # of findings of      # of findings of
                                General             # of LEAs issued   # of findings of    noncompliance         noncompliance
                                Supervision         findings in FFY    noncompliance       from (a) for which    from (a) for which
Indicator/Indicator Clusters
                                System              2008 (7/1/08 to    identified in FFY   correction was        correction was
                                Components          6/30/09)           2008 (7/1/08 to     verified no later     verified more
                                                                       6/30/09)            than one year         than one year
                                                                                           from identification   from identification
the result of inappropriate     On-Site Visits,
identification.                 or Other
10. Percent of districts        Dispute
with disproportionate           Resolution:
representation of racial        Complaints,
and ethnic groups in            Hearings
                                                           0                   0                   0                      0
specific disability
categories that is the result
of inappropriate
identification.
11. Percent of children         Monitoring
who were evaluated within       Activities: Self-
60 days of receiving            Assessment/
parental consent for initial    Local APR,
                                                           41                  41                  41                     0
evaluation or, if the State     Data Review,
establishes a timeframe         Desk Audit,
within which the evaluation     On-Site Visits,
must be conducted, within       or Other
that timeframe.                 Dispute
                                Resolution:
                                                           0                   0                   0                      0
                                Complaints,
                                Hearings
12. Percent of children         Monitoring
referred by Part C prior to     Activities: Self-
age 3, who are found            Assessment/
eligible for Part B, and who    Local APR,
                                                           15                  15                  15                     0
have an IEP developed           Data Review,
and implemented by their        Desk Audit,
third birthdays.                On-Site Visits,
                                or Other
                                Dispute
                                Resolution:
                                                           0                   0                   0                      0
                                Complaints,
                                Hearings
13. Percent of youth aged       Monitoring
16 and above with IEP that      Activities: Self-
includes appropriate            Assessment/
measurable                      Local APR,
                                                           47                  47                  33                    14
postsecondary goals that        Data Review,
are annually updated and        Desk Audit,
based upon an age               On-Site Visits,
appropriate transition          or Other
assessment, transition          Dispute
services, including courses     Resolution:
of study, that will             Complaints,                2                   2                   2                      0
reasonably enable the           Hearings
student to meet those


                                                                                                                        Page 58
APR Template – Part B (4)                                                                                   FLORIDA
                                                                                                                 State

                                                                                          (b)                   (c)
                                                                      (a)                 # of findings of      # of findings of
                               General             # of LEAs issued   # of findings of    noncompliance         noncompliance
                               Supervision         findings in FFY    noncompliance       from (a) for which    from (a) for which
Indicator/Indicator Clusters
                               System              2008 (7/1/08 to    identified in FFY   correction was        correction was
                               Components          6/30/09)           2008 (7/1/08 to     verified no later     verified more
                                                                      6/30/09)            than one year         than one year
                                                                                          from identification   from identification
postsecondary goals, and
annual IEP goals related
to the student’s transition
service needs.
Other areas of                 Monitoring
noncompliance:                 Activities: Self-
                               Assessment/
IEP Development
                               Local APR,
                                                          8                   14                  13                     1
                               Data Review,
                               Desk Audit,
                               On-Site Visits,
                               or Other
                               Dispute
                               Resolution:
                                                          13                  39                  37                     2
                               Complaints,
                               Hearings
Other areas of                 Monitoring
noncompliance:                 Activities: Self-
                               Assessment/
IEP Implementation
                               Local APR,
                                                          0                   0                   0                      0
                               Data Review,
                               Desk Audit,
                               On-Site Visits,
                               or Other
                               Dispute
                               Resolution:
                                                          9                   17                  16                     1
                               Complaints,
                               Hearings
Other areas of                  Monitoring
noncompliance:                 Activities: Self-
                               Assessment/
Miscellaneous
                               Local APR,
                                                          24                  84                  57                    27
                               Data Review,
                               Desk Audit,
                               On-Site Visits,
                               or Other
                               Dispute
                               Resolution:
                                                          11                  19                  19                     0
                               Complaints,
                               Hearings
Sum the numbers down Column a and Column b                                   539                 390                   149

Percent of noncompliance corrected within one year of
identification = (column (b) sum divided by column (a) sum)           (b) / (a) X 100 =         72.4%
times 100.
Percent of noncompliance corrected = [(column (b) sum plus            (b) + (c) X 100 =                               100%
column (c) sum) divided by column (a) sum] times 100.

                                                                                                                       Page 59
APR Template – Part B (4)                                                                   FLORIDA
                                                                                                State
Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed for 2009-10 (FFY 2009):
Provide training and technical assistance
Revised State Board of Education Rules related to eligibility (deaf or hard-of-hearing, orthopedic
impairment, other health impairment, traumatic brain injury, emotional/behavioral disabilities, dual-sensory
impaired, autism spectrum disorder, and developmental delay); general education interventions, referral,
and evaluation; and IEPs became effective December 15, 2009. A new rule regarding the Florida
Alternate Assessment requirements became effective May 3, 2010. Revisions of the rules related to
statewide assessment for students with disabilities, speech impairment, and language impairment
became effective date July 1, 2010.

Four regional speech/language rule implementation workshops were held in April and May 2010 to
provide clarification and information related to the revised rules and to provide opportunities to practice
applying a problem-solving process/response to intervention process to determining eligibility.

In addition, school districts were provided guidance and technical assistance on implementation of the
revised rules through formal and informal venues that included, but were not limited to, presentations by
BEESS staff at the ISRD Mid-Year Institute for Exceptional Student Education Directors, ISRD Mid-Year
Institute for Staffing Specialists, AMM, State Advisory Committee, and Family Café Annual Conference,
scheduled conference calls, and ongoing communication between districts and their designated BEESS
monitoring liaisons.

Technical assistance papers related to the following were disseminated during 2009-10: accessible
instructional materials, eligibility for students with specific learning disabilities, waiver of the FCAT
graduation requirement for students with disabilities, third grade student progression, and compulsory
school attendance.

Publicly post monitoring and dispute resolution results
Monitoring report posting on the BEESS Web site was kept up-to-date. Redacted state complaint reports
through January 2010 and redacted due process hearing orders through June 2010 were posted on the
BEESS website.

Collaborate with SPP indicator teams
At least one member of the BEESS monitoring or dispute resolution units participated on each of the SPP
indicator teams. Information from monitoring, due process hearings, and state complaints; parent
correspondence; parent calls; and other sources were shared with the teams and were considered when
reviewing districts’ improvement plans.

Nine districts were selected for on-site monitoring based on a pattern of poor performance over time on
one or more SPP indicators, and the applicable SPP indicator team members participated in planning and
conducting those visits.

Implement a leveled monitoring system
All districts, including developmental lab schools, FSDB, and DOC, participate in a leveled system of
compliance monitoring that includes both self-assessment activities and on-site monitoring visits. The
leveled system included the following:
 Level 1 - All districts participated in Level 1 monitoring by completing web-based self-assessment
     protocols related to basic ESE procedures.
 Level 2 – In addition, those districts that were newly targeted for improvement planning by one or
     more selected Bureau SPP indicator teams participated in Level 2 monitoring by completing indicator-
     specific ― focused‖ protocols. BEESS established fall and spring cycles for Level 2 self-assessment to
     align with the two times during the year when SPP indicator teams review existing data to identify
     those districts most in need of improvement with respect to a given indicator or ―cluster‖ of indicators
     (fall – SPP 3 (assessment), SPP 4 (suspension/expulsion), SPP 5 (LRE 6-21); spring – SPP1
     (standard diploma), SPP 2 (dropout), SPP 13 (secondary transition), SPP 14 (post-school outcomes),
     SPP 9/10 (disproportionate representation).

                                                                                                     Page 60
APR Template – Part B (4)                                                                FLORIDA
                                                                                              State

   Level 3 - On-site monitoring of selected districts represents Level 3 monitoring and is conducted in
    addition to Level 1 and any required Level 2 activities. Twelve districts participated in an on-site
    monitoring visit during 2009-10.
The State’s monitoring procedures, including a description of the levels system and the process for
district selection, are available in the Exceptional Student Education Compliance Manual, which can be
accessed electronically at http://www.fldoe.org/ese/pdf/m-compli.pdf.
Implement a data management system
The GSW was enhanced through the development or revision of the following functionality:
   Administrative – SPP indicator teams and district self-assessment system
     Calendar notification system to identify due dates for actions/activities and an e-mail system to
       notify districts and BEESS staff of these due dates (administrative and district use)
     Links to district resources and downloadable documents (e.g., discretionary projects, BEESS and
       district contacts, online training and technical assistance, Matrix of Services Manual)
     Tracking system for student-specific correction of noncompliance
     Corrective action plans
     District indicator plan management, including feedback and communication system
 Self-assessment
     Enhanced administrative capabilities in order to implemented fall and spring cycles for Level 2
       focused self-assessment, based on data reporting schedule
     Added and/or revised standards and protocols related to services to student in Department of
       Juvenile Justice facilities and SPP 1/2/13/14 cluster
 District reports – Plans and summary reports, including manipulable excel spreadsheets
     General supervision plan
     Self-assessment – Results by student
     Self-assessment – Results by standard
     Self-assessment – Correction of noncompliance
     Self-assessment – Matrix of services
     SPP 17 – District summary
     SPP 18 – District summary
     SPP 19 – District summary
     SPP/APR indicator plans
State Reports
     Self-assessment – State summary report
     Self-assessment – Correction of noncompliance
     Self-assessment – Matrix of services
     SPP 13 – State summary
     SPP 15 – State summary
     SPP 17 – State summary
     SPP 18 – State summary
     SPP 19 – State summary
     SPP/APR – Summary of activities included in district indicator plans
     SPP/APR – Summary of resources included in district indicator plans
 Dispute resolution – BEESS tracking system
     SPP 16 – State complaints
     SPP 17 – Due process hearing requests
     SPP 18 – Due process resolutions
     SPP 19 – Mediation results

Monitor systems for quality assurance
BEESS staff monitored systems in place to ensure quality of data, protocols, and processes, and reported
to two stakeholder groups: Bureau/District Partners and State Advisory Committee. After each on-site
visit, protocols were evaluated and revised as needed to ensure that they accurately reflected the reason
for the visit. When developing the Exceptional Student Education Compliance Self-Assessment:
Processes and Procedures Manual – 2009-10, feedback from BEESS staff and school districts was

                                                                                                  Page 61
APR Template – Part B (4)                                                                FLORIDA
                                                                                             State

incorporated into the self-assessment protocols to ensure that respondents consistently and accurately
apply the established decision rules in their responses.
Explanation of Progress or Slippage that occurred for 2009-10 (FFY 2009):
The target of 100% correction of noncompliance identified through the general supervision system as
soon as possible, but in no case later than one year from identification was not met. This was primarily
due to a change in the definition of ― correction of noncompliance‖ implemented in response to guidance
provided in OSEP memorandum 09-02. Prior to and continuing through 2008-09, BEESS implemented a
system of general supervision that differentiated ―  incidental‖ noncompliance from ―systemic‖
noncompliance (i.e., noncompliance identified in ≥ 25% of sources reviewed). As a result, for findings
identified in 2008-09, districts were required to correct each finding of noncompliance for the individual
student, but only systemic findings of noncompliance required additional action by the district to
demonstrate that it was implementing the requirement correctly (e.g., 100% compliance on a subsequent
sample of records).
BEESS staff reviewed the noncompliance that had been identified in 2008-09 to identify those for which
100% compliance was evident through subsequent data collection (e.g., on-site monitoring activities,
corrective action plans implemented in response to systemic findings, self-assessment procedures
implemented during 2009-10 or 2010-11) and those for which additional action was required. During the
fall of 2010 BEESS staff worked with each of the districts to ensure that the requirements were
implemented correctly. As a result, prior to the submission of this report, BEESS was able to demonstrate
through subsequent sampling or data review that each district was implementing with 100% compliance
the particular requirement(s) for which noncompliance had been identified in 2008-09..
Beginning in late 2009-10 (for implementation in 2010-11), the procedures for demonstrating timely
correction of noncompliance were revised to incorporate both the existing requirement that each incident
of noncompliance be corrected for the individual student and the additional requirement that ongoing
compliance be demonstrated through a review of subsequent data. Windows of time were established for
districts with identified noncompliance to sample student records and demonstrate 100% compliance with
the requirement(s) in question. The sampling windows and reporting and verification procedures are
coordinated by the SPP 11, SPP 12, and SPP 15 indicator teams, and vary based on the specific type of
noncompliance. The State’s procedures for correction of noncompliance are described in the Exceptional
Student Education Compliance Manual, which can be accessed electronically at
http://www.fldoe.org/ese/pdf/m-compli.pdf.


Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines /
Resources for FFY 2010:
None.




                                                                                                  Page 62
APR Template – Part B (4)                                                                 FLORIDA
                                                                                               State

         Part B State Annual Performance Report (APR) for 2009-10 (FFY 2009)


Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B / General Supervision


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.

Data Source: State dispute resolution database; Data reported on Table 7



     FFY                                     Measurable and Rigorous Target


    2009        100% of signed written complaints are resolved within 60-day timeline or have their
   (2009-10)    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.


Actual Target Data for 2009-10 (FFY 2009):
In 2009-10, 100% of the 101 signed written complaints were resolved within the 60-day timeline or a
timeline properly extended due to exceptional circumstances. Orders were issued for 61 complaints, 58
within the 60-day timeline and 3 with timelines extended for exceptional circumstances. The remaining
complaints were either withdrawn or dismissed (37 complaints) or pending at the closing date of
disposition (3 complaints). Of the three pending complaints, one was awaiting a due process hearing.
Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed for 2009-10 (FFY 2009):
Early Resolution Agreement Process
BEESS staff focused on providing technical assistance on the early resolution process to parents and
school districts. Information regarding early resolution was provided to school district staff and parents
during AMM in September 2009 and the Family Café Annual Conference in June 2010. Upon receipt of
each state complaint, BEESS staff notified the complainant and the district of the early resolution
agreement process, an alternative resolution method.

Staff Positions and Development
During FFY 2009 the Dispute Resolution Unit was fully staffed. Staff training was provided through unit
meetings, audio conferences, and coaching and mentoring by supervisors and peers. Unit meetings were
held two times per week and training resources were provided at these meetings at least bimonthly.

Database Development
Separate databases were used to collect and generate the required data reports for the Dispute
Resolution Unit. A plan to expand the GSW to address the full range of general supervision requirements
was developed and FCIM began the process of programming the additional functionality. The additional



                                                                                                    Page 63
APR Template – Part B (4)                                                                FLORIDA
                                                                                              State

functionality related to dispute resolution was under development, with individual components scheduled
for completion in 2009-10 and 2010-11.

Monitor Quality of Data
Quarterly reports for dispute resolution were internally disseminated to monitor the quality of data
reported in the annual reports. This information was used to develop the annual reports which were
published in the AMM Databook in September 2009 and were disseminated to others when requested
(available online at http://www.fldoe.org/ese/datapage.asp).

Monitor Staff Performance and Training Needs
As a result of the recent staff changes for the Dispute Resolution Unit and the re-alignment of specific
responsibilities, the procedures implemented within the unit were reviewed and revised to streamline the
complaint investigation process. The Office of General Counsel reviewed all complaint inquiries. Cross-
unit collaboration occurred between staff from the Monitoring and Compliance unit. Unit meetings were
held two times per week and training resources based on indentified needs were provided at these
meetings at least bimonthly.
Explanation of Progress or Slippage that occurred for 2009-10 (FFY 2009):
The target of 100% of signed written complaints being resolved within the 60-day timeline or allowable
extension was met. The possibility of alternative methods of resolution, including mediation, continued to
be provided to complainants and districts within the acknowledgement letters for the state complaints and
by the complaint investigators as the inquiry process began. Staff training also contributed to consistency
in meeting the 60-day time or allowable extension.
Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines /
Resources for FFY 2010

None.




                                                                                                  Page 64
APR Template – Part B (4)                                                                   FLORIDA
                                                                                                State

         Part B State Annual Performance Report (APR) for 2009-10 (FFY 2009)


Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B / General Supervision


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: Percent = [(3.2(a) + 3.2(b)) divided by 3.2] times 100.

Data Source: State dispute resolution database; Data reported on Table 7



     FFY                                     Measurable and Rigorous Target


    2009         100% of adjudicated due process hearing requests are adjudicated within the 45-day
   (2009-10)     timeline or a timeline 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.


Actual Target Data for 2009-10 (FFY 2009):
100% of adjudicated due process hearing requests (8 out of 8 requests) were adjudicated with the 45-day
timeline (5) or a timeline that was properly extended by the hearing officer (3).
Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed for 2009-10 (FFY 2009):
Strengthening the Liaison between BEESS and DOAH
A meeting between DOAH staff, including ALJs, and staff from the FLDOE Office of General Counsel and
BEESS was held on July 29, 2009, to discuss amendments to applicable ESE rules and other relevant
topics. BEESS and DOAH communicated monthly regarding timelines for active cases. Monthly reports
were provided to BEESS by DOAH. Those reports included a summary of cases filed along with the
outcome of each case.

Database Development
Separate databases were used to collect and generate the required data reports for the Dispute
Resolution Unit. Enhancements to the complaint corrective action tracking system continued to be
developed which would entail merging dispute resolution data into the GSW.

Training for ALJs
                          th
Two ALJs attended the 8 National Academy for IDEA Administrative Law Judges and Hearing Officers
held at the Seattle University School of Law in July 2009. Three ALJs attended the LRP Hearing Officer
Training held on May 2, 2010.
Explanation of Progress or Slippage that occurred for 2009-10 (FFY 2009):
100% of fully adjudicated due process hearing requests were adjudicated within the 45-day timeline or
within a proper extension in 2009-10. Effective communication between BEESS staff and DOAH staff,
including regularly scheduled contact regarding any timeline concerns, facilitated the achievement of
100% within the required timelines or proper extensions.



                                                                                                     Page 65
APR Template – Part B (4)                                                          FLORIDA
                                                                                       State
Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines /
Resources for FFY 2010

None.




                                                                                            Page 66
APR Template – Part B (4)                                                                FLORIDA
                                                                                              State

         Part B State Annual Performance Report (APR) for 2009-10 (FFY 2009)


Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B/General Supervision


Indicator 18 – Percent of hearing requests that went to resolution sessions that were resolved through
    resolution session settlement agreements. (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3(B))

Measurement:
Percent = (3.1(a) divided by 3.1) times 100.
Data Source: State dispute resolution database; Data reported on Table 7


     FFY                                     Measurable and Rigorous Target


    2009        58.5% of the resolution sessions will result in settlement agreements.
   (2009-10)

Actual Target Data for 2009-10 (FFY 2009):
In 2009-10, 63.9% of hearing requests that went to resolution sessions (46 out of 72) were resolved with
agreements.
Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed for 2009-10 (FFY 2009):
Districts and Parents
The importance of communication and effective methods of dispute resolution, including the use of
settlement agreements, was addressed during statewide conferences such as the AMM held in
September 2009 and the Family Café Annual Conference held in June 2010. Other venues included the
ISRD Mid-Winter Institute for ESE Directors held in January 2010 and Council of Administrators of
Special Education conference held in June 2010.
Professional staff members were available to answer parent calls on all business days; in addition to
addressing the concerns of the parents, information regarding administrative remedies was made
available at this time. Similar information was also provided, when appropriate, in response to written and
e-mail correspondence received. A model form for filing a due process hearing request and information
about the process itself was available on the BEESS website.
Database Development
Separate databases were used to collect and generate the required data reports for the Dispute
Resolution Unit. Enhancements to the complaint corrective action tracking system continued to be
developed which entailed dispute resolution data being merged in the GSW.
Explanation of Progress or Slippage that occurred for 2009-10 (FFY 2009):
The target of 58.5% of the resolution sessions resulting in settlement agreements was exceeded this
year. This may be due in part to continuous collaboration and communication with districts and the
training and technical assistance activities made available.
Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines /
Resources for FFY 2010

None.




                                                                                                   Page 67
APR Template – Part B (4)                                                               FLORIDA
                                                                                            State

           Part B State Annual Performance Report (APR) for 2009-10 (FY 2010)


Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B / General Supervision


Indicator 19: Percent of mediations held that resulted in mediation agreements.(20 U.S.C.
    1416(a)(3)(B))

Measurement:
Percent = [(2.1(a)(i) + 2.1(b)(i)) divided by 2.1] times 100.
Data Source: State dispute resolution database; Data reported on Table 7



     FFY                                      Measurable and Rigorous Target


    2009         75%-85% of mediations will result in full or partial agreement.
   (2009-10)

Actual Target Data for 2009-10 (FFY 2009):
In 2009-10, 66% of mediations held resulted in mediation agreements (35 out of 53).
Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed for 2009-10 (FFY 2009):
Documents and Forms
The Request for Exceptional Student Education Mediation, Confidentiality Statement, and Exceptional
Student Education Mediation Guiding Principles documents were provided with each initial letter to
parents and school districts that schedule mediation, and were available for download on the BEESS
Web site. The Mediation General Information and Mediation Fact Sheet documents were also available
on the BEESS Web site. The participant feedback/evaluation form was provided to all participants at the
end of each mediation session.

Analysis of Mediation Data
Data on mediation issues from agreements and non-agreements was compiled and analyzed. No
relationship or pattern between issues and agreements was identified.

Technical Assistance to Districts
On-going technical assistance was provided to districts through presentations, conference calls, and
individual communication between district and BEESS dispute resolution staff.
Explanation of Progress or Slippage that occurred for 2009-10 (FFY 2009):
The target of 75% to 85% agreements was not met this year. The percentage of mediations held resulting
in agreement decreased from 73% in 2008-09 to 66% in 2009-10. The number of mediation requests
decreased from 128 in 2008-09 to 83 in 2009-10, while the number of mediations held decreased slightly
from 56 in 2008-09 to 53 in 2009-10 (a decrease of 5%). As noted in Indicator 18, the number of
resolution sessions held decreased from 114 in 2008-09 to 72 in 2009-10, with 45 (63%) resulting in
settlement agreements. With more cases being resolved informally on the local level or through a
resolution session, it appears that the cases that are mediated may involve more complex or contentious
issues. The target for agreements remains 75% to 85%, a range indicated by OSEP to be acceptable. For
mediations not related to a due process hearing request, the percentage of agreements was 72% (23
agreements out of 32 mediations held). However, for mediations related to a due process hearing
request, the percentage of agreements was 57% (12 agreements out of 21 mediations held).



                                                                                                 Page 68
APR Template – Part B (4)                                                                FLORIDA
                                                                                              State

Components of mediation are currently being tracked to allow for analysis of possible patterns or
relationships between agreement and the issues in question. If patterns or relationships are found,
BEESS will identify and make available to districts appropriate sources of technical assistance for the
specific issues in question
Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines /
Resources for FFY 2010
None.




                                                                                                   Page 69
APR Template – Part B (4)                                                                FLORIDA
                                                                                             State

         Part B State Annual Performance Report (APR) for 2009-10 (FFY 2009)


Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B / General Supervision


Indicator 20: State reported data (618 and State Performance Plan and Annual Performance Report) are
timely and accurate. (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B))

     Measurement:
     State reported data, including 618 data and annual performance reports, are:
       a. Submitted on or before due dates (February 1 for child count, including race and ethnicity,
          placement; November 1 for exiting, discipline, personnel; and February 1 for Annual
          Performance Reports and assessment); and
       b. Accurate, including covering the correct year and following the correct measurement.

     Data Source: data from State data system, State Performance Plan and Annual Performance
     Report




      FFY                                    Measurable and Rigorous Target


     2009        All state reported data (618 and State Performance Plan and Annual Performance
    (2009-10)    Report) are timely and accurate.

Requirements from OSEP Response Table
Required Use of the Indicator 20 Data Rubric
The completed indicator 20 data rubric is included as part of the FFY 2009 APR.


Actual Target Data for 2009-10 (FFY 2009):
Using the Part B Indicator 20 Data Rubric, Florida has determined that all state reported data were timely
and accurate for 2009-10 (FFY 2009).
Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed for 2009-10 (FFY 2009):
Update elements and formats
Changes/updates were made to the automated student database for the 2009-10 school year involving
formats used for exceptional student education reporting. The changes included clarification regarding
reporting requirements for related services, the use of data elements for children ages 3-5 to include
children age 5 who are in kindergarten, and the use of dismissal date to address instances where parents
have revoked consent. Additionally, a new code was added to the database for students who were
evaluated but pending eligibility determination at the end of a given school year.

Share information regarding data reporting changes
Changes to the database were initially addressed at the database conference held in the summer prior to
the school year. The presentations from the database conference were also posted at the Department of
Education website with notice provided to exceptional student administrators in a July 2009 BEESS
Weekly Memo. In April 2010, districts received in the BEESS Weekly Memo, a reminder to report
dismissal dates in cases where parents revoke consent for services.


                                                                                                  Page 70
APR Template – Part B (4)                                                                   FLORIDA
                                                                                                 State

Data verification activities
In November 2009, districts were provided with tables of educational environment data submitted with
errors highlighted. Districts were required to submit corrections by submitting amended data prior to the
completion of state processing. This activity resulted in corrections being submitted for over 4,000 student
records.

Collaboration with other FLDOE offices
BEESS staff works regularly with staff from FLDOE Education and Accountability Services, Office of
Assessment, and Florida Education Training Placement Information Program to ensure that data
collection systems are working effectively and efficiently. Annually, after consultation with staff from other
offices, systems are adjusted (e.g., changes to data systems as described above).

Explanation of Progress or Slippage that occurred for 2009-10 (FFY 2009):
Florida met the 100% target. Progress can be attributed to timely response to data note checks.
Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines /
Resources for FFY 2010

None.




                                                                                                      Page 71
APR Template – Part B (4)                FLORIDA
                                           State




                            Appendix A




                                               Page 72
APR Template – Part B (4)                                                                 FLORIDA
                                                                                               State



                             Florida Department of Education
                  Bureau of Exceptional Education and Student Services

                                         Terms Used in APR
The following is a list of terms used within the APR. The terms include discretionary projects funded
through federal and/or state resources as well as other commonly used terms.

AMM: Administrators’ Management Meeting
Florida’s annual meeting attended by exceptional student administrators from all of Florida school districts

ALJ: Administrative Law Judge

AMP: Accommodations and Modifications for Students with Disabilities
The AMP project develops training, software, and print materials for teachers to provide accommodations
and modifications to the Sunshine State Standards (SSS) to allow students with disabilities to achieve at
the highest level appropriate.

APR: Annual Performance Report

AYP: Adequate Yearly Progress

BEESS: Bureau of Exceptional Education and Student Services
The bureau within the Florida Department of Education responsible for administering programs for
students with disabilities.

CAP: Corrective Action Plan

CARD: Centers for Autism and Related Disabilities
CARD works to enhance services currently available to individuals with autism and related disabilities,
providing consultation and training to existing providers and school personnel with the purpose of creating
sustained expertise in each community served.

CDT: Career Development and Transition
CDT is designed to assist school districts in providing specialized instruction and services to students with
disabilities and to support the expansion of interagency collaboration in order to help students achieve a
more successful transition from school to adult and community living.

CHRIS: Children’s Registry and Information System
The CHRIS project serves as the tracking, reporting, and planning tool for IDEA, Part B and Child Find
activities. In addition to maintaining a registry of children, CHRIS provides database management and
reporting tools that support the case management process.

CLASP: Curriculum, Learning, and Assessment Support Project
To support access to the general curriculum for students with significant cognitive disabilities who
participate in the Florida Alternate Assessment through appropriate instruction aligned with the Sunshine
State Standards Access Points.

DA: Differentiated Accountability

DOAH: Division of Administrative Hearings



                                                                                                    Page 73
APR Template – Part B (4)                                                                  FLORIDA
                                                                                               State
EBD: Emotional/Behavior Disorders

ESE: Exceptional Student Education

ESEA: Elementary and Secondary Education Act

ESEAS: Exceptional Student Education Administrative Services
To facilitate the implementation of state capacity building activities, including technical assistance to
school districts; monitoring, enforcement, and complaint investigation; implement the mediation process;
and various professional development and training activities to improve results for children with
disabilities.

Family Café
Family Café provides resources and support to families of students with disabilities or special health care
needs as well as providing a forum through which families of students with disabilities can communicate
their concerns and needs.

FBA: Functional Behavior Assessment

FCAT: Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test

FCIM: Florida Center for Interactive Media

FDLRS-ATEN: Assistive Technology Educational Network Coordinating Unit/Regional Centers
This Coordinating Unit loans assistive technology to districts and provides the opportunity for student
trials on a wide range of technology to facilitate the assessment team decision-making process. The
Regional Centers provide district-by-district support of assessment teams and educators in the trial and
implementation of assistive technology.

FDLRS: Florida Diagnostic and Learning Resources System Associate Centers
To provide diagnostic and instructional support services to those persons involved in the education of
students with exceptionalities, including infants and preschool children who are high risk or who have
disabilities. FDLRS provides service in four major areas: child find, assistive technology, parent services,
and human resource development.

FDLRS/TECH: Florida Instructional Technology Training Resource Unit
The Florida Instructional and Technology Resource Unit focuses on maintaining highly qualified
educators and technology specialists in the school district.

FERPA: Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act

FIN: Florida Inclusion Network
To maintain a regional network of facilitators, consultants, and practitioners to assist schools and school
districts in the implementation of effective and inclusive educational practices.

FLDOC: Florida Department of Corrections

FLDOE: Florida Department of Education
The agency responsible for administering educational programs in the State of Florida.

FLDOE/RtI: Florida Department of Education Response to Intervention
The Department’s effort to implement a problem-solving and response to instruction/intervention logic so
that it becomes the integrated way of work in every Florida school.

FLDOH: Florida Department of Health
The agency responsible for administering IDEA, Part B programs in State of Florida.

                                                                                                    Page 74
APR Template – Part B (4)                                                                 FLORIDA
                                                                                            State


FND: Family Network on Disabilities

GSW: General Supervision Website

IEP: Individual Educational Plan

ILSSA: Inclusive Large-Scale Standards and Assessment

ISRD: Institute for Small and Rural Districts
ISRD provides consultation, training, technical assistance, and document production and dissemination
designed to maximize support systems necessary for positive student and family outcomes for students
with disabilities in the thirty-four small and rural districts.

IND: Intellectual Disabilities

LEA: Local Education Agency

LES: Local Early Steps

LRE: Least Restrictive Environment

LtL: Learning through Listening Project
To facilitate access to recorded educational material for individuals who are disabled.

MIS: Management Information Systems

MOPC: Measuring Outcomes for Preschool Children
To design and implement a system for the collection of child outcome data for preschoolers and support
activities related to surveying parents of preschool children to determine their perceptions of how well
schools have facilitated their involvement.

NCLB: No Child Left Behind

NCSEAM: National Center for Special Education Accountability Monitoring

NDPC: National Dropout Prevention Center

NDPC-SD: National Dropout Prevention Center for Students with Disabilities

NECTC: National Early Childhood Transition Center

NECTAC: National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center

NGSSS: Next Generation Sunshine State Standards

NIMAS: National Instructional Materials Accessibility Standards

NSTTAC: National Secondary Transition Technical Assistance Center

OSEP: Office of Special Education Programs

PBS: Positive Behavioral Support
To provide technical assistance and training which will expedite the resolution of serious problem
behavior and build the capacity of personnel to use positive, assessment-based intervention approaches
for students who have disabilities and significant behavioral challenges

                                                                                                 Page 75
APR Template – Part B (4)                                                                   FLORIDA
                                                                                                 State


PDP: Professional Development Partnerships
To enhance Florida’s capacity to increase the number of appropriately qualified teachers providing
services to students with disabilities through the implementation of regional collaborative partnerships
between schools, districts, and colleges and universities.

PEPC: Parents Educating Parents in the Community
To provide information, training, and support to minority and migrant parents of children with special
needs and to build collaborative relationships between school personnel and community service providers
in the identification and alleviation of developmental disabilities in children.

PIRC: Parent Information and Resource Center

PITC: Parent Information and Training Center

PLC: Professional Learning Community

Project 10: Project 10: Transition Education Network
The purpose of this project is to assist school districts and other stakeholders in building capacity to
provide secondary transition services to students with disabilities in order to improve postschool
outcomes.

Project CENTRAL: Coordinating Existing Networks to Reach All Learners
To identify and make available to school districts successful educational practices, including a database
of effective instructional practices; identifying criteria/procedures for determining effective instructional
practices; identifying trainers for effective models; and providing data on student progress as a result of
implementing effective instructional practices.

PS/RtI: Problem Solving and Response to Intervention State
PS/RtI refers to both the systemic problem-solving cycle and the IDEA, Part B discretionary project
designed to facilitate the implementation of both the Problem Solving and the Response to Intervention
methods and to improve academic achievement and behavioral outcomes for at-risk general and special
education students.

RFP: Request for Proposal

RtI-TLC: Response to Intervention-Teaching Learning Connections
To identify and make available to school districts successful educational practices within the Response to
Intervention/Instruction framework, including research and development of effective instructional
practices, especially in adolescent literacy and mathematics; identifying criteria/procedures for
determining effective instructional practices; identifying trainers for effective models; and providing data
on student progress as a result of implementing problem-solving and RtI.

SAC: State Advisory Committee

SEA: State Education Agency

SEDNET: Multiagency Network for Students with Severe Emotional Disturbance
To improve the success of students with severe emotional/behavioral disabilities and the capacity of the
school districts to provide integrated education and treatment programs through partnerships with mental
health, education, and families.

SERRC: Southeast Regional Resource Center

SILI: Speech Impaired and Language Impaired


                                                                                                      Page 76
APR Template – Part B (4)                                                                   FLORIDA
                                                                                                State
SPP: State Performance Report

SSS: Student Support Services
This project supports the DOE through the promotion of problem solving at the district, school, and
individual student level and is facilitated by project staff in the areas of school social work, school
psychology, school guidance counseling, and school nursing.

SSTIC: State Secondary Transition Interagency Committee
To identify and align capacity-building resources and work collaboratively to improve transition across
stakeholders.

TAP: Technical Assistance Paper

TATS: Technical Assistance and Training System for Programs Serving Young Children with
Disabilities
To implement a statewide system of technical assistance and training that promotes high quality
programs that lead to and support positive outcomes for prekindergarten children with disabilities and
their families.

TIP: Transition to Independence Process
To provide technical assistance and training to personnel to improve the graduation rate and
postsecondary success of students with severe emotional/behavioral disabilities and/or students with
disabilities who are involved in the juvenile justice system.

VSAF: Very Special Arts Florida
VSAF is a statewide support network responsible for the implementation of arts programs to ensure the
successful inclusion of individuals with exceptionalities.




                                                                                                     Page 77

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Description: Performance Indicator Template document sample