Status of State Systems for the Provision of NIMAS and AIM in 2012: Highlights of Preliminary Findings Joy Zabala, Joanne Karger and Brad Rose

About the Investigation Series of snapshots of the current status of state AIM systems. Data collected via survey administered in 2010 and Final administration will be in Survey included questions aligned to the 7 Quality Indicators for the Provision of AIM. 34 questions asked about respondent’s perceptions of the current status of important elements of the state’s AIM practices.

Purposes of the Current Investigation Inform the development of a “snapshot” of state AIM systems in Provide a means for basic comparison of 2012 and 2010 data to see potential areas in which states reported progress and to identify priority areas for improvement. Provide a means for basic comparison of data from states that were part of the AIM Consortium or are currently receiving TTA from the AIM Center (collectively referred to as AIM states) and other states.

Analysis of Reported Data 1.Comparison of % reported by the total 2012 sample (51 states and entities) with % reported by the total 2010 sample (54 states and entities). 2.Examination of % in the total 2012 sample, disaggregated by two subgroups. 25 states with ongoing intensive relationships with the AIM Center codes as “AIM states” and 26 states coded as “Other states.” 3. Review of comments entered by respondents.

States with Ongoing Relationship with the AIM Center thought the AIM Consortium or AIM TTA

Highlights of Preliminary Findings 1.Three areas in which the total 2012 sample reported % that suggest progress. 2.Three additional areas in which the subgroup of “AIM states” reported promising higher % than the subgroup of “other states.” 3.Three priority areas in need of attention across all states in the development of effective, coordinated systems for the provision of AIM.

Three Areas of Promising Progress across the Entire Sample

Areas of Promising Progress since Shared leadership between the SEA and LEAs Increased % of 2012 respondents reported that leadership for their AIM system is equally shared between the SEA and LEAs. Increased % of AIM states reported having a hybrid system in which shared responsibility between the SEA and LEA is clearly defined.

Areas of Promising Progress since 2010 (cont’d) 2. Greater collaboration with the NIMAC, AMPs, and State AT Agency Increased % of 2012 respondents reported naming 4 or more NIMAC AUs. Increased % reported identifying Bookshare or Learning Ally as a NIMAC AU. Decreased % reported having no relationship with Bookshare, Learning Ally, or APH. Decreased % reported that the state does not collaborate with the state AT agency.

Areas of Promising Progress since 2010 (cont’d) 3. Broader range of students receiving AIM from more sources Increased % in 2012 reported that a broader range of students are receiving AIM (consistent with 34 CFR (b)(3)). Increased % of resources being allocated for each category of students. Increased % of learning opportunities on the topic of the provision of AIM for students who do not qualify as print disabled as defined by copyright statute.

Additional Areas of Promise for the AIM States Subgroup

Promising Findings for the AIM States Subgroup 1.Definition of “timely manner” Higher % of AIM states reported having a definition of timely manner. Higher % reported that the definition is “at the same time that other students receive print materials” or “at the same time except in extenuating circumstances.”

Promising Findings for the AIM States Subgroup (cont’d) 2.Development/dissemination of written guidelines Lower % of AIM states reported no written guidelines. Higher % reported that the guidelines delineate state responsibilities and procedures as well as responsibilities and procedures across all levels of the system (SEA, LEA, IEP teams, etc.). Higher % reported dissemination of the written guidelines to all audiences, including families and general education personnel.

Promising Findings for the AIM States Subgroup (cont’d) 3. Collaboration with families across multiple areas Higher % of AIM states reported having learning opportunities that are directed at families. Higher % reported dissemination of written guidelines to families. Higher % reported sharing information, sharing training calendars, and conducting joint training with the parent information centers.

Three Priority Areas in Need of Attention Across All States

Priority Areas in Need of Attention 1. Data to evaluate the effectiveness of the AIM System Results show many inconsistencies across questions related to data e.g. what is collected and by whom) Lower % in 2012 than 2010 reported that timely delivery of AIM is not tracked at all; but higher % reported that there is no current system for dealing with delays in the provision of AIM.

Priority Areas in Need of Attention (cont’d) 2. Data to examine the impact of AIM on student outcomes Lowest % of types of data collected in 2012 pertained to student outcomes: a)Data about changes in achievement for students who have AIM; and b)Data about whether specialized formats are supporting appropriate instruction.

Priority Areas in Need of Attention (cont’d) 3. Preference given to publishers who offer accessible materials for purchase Slight increase from 2010 to 2012 in % of respondents reporting that their state gives preference to publishers who offer accessible versions of printed materials for purchase; but # is still small. Importance: To provide AIM to students who do not meet copyright criteria for specialized formats (consistent with 34 CFR (b)(3)) To provide incentives for further development and greater availability of accessible print and digital materials for purchase.

In Summary…

Summary Thoughts… OSEP’s AIM-related investments are yielding promising progress in the provision of AIM in a timely manner. There continue to be wide variances in the status of systems for the provision of AIM across the country. There are areas in which progress has been made. There are priority areas in need of improvement.

Coming Soon… The Status of State Systems for the Provision of NIMAS and AIM in 2012 Report Purpose and Methodology Presentation of findings related to each of 34 questions displayed in “At a Glance” data tables Discussion of findings Implications Recommendations for SEAS/LEAS, the AIM Center and OSEP