Part B State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2010

Overview of the State Performance Plan Development

See Overview of the State Performance Plan Development preceding Indicator #1.
 

Monitoring Priority:  FAPE in the LRE


Indicator #3:  Participation and performance of children with disabilities on statewide assessments:

  1. Percent of districts meeting the State’s Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) objectives for progress for disability subgroup.

  1. Participation rate for children with IEPs in a regular assessment with no accommodations; regular assessment with accommodations; alternate assessment against grade level standards; alternate assessment against alternate achievement standards.

Proficiency rate for children with IEPs against grade level standards and alternate achievement standards.
(20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A)) 

Measurement:

A.  Percent = # of districts meeting the State’s AYP objectives for progress for the disability subgroup (children with IEPs) divided by the total # of districts in the State times 100.

Note: For this measure, NYS also computes the percent of districts meeting the State’s AYP objectives for progress for the disability subgroup (students with IEPs) divided by the number of districts that were required to make AYP (met the minimum size criteria).

B.  Participation rate =

a.   # of children with IEPs in grades assessed;

b.  # of children with IEPs in regular assessment with no accommodations (percent = b divided by a times 100);

c.   # of children with IEPs in regular assessment with accommodations (percent = c divided by a times 100);

d.   # of children with IEPs in alternate assessment against grade level standards (percent = d divided by a times 100); and

e.   # of children with IEPs in alternate assessment against alternate achievement standards (percent = e divided by a times 100). 

Account for any children included in a but not included in b, c, d, or e above.

Overall Percent = b + c + d + e divided by a.

C.  Proficiency rate =

a.   # of children with IEPs  in grades assessed;

b.  # of children with IEPs in grades assessed who are proficient or above as measured by the regular assessment with no accommodations (percent = b divided by a times 100);

c.  # of children with IEPs in grades assessed who are proficient or above as measured by the regular assessment with accommodations (percent = c divided by a times 100);

d.   # of children with IEPs in grades assessed who are proficient or above as measured by the alternate assessment against grade level standards (percent = d divided by a times 100); and

e.   # of children with IEPs in grades assessed who are proficient or above as measured against alternate achievement standards (percent = e divided by a times 100).

 

Account for any children included in a but not included in b, c, d, or e above.

Overall Percent = [(b+c+d+e) divided by (a)].

Note:

  • NYS is not using data reported under section 618 in OSEP Table 6 for this indicator because Table 6 data are not consistent with how NYS calculates participation, proficiency and AYP under NCLB. Since school, district and State report cards contain data that are calculated to determine accountability under NCLB, the same data that are used in the State report card are presented in this SPP.

  • One of the reasons that NYS is not using section 618 data from Table 6 in this SPP is that in Table 6 there is no differentiation between the enrollment of students in each grade that is used as the basis for computing the participation rate and the proficiency rate. In NYS, there is a difference. The participation rate is computed based on total enrollment of students in grade or for high school it is computed based on the enrollment of “seniors”. However, the proficiency rate is based on the enrollment of “continuously enrolled” students in grade or for high school, on the number of students in the accountability cohort.

  • Another reason for not using section 618 data is that for measures of proficiency, NYS uses a Performance Index (PI) for each grade and assessment, which consists of the percent of continuously enrolled tested students at “basic proficiency” (Level 2 and above) plus the percent of such students “at or above proficiency” (Levels 3-4). For the 2004-05 school year, NYS had six performance indices (grade 4 ELA, grade 4 math, grade 8 ELA, grade 8 math, high school ELA, and high school math).  Beginning with the 2005-06 school year, New York State has four indices (grades 3-8 ELA, grades 3-8 math, high school ELA and high school math).

  • NYS is not able to provide data disaggregated for students with disabilities who received testing accommodations and those who did not.  We expect to be able to report this disaggregation once the SIRS is fully implemented.

  • NYS does not currently administer an “alternate assessment against grade level standards” as described in d of the measurement of participation and proficiency.  NYS administers alternate assessments against alternate achievement standards aligned to grade level content.

 

 Overview of Issue/Description of System or Process

 NYS’ accountability system for all students that is approved by USED under NCLB is characterized as follows:

The following table identifies the State’s AMOs through the 2004-05 school year: 
 

School Year

Elementary Level

Middle Level

Secondary Level

ELA

Math

ELA

Math

ELA

Math

2003-04

123

136

107

81

142

132

2004-05

131

142

116

93

148

139

 

 

 

The following table identifies the State’s AMOs for grades 3-8 ELA and grades 3-8 math for the 2005-06 year and from 2005-06 through 2013-14 for high school ELA and math.
 

School Year

Grades 3-8

Secondary Level

ELA

Math

ELA

Math

2005-06

122

86

154

146

2006-07

 122

86

159

152

2007-08

133

102

165

159

2008-09

 Pending

Pending 

171

166

2009-10

 Pending

Pending 

177

173

2010-11

 Pending

Pending 

183

180

2011-12

 Pending

Pending 

188

186

2012-13

 Pending

Pending 

194

193

2013-14

 Pending

 Pending

200

200

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


The following sources provide additional detailed information about NYS’s Accountability system for all students, including students with disabilities, which is approved under NCLB:

Baseline Data for FFY 2004 (2004-05)

AYP Measure 

In 2004-05, 48.3 percent of 290 school districts that were required to make AYP made AYP for the subgroup of students with disabilities in all the subjects in which they were required to.  NYS has established a minimum enrollment of 40 students for participation and 30 for performance.

Participation Rate in State Assessments

As shown in the table below, in the 2004-05 school year, the participation rates of students with disabilities in State assessments were 95 percent or higher in elementary and middle school ELA and math assessments. However, at the high school level, 89 percent of the seniors with disabilities participated in a high school English assessment and 90 percent in a high school mathematics assessment.

 

Assessment

Enrollment of Students with Disabilities

Regular Assessment, With or Without Accommodations*

Alternate Assessment-Alternate Achievement Standards

Participation Rate in 2004-05 School Year

Absent or Administrative Error

Grade 4 ELA

30,927

28,036

1,803

96%

1,088

Grade 4 Math

30,534

28,000

1,753

97%

781

Grade 8 ELA

35,572

32,065

1,822

95%

1,685

Grade 8 Math

35,172

31520

1,793

95%

1,859

HS English-Seniors in 2004-05

16,686

14,851

0

89.0%

0

High School Math-Seniors in 2004-05

16,686

15,017

0

90%

0

* The data in the above table are from USDOE Table 6 containing 2004-05 school year data. NYS will provide disaggregated data for students with disabilities who took the regular assessment with and without testing accommodations when SIRS includes all State assessment data.

Proficiency Rate

 

Assess-ment

2004-05 Performance

2004-05 Standard

Students with Disabilities Made AYP in 2004-05

2005-06

Continuously Enrolled Students with Disabilities in Elementary and Middle Schools and 2000-01 Accountability Cohort in High School (HS)

NYS PI

Effective AMO

Safe- Harbor Target

Met Third Indicator for Safe Harbor

Safe- Harbor Target

Grade 4 ELA

29,028

102

130

107

Yes

No

NA

Grade 4 Math

28,754

141

141

 NA

NA

Yes

NA

Grade 8 ELA

33,006

85

115

92

Yes

No

NA

Grade 8 Math

32,041

82

92

91

Yes

No

NA

HS Eng.  2001 cohort

19,140

104

147

109

No

No

114

HS Math- 2001 cohort

19,140

108

138

107

No

No

117

Discussion of Baseline Data

  Adequate Yearly Progress:

 Participation:

Proficiency:

* NYS is not able to provide data disaggregated for students with disabilities who received testing accommodations and those who did not.  We expect to be able to report this disaggregated data once SIRS includes all State assessment data.


NYS will implement State testing in ELA and mathematics in grades 3-8 during the 2005-06 school year.  The State plans to develop two new State PI to replace the four indices that currently exist for elementary and middle level assessments; one new index is planned for grades 3-8 ELA and the other for grades 3-8 mathematics.  Creation of the two new indices will require the State to establish new AMOs and safe-harbor targets for school buildings and school districts.

Measurable and Rigorous Targets


The targets established for the three measures relating to the participation and performance of students with disabilities on statewide assessments use the same data that are used for accountability as described in the State’s approved plan under NCLB. 

 

School Year

Measurable and Rigorous Target

2005
(2005-06)

AYP:   There will be an increase annually in the number and percent of school districts that make AYP in grades 3-8 ELA, grades 3-8 math, high school ELA and high school math.

Participation:95 percent in grades 3-8 and high school in ELA and math.

Performance:  The State’s average performance on the performance indices (PI) which represent the percent of students with disabilities performing at Level 2 (basic proficiency) and above plus the percent of students with disabilities performing at Level 3 (proficiency) and above will be as follows:
Grades 3-8 ELA: 91
Grades 3-8 Math: 100
High School ELA: 114
High School Math: 124

2006
(2006-07)

AYP: There will be an increase annually in the number and percent of school districts that make AYP in grades 3-8 ELA, grades 3-8 math, high school ELA and high school math.

Participation:95 percent in grades 3-8 and high school in ELA and math.

Performance: The State’s average performance on the performance indices (PI) which represent the percent of students with disabilities performing at Level 2 (basic proficiency) and above plus the percent of students with disabilities performing at Level 3 (proficiency) and above will be as follows:
Grades 3-8 ELA: 96
Grades 3-8 Math: 105
High School ELA: 119
High School Math: 129

2007
(2007-08)

AYP: There will be an increase annually in the number and percent of school districts that make AYP in grades 3-8 ELA, grades 3-8 math, high school ELA and high school math.

Participation: 95 percent in grades 3-8 and high school in ELA and math.

Performance: The State’s average performance on the performance indices (PI) which represent the percent of students with disabilities performing at Level 2 (basic proficiency) and above plus the percent of students with disabilities performing at Level 3 (proficiency) and above will be as follows:
Grades 3-8 ELA: 101
Grades 3-8 Math: 110
High School ELA: 124
High School Math: 134

2008
(2008-09)

AYP: There will be an increase annually in the number and percent of school districts that make AYP in grades 3-8 ELA, grades 3-8 math, high school ELA and high school math.

Participation: 95 percent in grades 3-8 and high school in ELA and math.

Performance: The State’s average performance on the performance indices (PI) which represent the percent of students with disabilities performing at Level 2 (basic proficiency) and above plus the percent of students with disabilities performing at Level 3 (proficiency) and above will be as follows:
Grades 3-8 ELA: 106
Grades 3-8 Math: 115
High School ELA: 129
High School Math: 139

2009
(2009-10)

AYP: There will be an increase annually in the number and percent of school districts that make AYP in grades 3-8 ELA, grades 3-8 math, high school ELA and high school math.

Participation: 95 percent in grades 3-8 and high school in ELA and math.

Performance: The State’s average performance on the performance indices (PI) which represent the percent of students with disabilities performing at Level 2 (basic proficiency) and above plus the percent of students with disabilities performing at Level 3 (proficiency) and above will be as follows:
Grades 3-8 ELA: 111
Grades 3-8 Math: 120
High School ELA: 134
High School Math: 144

2010
(2010-11)

AYP: There will be an increase annually in the number and percent of school districts that make AYP in grades 3-8 ELA, grades 3-8 math, high school ELA and high school math.

Participation: 95 percent in grades 3-8 and high school in ELA and math.

Performance: The State’s average performance on the performance indices (PI) which represent the percent of students with disabilities performing at Level 2 (basic proficiency) and above plus the percent of students with disabilities performing at Level 3 (proficiency) and above will be as follows:
Grades 3-8 ELA: 116
Grades 3-8 Math: 125
High School ELA: 139
High School Math: 149

 

Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources

 

Activity

Timeline

Resources

The required sanctions for schools and districts not making AYP are defined in federal and State law and include a continuum of consequences.

2005-11

SEQA, EMSC, SETRC and RSSC

Beginning in 2006-07:

For school districts that had at least 30 students with disabilities in the 2001 total cohort:

  • School districts with performance below the statewide average performance index in two or three areas for districts that did not make AYP for the students with disabilities subgroup in the two or three areas were identified as districts “in need of assistance.”

  • School districts with performance below the statewide average performance index in four areas and the district did not make AYP for the students with disabilities subgroup were identified as “districts in need of intervention.”

For school districts with less than 30 students with disabilities enrolled in grades 4 or 8 in the 2004-05 school year:

  • School districts with performance significantly below the statewide average in two or three areas were identified as districts “in need of assistance.”

  • School districts with performance significantly below the statewide average in four areas were identified as districts “in need of intervention.”

Each school district, as a result of this designation, was required to engage in one or more of the following activities to improve its graduation rates:

  • Conduct a focused review Work with one of the State’s funded technical assistance networksUse a portion of its IDEA Part B funds to address the area of concernRedirect its fiscal or human resourcesConduct a self-review of its policies, procedures and practices
  • Develop improvement plans

2006-11

SEQA Regional Offices 42 SETRC

For schools also identified under NCLB: 7 RSSC - RSSC includes a full-time special education specialist on staff funded by IDEA discretionary funds

Improvement activities identified for graduation and drop out rates are also targeted to improve achievement results for students with disabilities. 

See Indicators #1 & 2
Conduct “IDEA Effective Instructional Practices” focused monitoring reviews of school districts with achievement rates that are the furthest from State targets. 2005-11 SEQA, SETRC, RSSC

New York State Alternate Assessment (NYSAA) for Students with Disabilities:

  • Distribute and provide training on the revised teacher manual, training materials, enrollment system and the new electronic data folio template called ProFile™.
  • Annually issue field memoranda and training regarding performance and participation requirements under NCLB and IDEA.

2005-11

Contract with Measured Progress

Develop an alternate assessment aligned against grade level standards.

2006-08

EMSC & VESID

Conduct regional forums for school leaders from urban school districts to provide professional development, sharing of ideas and problem solving to improve student performance in city school districts. 

2005-11

SEQA staff assist in planning and coordination

Provide technical assistance to assist targeted school districts to improve math instruction of students with disabilities.

2005-06

IDEA Part B Funds – Math experts on RSSC

Develop State criteria and identify effective practices to promote the use of “response-to-intervention” identification processes for students with learning disabilities, with an emphasis on implementation in early grades 1-3 statewide.  See the description of these improvement activities referenced in Indicator #1.

2005-09

See Indicator #1

Provide financial assistance to the State schools for the deaf and blind to improve academic achievement for their students.

2005-08

IDEA Part B Funds

Provide resources to ensure students with disabilities have their instructional materials in accessible formats:

  • Expand the distribution of Braille materials in the downstate area.
  • Provide materials in electronic formats for students unable to use standard print, large print or Braille textbooks due to visual, physical and perceptual disabilities.

2005-08

NYS Resource Center for the Blind Center for the Preparation of Educational Interpreters

Helen Keller Services for the Blind

Provide technical assistance regarding assistive technology for students with disabilities, including individual student technology consultations, an Internet Web Page, a newsletter, reference and software libraries, an assistive technology device loan and training service, and turnkey training for the State guidelines.

2005-10

Technology Resource Center (TRE)

 

Provide universal design for assessment training for State assessment test item writers

2008-11

Office of State Assessment

Provide staff development on universal design for learning to each of the large 5 cities and other targeted low-performing schools. 

2005-08

TRE