NYSED Navigation • NYSED HOME •  SEARCH • TOPICS A-Z • CONTACT NYSED
 

Vocational and Educational Services for Individuals with Disabilities (VESID)
Special Education and Vocational Rehabilitation Services

---

                                  

 

New York State Education Department

 

 

IDEA Part B State Performance Plan

2005-2010

 

 

 

Office Of Vocational And Educational Services For Individuals With Disabilities

 

 

December 2005

(REVISED June 2007)

Available in PDF Format for Printing

 

---

 

THE UNIVERSITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

 

Regents of The University

 

Robert M. Bennett, Chancellor, B.A., M.S. .......................................................................	Tonawanda
Adelaide L. Sanford, Vice Chancellor, B.A., M.A., P.D. ................................................	Hollis
Saul B. Cohen, B.A., M.A., Ph.D.........................................................................................	New Rochelle
James C. Dawson, A.A., B.A., M.S., Ph.D. .........................................................................	Peru
Anthony S. Bottar, B.A., J.D. .............................................................................................	North Syracuse
Merryl H. Tisch, B.A., M.A., Ed.D. ....................................................................................	New York
Geraldine D. Chapey, B.A., M.A., Ed.D. ..........................................................................	Belle Harbor
Arnold B. Gardner, B.A., LL.B...........................................................................................	Buffalo
Harry Phillips, 3rd, B.A., M.S.F.S. ....................................................................................	Hartsdale
Joseph E. Bowman, Jr., B.A., M.L.S., M.A., M.Ed., Ed.D.................................................	Albany
Lorraine A. CortÉs-VÁzquez, B.A., M.P.A......................................................................	Bronx
James R. Tallon, Jr., B.A., M.A.  .........................................................................................	Binghamton
Milton L. Cofield,  B.S., M.B.A., Ph.D. .............................................................................	Rochester
John Brademas, B.A., Ph.D. .................................................................................................	New York
Roger B. Tilles, B.A., J.D.......................................................................................................	Great Neck
KAREN BROOKS HOPKINS, B.A., M.F.A...................................................................................	Brooklyn

 

President of The University and Commissioner of Education
Richard P. Mills

Deputy Commissioner
Office of Vocational and Educational Services for Individuals with Disabilities
Rebecca H. Cort

Statewide Coordinator for Special Education
James P. DeLorenzo  

OVERVIEW

Public Law 108-446, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) 2004, requires the State Education Department (SED) to develop and submit a six year State Performance Plan (SPP) to the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) at the U.S. Education Department (USED).  The SPP is designed to evaluate the State's efforts to implement the requirements and purposes of IDEA and describe how the State will improve results.  OSEP has identified three monitoring priorities and 20 indicators relating to the priority areas that must be reported in the SPP.  For each of the indicators, the State must establish measurable and rigorous targets and improvement activities for a six-year period of time.  The priority areas and indicators addressed in the SPP for 2005-2010 are as follows:

Priority: Free Appropriate Public Education in the Least Restrictive Environment

1. Percent of youth with individualized education programs (IEPs) graduating from high school with a regular diploma compared to percent of all youth in the State graduating with a regular diploma.
    

2. Percent of youth with IEPs dropping out of high school compared to the percent of all youth in the State dropping out of high school.
    

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

• Percent of districts meeting the State’s annual yearly progress (AYP) objectives for progress for disability subgroup.

• 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.

4. Rates of suspension and expulsion:

• Percent of districts identified by the State as having a significant discrepancy in the rate of suspensions and expulsions of children with disabilities for greater than 10 days in a school year; and

• Percent of districts identified by the State as having a significant discrepancy in the rates of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year of children with disabilities by race and ethnicity.

5. Percent of children with IEPs ages 6 through 21:

• Removed from regular class less than 21 percent of the day;

• Removed from regular class greater than 60 percent of the day; or

• Served in either public/private separate schools, residential placements or in homebound or hospital placements.

6. Percent of preschool children with IEPs who receive special education and related services in settings with typically developing peers (e.g., early childhood settings, home, and part-time early childhood/part-time early childhood special education settings).

7. Percent of preschool children with IEPs who demonstrate improved:

• positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships);

• acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/communication and early literacy); and

• use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs.

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.

Priority:  Disproportionality

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

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

Priority:  Effective General Supervision Part B

Child Find and Effective Transitions

11. Percent of children with parental consent to evaluate, who were evaluated and eligibility determined within 60 days.
     

12. Percent of children referred by Part C (Early Intervention Services) prior to age three (3), who are found eligible for Part B, and who have an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthdays. 

13. Percent of youth aged 16 and above with an IEP that includes coordinated, measurable, annual IEP goals and transition services that will reasonably enable the student to meet the post-secondary goals. 

14. Percent of youth who had IEPs, are no longer in secondary school and who have been competitively employed, enrolled in some type of postsecondary school, or both, within one year of leaving high school.

General Supervision

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

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. 

17. Percent of fully adjudicated due process hearing requests that were fully adjudicated within the 45-day timeline or a timeline that is properly extended by the hearing officer at the request of either party. 
     

18. Percent of hearing requests that went to resolution sessions that were resolved through resolution session settlement agreements. 
     

19. Percent of mediations held that resulted in mediation agreements. 
     
20. State reported data (618) and SPP and Annual Performance Report are timely and accurate. 

        The State must report annually to the public and OSEP on the State’s performance on each target for all 20 of the indicators in the SPP.  Furthermore the State must also report annually to the public on each local educational agency’s (LEA) performance on the targets for the first 14 indicators.  The first annual performance report (APR) is due on February 1, 2007.

          Questions regarding the SPP may be directed to the New York State Education Department, Office of Vocational and Educational Services for Individuals with Disabilities (VESID), Special Education Services at 518-473-2878.  For more information on these federal requirements see: www.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/bapr/index.html