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 #4:  Rates of suspension and expulsion:

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

B. 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.

 (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A); 1412(a)(22))

 

Measurement:

A. Percent = # of districts identified by the State as having significant discrepancies in the rates of suspensions and expulsions of children with disabilities for greater than 10 days in a school year divided by # of districts in the State times 100. 

NYS collects data on the number of students with disabilities suspended or removed for more than 10 days in a school year on the PD-8 form. 

Section 618 data was used to analyze for discrepancy in the rates of out-of-school suspensions of students with disabilities for greater than 10 days in a school year among LEAs.  Suspension rates were calculated for all school districts. The rates were computed by dividing the number of students with disabilities suspended out-of-school for more than 10 days by the December 1, 2004 count of school-age students with disabilities and the result expressed as a percent. The 2004-05 baseline statewide average suspension rate was 1.34 percent. School districts with at least 75 school-age students with disabilities that had a suspension rate of 4.0 percent or higher were identified as having significant discrepancy in their rate among LEAs. A minimum number of 75 students with disabilities was used since small numbers of students with disabilities may distort percentages. 

Definition of significant discrepancy:

  • For the baseline year and through 2007-08, significant discrepancy is defined as a suspension rate of greater than three times the baseline statewide average (i.e., a rate of  4.0 percent or higher).

  • Beginning in 2008-09 through 2010-11, significant discrepancy is defined as a suspension rate of greater than two times the baseline statewide average, (i.e., a rate of more than 2.7 percent or higher).

 

Overview of Issue/Description of System or Process

 

Section 3214 of NYS Education Law establishes the requirements for the suspension of all students. Section 3214.6 establishes the requirements for the suspension of students with disabilities. Information on the NYS requirements relating to suspensions may be accessed at: http://www.p12.nysed.gov/specialed/publications/policy/discipcover.htm (The guidance document will be revised to reflect the IDEA 2004 requirements).

 

Procedures that apply to all students:  If a student violates the school code of conduct and is being considered for a suspension or removal, school personnel must ensure the following due process protections are provided to the student and to the student’s parent(s).

In addition to the above requirements that apply to all students, the requirements, procedures and protections in federal law and regulations pertaining to students with disabilities are established section 3212 of the Education Law and Part 201 of the Commissioner’s Regulations.  These requirements may be found at:

http://www.p12.nysed.gov/specialed/publications/lawsandregs/part201.htm

 

4A Baseline Data for FFY 2004 (2004-05)

 

As shown in the table below, of the 684 school districts in the State, 20 school districts or 2.9 percent had suspension rates greater than or equal to three times the baseline statewide average rate of 1.34 percent. These districts had a rate of 4.0 percent or higher and were identified as having significant discrepancy in their rate among all the LEAs. 

 

Discussion of 4A Baseline Data

 

NYS computes a suspension rate for students with disabilities suspended out-of school for more than 10 days for all school districts. The table below provides information on the number of school districts and their rates as well as the percentage of all out-of-school suspensions of more than 10 days in these school districts. In addition to the 20 school districts with a suspension rate of 4.0 percent or higher, another 30 school districts had a suspension rate that was between two but less than three times the baseline average and 110 school districts had a rate above the baseline average but below two times the baseline average. The majority of school districts (64.3 percent) had a rate that was below the baseline average. Eighty-four (84) school districts had an enrollment that was considered too small to yield a valid rate.

 

The focus of the State’s efforts on this indicator will be to target school districts with the highest suspension rates during the course of this SPP cycle. As the table below indicates, there are 50 school districts in the baseline year that have a suspension rate that is two times or higher than the baseline average. Almost 40 percent of all suspensions occurred in these school districts in the baseline year.

 

# of districts

% of 684  districts

% of students with disabilities suspended for greater than 10 days

Comparison to statewide baseline average

% of total 10-day out-of-school suspensions in public school districts

84

12.3%

Not applicable

These districts each had less than 75 students with disabilities enrolled on December 1, 2004.

0.5%

440

64.3%

0% to < 1.3%

Below the baseline

42.6%

110

  16.1%

≥1.3%  < 2.7%

Between baseline and 2 times the baseline statewide average

17.4%

30

  4.4%

≥2.7%< 4.0%

Between 2 and 3 times the baseline statewide average

  8.4%

20

2.9%

≥4.0%

Three time or more than the  baseline statewide average

31.1%

Measurable and Rigorous Targets

 

FFY

Measurable and Rigorous Target

2005
(2005-06)

No more than 2 percent of school districts in the State will suspend students with disabilities for more than 10 days at a rate of 4.0% or higher. (This rate is three times the baseline average.)

2006
(2006-07)

No more than 0 percent of the school districts in the State will suspend students with disabilities for more than 10 days at a rate of 4.0% or higher. (This rate is three times the baseline average.)

2007
(2007-08)

No more than 2 percent of school districts in the State will suspend students with disabilities for more than 10 days at a rate of 2.7% or higher. (This rate is two times the baseline average.)

2008
(2008-09)

No more than 2 percent of school districts in the State will suspend students with disabilities for more than 10 days at a rate of 2.7% or higher. (This rate is two times the baseline average.)

2009
(2009-10)

No more than 2 percent of school districts in the State will suspend students with disabilities for more than 10 days at a rate of 2.7% or higher. (This rate is two times the baseline average.)

2010
(2010-11)

No more than 2 percent of school districts in the State will suspend students with disabilities for more than 10 days at a rate of 2.7% or higher. (This is two times the baseline average.)

 

 

4B:  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. 

Measurement:

Percent = # of districts identified by the State as having significant discrepancies in the rates of suspensions and expulsions for greater than 10 days in a school year of children with disabilities by race ethnicity divided by # of districts in the State times 100.

Definition of significant discrepancy:

NYS will compare the number of students suspended of each race/ethnicity category with the number suspended of all other race/ethnicity categories combined and compute relative risk ratios and weighted relative risk ratios to determine if there is disproportion in suspensions.  For notifications of school districts during the 2005-06 school year based on 2004-05 school year data, the State will use the following definition of “significant discrepancy” and in subsequent years may revise the definition by lowering the relative risk ratio, weighted relative risk ratio as well as the minimum numbers of suspensions:

·       At least 75 students with disabilities enrolled on 12/1/04;

·       At least 10 students with disabilities of the particular race/ethnicity were suspended;

·       At least 20 students with disabilities of all other race/ethnicities were enrolled; and

·       Either:

o       Both the relative risk ratio and weighted relative risk ratio for any minority group  was 2.0 or higher; or

o       All students with disabilities suspended were from only one minority group regardless of the size of the relative risk ratio and weighted relative risk ratio.

Data from the 2004-05 school year will be used to identify those districts with disproportionality in their rates of suspension by race/ethnicity.  VESID will require a review of selected policies, procedures and practices of each of these identified districts.  The percent of districts with inappropriate policies, procedures and practices, which led to the disproportionality by race/ethnicity, will be identified to establish the baseline.

 

Overview of Issue/Description of System or Process


IDEA section 618(d) requires States to collect and examine data to determine if significant disproportionality based on race and ethnicity is occurring in the State and the LEAs of the State with respect to the incidence, duration, and type of disciplinary actions, including suspensions and expulsions.  In the case of a determination of significant disproportionality the State must:

Plan to Collect the Baseline Data for 4B: 

By February of 2006, NYS analyzed data and sent notifications to school districts whose data indicate "significant discrepancy" based on the above definition, providing them with a State developed "self-review monitoring protocol."  School districts were notified that they must reserve the maximum 15 percent of the school district's IDEA Part B funds to support early intervening services.

 

By May of 2006, these school districts were required to submit their completed self‑review monitoring protocols of relevant school district policies, practices and procedures to the Department.  Based on this self-review, if a school district determines that one or more of its policies, procedures and/or practices require revision, it must revise them and publicly post such revisions and provide corrective action documentation to the Department. If a school district determines its policies, procedures and/or practices are appropriate and do not require revision, the Department arranged for verification of this determination.

 

If the State determines that the school district's policies, procedures and practices are in compliance with federal and State requirements, the school district may not be required to complete another review of its policies, procedures or practices during the remaining period of the SPP. However, the district will be required to reserve the maximum 15 percent of its IDEA Part B funds for each year its data indicates discrepancy, based on the State’s definition. Furthermore, if school district’s data do not improve, the State may conduct another review of school district’s policies, practices and procedures.

 

School districts that are found to have inappropriate policies, procedures and/or practices through the self-reviews or Department verification reviews will be reported in the baseline data for the 2005-06 school year.

 

Baseline Data for FFY 2005 (2005-06)

 

1.5 percent (10 school districts) of all school districts in the State (684) were identified as having a significant discrepancy by race and ethnicity that is the result of inappropriate policies, procedures and practices. 

School Year

Number of School Districts Identified in the State as Having Significant Discrepancy by Race and Ethnicity

Number of Identified Districts Reporting Some Inappropriate Policies, Practices or Procedures

Percent of All Districts in the State (684) Identified as Having Significant Discrepancy by Race and Ethnicity That is Result of Inappropriate policies, practices or procedures

2005-06

10

10

1.5%

 

School district results based review of their policies, practices and procedures:

 

 

8 NYCRR Regulatory Citation

 

# out of  10 School Districts Reporting Compliance

% of 10 School Districts Reporting Compliance

§200.4(b)(1)(v)

Initial evaluations of students with disabilities include a functional behavioral assessment (FBA) for students whose behaviors impede their learning or that of others.

6

60%

§200.4(b)(4)

The reevaluation is sufficient to determine the student's individual needs.

7

70%

§200.1(r)

FBAs identify the problem behavior, define the behavior in concrete terms, identify contextual factors that contribute to the behavior and formulate a hypothesis regarding the general conditions under which a behavior usually occurs and the probable consequences that serve to maintain it.

7

70%

§201.3(a)

FBAs are conducted when students are suspended for behaviors determined to be related to their disabilities.

6

60%

§200.4(d)(3)

For students whose behaviors impede their learning or that of others, the IEPs include positive behavioral interventions and supports and other strategies to address the behaviors.

5

50%

§200.3(d)(1)

The general education teacher participated in the Committee on Special Education (CSE) meeting to identify appropriate positive behavioral interventions and strategies for the student.

5

50%

§201.4(e)

The IEP was revised as a result of any deficiencies noted during a manifestation determination review.

5

50%

§201.2(a)

Behavioral intervention plans are based on the results of the FBA and, at a minimum, include a description of the problem behavior, global and specific hypotheses as to why the problem behavior occurs and intervention strategies to address the behavior.

8

80%

§201.3(a)

When a student has been removed for more than 10 days and the student's conduct was determined to be a manifestation of the student's disability, the CSE conducted a FBA and implements a behavioral intervention plan for that student. 

7

70%

§201.3(b)

If the student already has a behavioral intervention plan, the CSE meets to review the plan and its implementation and modifies the plan and its implementation, as necessary, to address the behavior that resulted in the disciplinary change of placement.

6

60%

§200.4(e)

Behavioral intervention plans are implemented, monitored and progress documented.

4

40%

§201.4(a)

The manifestation review is conducted immediately, but not later than 10 days after the decision to remove or suspend the student.

3

30%

§201.4(b)

A team that includes the student’s parent, an individual knowledgeable about the student and the interpretation of behavior and other relevant members of the CSE as determined by the parent and the school district conducts the manifestation review.  Parents are notified in writing of the meeting.

5

50%

§201.4(c)

All relevant information in the student’s file, including the student’s IEP, any teacher observations and relevant information provided by the parent is reviewed.

6

60%

§201.4(d)(2)

The manifestation determination is made based on whether the conduct was caused by or had a direct and substantial relationship to the student’s disability or was a direct result of the school district’s failure to implement the IEP.

7

70%

§201.4(d) 2)(ii)

If the conduct was determined to be related to the student’s disability, the student is returned to the placement from which the student was removed (except drugs, weapons or serious bodily injury removals).

8

80%

§201.7(a)

The parent is notified and provided a copy of the procedural safeguards notice within 10 days of the decision to suspend the student for more than 10 days.

8

80%

§201.7(b)

Suspensions of students with disabilities do not exceed the amount of time that a nondisabled student would be subject to suspension for the same behavior.

10

100%

§201.7(c)

A manifestation determination has been made prior to the removal for more than 10 school days.  If the behavior is a manifestation of the disability, the penalty phase of a superintendent's hearing is dismissed.

8

80%

§201.7(d)

Short-term suspensions are reviewed to determine if they constitute a pattern of removals.

5

50%

§201.7(f)

School personnel consider unique circumstances on a case-by-case basis when determining whether to suspend a student with a disability.

10

100%

§201.10(b)

Students with disabilities of compulsory school age are provided with alternative instruction for short-term suspensions (10 days or less in the school year).

6

60%

§201.10(c) and (d)

During suspensions of more than 10 days in a school year, regardless of the manifestation determination, students with disabilities receive services to enable them to participate in the general curriculum and to continue to progress toward IEP goals. 

5

50%

§201.10(e)

 

Interim alternative educational settings (IAES) and the services to be provided to a student are determined by the CSE.

7

70%

 

Explanation of Baseline Data

 

During the 2005-06 school year, 10 school districts were identified by the State as having significant discrepancy based on race/ethnicity in the percent of students with disabilities suspended out-of-school for more than 10 days based on their 2004-05 school year data. These school districts were sent notifications with directions to use a State developed self-review monitoring protocol to review their policies, practices and procedures. These school districts were also required to reserve 15 percent of their IDEA flow through allocation to provide Coordinated Comprehensive Early Intervening Services.

 

All identified school districts reviewed their policies, practices and procedures related to discipline for students with disabilities during the 2005-06 school year and reported results through a State developed web-based data submission system. All 10 school districts reported being out of compliance with at least one citation related to discipline procedures for students with disabilities. These school districts have been notified that they must correct their policies, practices and procedures within one year from being notified of noncompliance. As soon as possible, but no later than one year from notification, they will be required to resubmit compliance information to the State along with a written assurance that they are in compliance with all citations. They are also required to publicly report on the revision(s) to their policies, procedures and/or practices.   

 

As shown above, at least half of the school districts reported not being in compliance with the following eight citations:

The Statewide results of compliance with regulatory citations provided above were disaggregated by the State’s SEQA regions and other technical assistance network regions so that the regional staff may provide the required technical assistance to school districts based on the regional profile of results on the self-review monitoring protocol.

 

Measurable and Rigorous Targets

 

FFY

Measurable and Rigorous Target

2005
(2005-06)

Baseline data were collected

2006
(2006-07)

0 percent of school districts will be 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 that is the result of inappropriate policies, procedures and/or practices.

2007
(2007-08)

0 percent of school districts will be 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 that is the result of inappropriate policies, procedures and/or practices.

2008
(2008-09)

0 percent of school districts will be 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 that is the result of inappropriate policies, procedures and/or practices.

2009
(2009-10)

0 percent of school districts will be 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 that is the result of inappropriate policies, procedures and/or practices.

2010
(2010-11)

0 percent of school districts will be 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 that is the result of inappropriate policies, procedures and/or practices.

 

Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources

 

Activity

Timelines

Resources

Annually notify and provide a State developed self-review protocol to all school districts in the State whose data on long-term suspensions exceeds 2.7 percent with a recommendation that these districts conduct a self-review of policies, procedures and practices.  These districts will be targeted for review by SED in the school year in which SED redefines “significant discrepancy.” 

February 2008

Annually

SED staff

“Suspension Review Monitoring Protocol”

Require each identified school district to submit the results of the monitoring self review of policies, procedures and practices to SED.  If the self-review identifies inappropriate policies, procedures and/or practices, SED will direct the school district to revise its policies, procedures and/or practices as soon as possible, but not later than within one year.

If the self-review indicates no compliance issues, SED will conduct a verification review of the district’s policies, procedures and practices.

2006 -11

Annually 

 

 

 

SED, SETRC, RSSC

Direct a school district to obtain technical assistance on its policies, procedures and practices relating to long-term suspensions if the data continues to indicate significant discrepancies after two years.

Annually

 

SED staff

Review of the districts’ suspension/expulsion data and discipline policies, procedures and practices in focused reviews, with targeted technical assistance in positive behavioral interventions to address high rates of suspension.

Annually

SED staff

Revise State regulations to establish standards on behavioral interventions, including standards for functional behavioral assessments, behavioral intervention plans, use of time out rooms and emergency interventions.  Issue a guidance document on positive behavioral supports and services. 

2006-07

SED staff

Update technical assistance documents to schools and parents to assist in their understanding of the requirements relating to the suspension of students with disabilities.

2007

Discipline of Students with Disabilities

Establish a Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS) Statewide Technical Assistance Center to coordinate activities of PBIS. 

2007-08

PBIS

Increase school district access to community resources to assist with support for families and students.  Provide support to the Coordinated Children's Services Initiative (CCSI).

2006-11

CCSI

VESID central and regional staff

See improvement activities for Indicators 9 and 10.

2006-11