IDEA Part B State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012
Table of Contents
Overview of the State Performance Plan Development
Indicator 1: Graduation Rates
Indicator 2: Drop-Out Rates
Indicator 3: Participation and Performance on Statewide Assessments
Indicator 4: Rates of Suspension and Expulsion
Indicator 5: Least Restrictive Environment – School Age
Indicator 6: Least Restrictive Environment – Preschool
Indicator 7: Preschool Outcomes
Indicator 8: Parental Involvement
Indicator 9: Disproportionality in Special Education by Race/Ethnicity
Indicator 10: Disproportionality in Classification/Placement by Race/Ethnicity
Indicator 11: Child Find
Indicator 12: Early Childhood Transition
Indicator 13: Secondary Transition
Indicator 14:Post-School Outcomes
Indicator 15: Identification and Correction of Noncompliance
Indicator 16: Complaint Timelines
Indicator 17: Due Process Timelines
Indicator 18: Hearing Requests Resolved by Resolution Session
Indicator 19: Mediation Agreements
Indicator 20: State Reported Data
Attachment 1: Report of Dispute Resolution
Attachment 2: Overview of NYS Sampling Methodology
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 2005-2012, as revised by OSEP, are as follows.
Priority: Free Appropriate Public Education in the Least Restrictive Environment
- Percent of youth with individualized education programs (IEPs) graduating from high school with a regular diploma.
- Percent of youth with IEPs dropping out of high school.
- 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 the disability subgroup.
- Participation rate for children with IEPs.
- Proficiency rate for children with IEPs against grade level, modified and alternate achievement standards.
- 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 and 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.
- Percent of children ages 6 through 21 with IEPs:
- Inside the regular class 80% or more of the day;
- Inside the regular class less than 40% of the day; and
- In separate schools, residential facilities or homebound/hospital placements.
- Percent of preschool children (aged 3 thorough 5) with IEPs attending a:
- Regular early childhood program and receiving the majority of special education and related services in the regular early childhood program; and
- Separate special education class, separate school or residential facility.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 (district-level indicators)
- Percent of children with parental consent to evaluate, who were evaluated within State required timelines.
- Percent of children referred by Part C (Early Intervention Services) prior to age three (3), who are found eligible for Part B (preschool Special education), and who have an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthdays.
- Percent of youth aged 15 and above with an IEP that includes appropriate measurable postsecondary goals that are annually updated and based upon an age appropriate transition assessment, transition services, including courses of study, that will reasonably enable the student to meet those postsecondary goals, and annual IEP goals related to the student’s transition services needs, with evidence that the student was invited to the Committee on Special Education (CSE) meeting where transition services are to be discussed and evidence that, if appropriate, a representative of any participating agency was invited to the CSE meeting with the prior consent of the parent or student who has reached the age of majority.
- Percent of youth who are no longer in secondary school, had IEPs in effect at the time they left school, and within one year of leaving high school were:
- Enrolled in higher education;
- Enrolled in higher education or competitively employed; or
- Enrolled in higher education or in some other postsecondary education or training program; or competitively employed or in some other employment.
- 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.
- 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. 1
- Percent of adjudicated due process hearing requests that were adjudicated within the 45-day timeline for school age students and 30-day timeline for preschool students 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.2
- Percent of hearing requests that went to resolution sessions that were resolved through resolution session settlement agreements.
- Percent of mediations held that resulted in mediation agreements.
- State reported data (618) and SPP and Annual Performance Report (APR) 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. APRs are due to OSEP by February 1 of each year. 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. LEA public reports must be posted within 90 days of the date the State submits its APR to OSEP and can be found at http://eservices.nysed.gov/sepubrep/.
Questions regarding the SPP may be directed to the New York State Education Department Office of Special Education at 518-473-2878. For more information on these federal requirements see www.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/bapr/index.html
1 As of February 2013, the federal Office of Special Education no longer requires States to report these results in Annual Performance Reports. New York State reports data on the timeliness of State complaint decisions as part of the data it submits under IDEA section 618.
2 As of February 2013, the federal Office of Special Education no longer requires States to report these results in Annual Performance Reports. New York State reports data on the timeliness of due process hearing decisions as part of the data it submits under IDEA section 618.
New York State’s (NYS) Part B State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 was developed as follows:
In April 2005, the Office of Vocational and Educational Services for Individuals with Disabilities (VESID) convened a work group to develop the SPP. The workgroup included representatives from the following VESID units: Special Education Policy and Partnerships, Quality Assurance, and Strategic Evaluation, Data Collection, Analysis and Reporting (SEDCAR). VESID staff developed the SPP in consultation with staff from the Office of Elementary, Middle, Secondary and Continuing Education (EMSC) responsible for data collection and reporting under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Data for indicators requiring baselines reported in the 2005-06 SPP were obtained and analyzed to identify trends and related data for establishing targets. Implementation activities that impacted those trends were also identified.
In August 2005, VESID staff attended the OSEP Summer Institute where the requirements for the SPP were provided to states.
VESID issued a State memorandum in September 2005 to provide information to the field about the requirements for the SPP.
A report was made to the Board of Regents in October 2005 to obtain their input on addressing the issues relating to the development and implementation of the SPP.
Meetings were held with various constituent groups beginning in late September into early November 2005 from a broad spectrum of stakeholders on various stages of the initial development and revisions of the SPP. Stakeholders provided recommendations for State targets, improvement activities and methods to collect data on new indicators,
Composition of the stakeholder groups
In separate meetings conducted from late September until early November 2005, the following groups provided input into the State’s development of the SPP. In total, approximately 420 individuals participated in these meetings, providing stakeholder input on the development of the State’s Performance Plan.
- Regional and Central office special education staff of VESID.
- Board of Regents, Subcommittee on EMSC and VESID.
- Statewide meeting of the Special Education Training and Resource Centers (SETRC) and representatives of the statewide network of Regional School Support Centers (RSSC). After the full group presentation and overview, there were small group discussions on selected indicators and report out to the larger group. This stakeholder group represented the State’s technical assistance networks for special education and included representatives from every region of the State.
- Local school district Committee on Special Education (CSE) and Committee on Preschool Special Education (CPSE) directors and chairpersons, Board of Cooperative Educational Services (BOCES) directors, principals and assistant principals of schools, directors of preschool programs, school psychologists and regional trainers representing public school districts, BOCES and approved private schools and approved preschool programs.
- Representatives from Parent Training and Information Centers, including representatives from Sinergia, Inc., Parent-to-Parent of NYS, Advocates for Children, Long Island Parent Center, United We Stand of NY, The Advocacy Center and Resources for Children with Special Needs. This meeting was held in New York City (NYC).
- Representatives from the New York City Department of Education (NYCDOE) participated in a meeting held in NYC. A follow-up telephone conference call was conducted with two Parent Coordinators from the NYCDOE to further obtain input on Indicator 8 (Parent Involvement).
- To ensure broad representation from stakeholders in a forum that would foster interactive discussion on various indicators from different perspectives, an invitational group was convened, represented by district superintendents, superintendents and assistant superintendents of schools, directors of approved private schools, representatives from institutions of higher education, New York State United Teachers, School Boards Association, NYS Association of Retarded Citizens, Inc. (NYSARC), NYS Parent Teachers Association (NYSPTA), approved preschool programs and NYS legislative staff.
- Families Together of NYS, an Albany-based parent support and advocacy organization, convened a group of parents from the Capital District.
- The SPP was discussed with BOCES District Superintendents at statewide meetings held in October and November, and various decision points for the SPP were shared at that time. Beginning in November 2005, follow-up meetings in each of the supervisory districts were scheduled with school superintendents to review the requirements for data collection, reporting, accountability and school improvement.
- An all day meeting was held with the Commissioner’s Advisory Panel for Special Education to review recommendations received to date and to obtain further input on the submission and implementation of the SPP.
- A meeting was held with the Conference of Big Five School Districts, with representatives participating from the Syracuse, Rochester, Buffalo and NYC school districts.
How stakeholder input was obtained
The requirements set forth by the U.S. Education Department (USED) for the development of the SPP were shared with each group, including information on measures proposed by the State, current baseline information and proposed strategies. The meetings with stakeholders generally included an overview presentation, including a discussion of requirements for targets, a presentation of baseline data and included a facilitated discussion of targets, improvement strategies and proposed plans to collect data on new indicators. Depending on the size of the stakeholder meeting, both large group and small group discussions focused on particular indicators. Participants were provided with forms with guiding questions to facilitate their input, which could be provided as part of the group process and/or in writing. Guiding questions included:
- What factors should be considered in setting targets for this indicator (e.g., selected improvement activities, trend data, new policies, etc.)?
- What targets would you recommend for this indicator?
- What issues should be considered in designing a method to collect data for the new indicators?
- What methods or strategies would you recommend?
- What specific and targeted improvement activities would you recommend the State implement to lead to improved results toward the targets?
- What role do you recommend our funded networks (e.g., SETRC, Early Childhood Direction Centers, Transition Coordination Sites) take in implementing the SPP and improving results in the priority areas?
Stakeholder input on SPP revisions
Office of Special Education (OSE)3 staff meet with various constituency groups throughout the year to share and discuss the design and implementation of NYS’ SPP, including, but not limited to, the following groups:
- Early Childhood Direction Centers
- Transition Coordination Sites
- Regional Special Education Technical Assistance Support Centers (RSE-TASC) (added 1/10)
- State and federal funded Special Education Parent Centers
- Commissioner’s Advisory Panel (CAP) for Special Education
- Higher Education Support Center and Higher Education Task Force
- New York University (NYU) Disproportionality Technical Assistance Center
- District Superintendents
- Other professional organizations
Annually, OSE staff meets with its State Advisory Panel to specifically obtain input on proposed targets and revisions to the SPP. The Advisory Panel is continuously kept apprised on an annual basis regarding progress and issues reflected in the SPP in order to obtain their insights and input in determining implementation strategies and need for revisions.
In October 2010, OSE staff met with its State Advisory Panel to establish targets and improvement activities for two additional years (FFY 2011 and 2012). Throughout the year, OSE staff engaged its funded technical assistance centers to discuss improvement activities in relation to Annual Performance Report data.Public dissemination plan
The SPP is posted on the Department’s website (http://www.p12.nysed.gov/specialed/spp/home.html). An announcement of its availability will be provided annually through the list serve and through a memorandum to school districts, parent organizations and others interested in the education of students with disabilities. Press announcements are released to newspapers regarding its availability.
The following current data collection sources were reviewed in determining how the State will collect baseline and annual data for each of the indicators:
- System for Tracking Education Performance (STEP)
- Pupils with Disabilities (PD) data
- Impartial Hearing Reporting System (IHRS)
- Quality Assurance Information System (QAIS)
- Comprehensive Special Education Information System (CSEIS)
- Basic Educational Data System (BEDS)
- New York State Dispute Resolution Association
- Post School Indicator Longitudinal Study
- Preschool Longitudinal Study
- Student Information Repository System (SIRS): NYS will begin to phase in implementation of a statewide SIRS, beginning in the 2005-06 school year for grades 3-8. The new system will be a single system to collect all the required data for NCLB as well as to meet all other State and federal reporting requirements, including data required for the Part B SPP.
Design of the SPP
NYS has, to the maximum extent possible, developed its SPP to minimize reporting burdens on school districts and emphasize opportunities for improvement. For six of the indicators requiring new data collection, NYS will collect and report data from a representative sample of school districts throughout the State (see Indicators 7, 8, 11, 12, 13 and 14). All school districts will provide data on all the indicators selected for sampling distributed over a six-year period beginning with the initial year in which data on the indicator is collected. In this way, a school district can focus its resources to improve results in the identified area. In some instances, the school district will be required or permitted to collect and report on a particular indicator more frequently than once every six years in order to demonstrate improvement and to have their publicly reported data reflect that improvement. All school districts are encouraged to proactively address these indicators prior to the year in which they must provide data to be used in the public reporting. An overview of the sampling methodology is provided in Attachment 2.
Summary of Revisions to the SPP, June 2007 Edition:
The NYS SPP was revised as follows:
- Indicators 1, 2, 3 – revisions to measurement, baseline data, overview and improvement activities.
- Indicator 4A – revisions to definitions of significant discrepancy and 04-05 school year data.
- Indicator 4B – revisions to definition of significant discrepancy and baseline data added from 2005-06 school year.
- Indicator 7 – assessment data at entry into preschool special education added for 2005-06 school year. USED changes to the measure.
- Indicator 8 – revision to definition of what constitutes a survey with “positive parental involvement” response and State’s calculation of “rate of positive parental involvement.” Also, baseline data are added for 2005-06 school year.
- Indicator 9 – revisions to definition of significant disproportionality and baseline data added for 2005-06 school year.
- Indicator 10 – revisions to definition of significant disproportionality and baseline data added for 2005-06 school year.
- Indicator 11 – baseline data for 2005-06 and targets added. USED changes to the indicator and measure.
- Indicator 12 – baseline data for 2005-06 and targets added. USED changes to the measure.
- Sampling schedule provided in Attachment 2 revised to complete all SPP data collection during the 2010-11 school year from all school district within six years.
Summary of Revisions to the SPP, February 2009 Edition:
The NYS SPP was revised as follows:
- Indicator 4B – revised targets to reflect that reporting on this indicator by race and ethnicity in the Annual Performance Report (APR) is not required beginning with FFY 2006, although NYS continues to monitor for this under IDEA requirements at 34 CFR §300.170.
- Indicator 5 – revised targets beginning with FFY 2007 consistent with USED changes to definitions of categories.
- Indicator 6 – suspended reporting, consistent with USED instructions.
- Indicator 7 – replaced section and added progress data, consistent with USED instructions.
- Indicator 9 – added the definition of under-representation to the Measurement.
- Indicator 10 – added the definition of under-representation to the Measurement. Also dropped language from the Indicator and Targets regarding disproportionality in special education placements, since reporting on this issue is not required under the State Performance Plan, although NYS continued to monitor for this under IDEA requirements at 34 CFR § 300.646(a)(2).
- Indicator 14 – added the SPP section with baseline and targets as submitted with the February 2008 Annual Performance Report.
Summary of Revisions to the SPP, January 2010 Edition:
The NYS SPP was revised as follows:
- Indicator 1 – revised indicator definition; added data source; updated web link to graduation requirements; revised targets for 2008, 2009 and 2010 to add “as of four years as of August” (versus June); adjusted the language in the target chart to be consistent with the March 2009 federal requirements for lagging by one year the reporting for this indicator, using Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) definitions and timelines; and revised improvement activities.
- Indicator 2 – revised indicator definition; included data source; revised the definition of “drop out”; adjusted the language in the target chart to be consistent with March 2009 federal requirements for the lag in reporting year for this indicator using ESEA definitions and timelines; and revised improvement activities.
- Indicator 3c – revised indicator definition; revised measurement language; added link for public reports of assessment results; added the statement that NYS does not administer assessments against modified achievement standards; added the data source; and revised targets and improvement activities.
- Indicator 4 – revised indicator definition; revised measurement language; added that NYS reports data on Table 5 of Information Collection 1820-0621 and in EDFacts files; added data source; and revised improvement activities.
- Indicator 5 – revised indicator definition; revised measurement language; added data source; revised language in targets for 2008, 2009, 2010; and revised improvement activities.
- Indicator 6 – revised indicator definition; revised measurement language; included data source; revised targets for 2009 and 2010 and revised improvement activities.
- Indicator 7 – revised measurement language; updated web link for Student Information Repository System (SIRS) Manual; added targets and revised improvement activities.
- Indicator 8 – revised improvement activities.
- Indicator 9 – added data source; revised improvement activities.
- Indicator 10 – added data source; revised improvement activities.
- Indicator 11 – revised measurement language; added data source; added note regarding sampling; revised language in targets for 2006-2010; revised improvement activities.
- Indicator 12 – added (e) to the measurement as required by OSEP and (f) and (g) to the measurement to be accurate and consistent with NYS requirements; added data source; added note regarding sampling.
- Indicator 13 – revised indicator definition, measurement, language under the targets for 2009 and 2010; added data source and revised improvement activities.
- Indicator 14 – revised indicator definition, measurement, language under the 2009 and 2010 targets; added note regarding sampling and revised improvement activities.
- Indicator 15 – added data source and revised improvement activities.
- Indicator 16 – revised indicator definition; added data source; revised improvement activities.
- Indicator 17 – revised indicator definition; added data source; revised improvement activities.
- Indicator 18 – added data source; revised improvement activities.
- Indicator 19 – added data source and revised improvement activities.
- Indicator 20 – revised measurement; added data source; updated web links to forms and materials pertaining to data collection systems; revised improvement activities.
Summary of Revisions to the SPP, April 2010 Edition:
The NYS SPP was revised as follows:
- Indicator 7 – revised targets for FFY 2010
Summary of Revisions to the SPP, February 2011 Edition:
The NYS SPP was revised as follows:
- Throughout the SPP, references to the Office of Vocational and Educational Services for Individuals with Disabilities (VESID) have been replaced with references to the Office of Special Education (OSE), except where the reference is specifically to the vocational rehabilitation program, which retains the name, “VESID.”
- Hyperlinks to internet references have been updated.
- The end date of the SPP has been extended to 2012. For all indicators, targets and improvement activities have been extended two additional years, i.e., through FFY 2012 (i.e., school year 2012-13). As appropriate, end dates of ongoing activities have been through the end of FFY 2012.
- Indicator 4B – established new baseline, targets and improvement activities.
- Indicator 6 – revised targets based on USED deferring reporting one additional year.
- Indicator 13 – revised indicator, established new baseline, targets and revised improvement activities.
- Indicator 14 – revised method to establish baseline, established new baseline, revised targets based on new baseline and revised/added improvement activities.
- Attachment 2 Sampling Plan – revised sampling plan for Indicator 7.
Summary of Revisions to the SPP, February 2012 Edition:
The NYS SPP was revised as follows:
- Indicator 1 - dates pertaining to the district total cohort were adjusted for FFY 2010 and improvement activities added.
- Indicator 2 – dates pertaining to the district total cohort were adjusted for FFY 2010 and the reference to where the definition of “drop out” can be found was revised.
- Indicator 3 – improvement activity added.
- Indicator 4A – additional data source information added.
- Indicator 4B – revised definition of significant discrepancy.
- Indicator 8 - replaced the term mental retardation with intellectual disability on the Parent Survey.
- Indicator 9 – updated web link and revised language pertaining to a district’s risk of race as it relates to disproportionate under-representation in special education.
- Indicator 10 – updated web link and revised language pertaining to a district’s risk of race as it relates to disproportionate under-representation in special education.
- Indicator 11 – added improvement activities.
- Indicator 13 – added improvement activities.
- Indicator 14 – revised target date to FFY 2011.
- Indicator 15 – improvement activity added.
- Indicator 17 – added improvement activities.
Summary of Revisions to the SPP, February 2013 Edition:
The NYS SPP was revised as follows:
- Indicator 1 – dates pertaining to district total cohort were adjusted for FFY 2011; added information in the Measurement Table on NYS’ Calculation for the 2011-12 School Year; graduation requirements; revised the Overview of Issue/Description of System or Process to add information on student eligibility for Regents Competency Tests, and the new Compensatory Safety Net Option; added improvement activities and identified those activities completed.
- Indicator 2 – dates pertaining to district total cohort were adjusted for FFY 2011; added information on NYS’ Calculation for Drop Out Rate for the School Year 2011-12; provided new location in the SIRS manual where the definition of “dropout” can be found; improvement activities added and identified as completed, where appropriate.
- Indicator 3 – revised Measurement Table; added information on NYS’ ESEA flexibility waiver; added a new section on Overview of the Issue/Description of System or Process for FFY 2011; revised target for FFY 2012; updated links.
- Indicator 4 – updated the web link to Part 201 of the Commissioner’s Regulations in 4A; minor changes to wording in 4B measurement box.
- Indicator 6 – reported new baseline data for FFY 2011 and discussion of this data, targets for FFY 2012.
- Indicator 7 – added “or exited” to Summary Statement 1 in measurement box; improvement activities added and identified as completed, where appropriate.
- Indicator 8 - added footnote to Improvement Activities section identifying change in State’s regulations pertaining to the additional parent member.
- Indicator 9 – minor changes to wording in measurement box made for purpose of clarification; added footnote to clarify that reporting of under-representation is not required as of 2/2013.
- Indicator 10 – minor changes to wording in measurement box made for purpose of clarification; added footnote to clarify that reporting of under-representation is not required as of 2/2013.
- Indicator 11 – added revised timeline for initial evaluations and a footnote to explain this change; improvement activities added and identified as completed, where appropriate.
- Indicator 12 – revised wording in item (e) of measurement; added footnote regarding student eligibility for Early Intervention and Preschool services.
- Indicator 13 – identified completed improvement activities.
- Indicator 14 – added Data Source to measurement box.
- Indicator 16 – added footnote to clarify that reporting on Indicator 16 is no longer required by USED as of 2/2013.
- Indicator 17 – added footnote to clarify that reporting on Indicator 17 is no longer required by USED as of 2/2013.
- Indicator 18 – added new improvement activity.
- Indicator 19 – added new improvement activity.
- Indicator 20 – revised State reported data submission dates in measurement.
THE UNIVERSITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Regents of The University
Merryl H. Tisch, Chancellor, B.A., M.A., Ed.D. .... New York
Anthony S. Bottar, Vice Chancellor, B.A., J.D.. .. Syracuse
Robert M. Bennett, Chancellor Emeritus, B.A., M.S. .... Tonawanda
James C. Dawson, A.A., B.A., M.S., Ph.D. ..... Plattsburgh
Geraldine D. Chapey, B.A., M.A., Ed.D. .... Belle Harbor
Harry Phillips, 3rd, B.A., M.S.F.S. .... Hartsdale
James R. Tallon, Jr., B.A., M.A. .... Binghamton
Roger Tilles, B.A., J.D. .... Great Neck
Charles R. Bendit, B.A. .. Manhattan
Betty A. Rosa, B.A., M.S. in Ed., M.S. in Ed, M.Ed., Ed.D. .... Bronx
Lester W. Young, Jr., B.S., M.S., Ed.D. .... Oakland Gardens
Christine D. Cea, B.A., M.A., Ph.D. .... Staten Island
Wade S. Norwood, B.A. .... Rochester
James O. Jackson, B.S., M.A., Ph.D.... Albany
Kathleen M. Cashin, B.S., M.S., Ed.D.... Brooklyn
James E. Cottrell, B.S., M.D.... New York
T. Andrew Brown, B.A., J.D. .... Rochester
Commissioner of Education
President of the University of the State of New York
John B. King, Jr.
Executive Deputy Commissioner
Elizabeth R. Berlin
Deputy Commissioner, Office of P-12 Education
Assistant Commissioner, Office of Special Education
James P. DeLorenzo
The State Education Department does not discriminate on the basis of age, color, religion, creed, disability, marital status, veteran status, national origin, race, gender, genetic predisposition or carrier status, or sexual orientation in its educational programs, services and activities. Portions of this publication can be made available in a variety of formats, including Braille, large print or audio tape, upon request. Inquiries concerning this policy of nondiscrimination should be directed to the Department’s Office for Diversity, Ethics, and Access, Room 530, Education Building, Albany, NY 12234.