State Performance Plan (SPP) for 20052012 Revised February 2013  Indicator 3
Overview of the State Performance Plan Development
See Overview of the State Performance Plan Development preceding Indicator 1.
In addition, New York State (NYS) consulted with its Commissioner’s Advisory Panel for Special Education Services (CAP) to establish extended targets and improvement activities for Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2011 and FFY 2012. The State’s technical assistance and support networks were also involved in these discussions.
Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE
Indicator 3*: Participation and performance of children with individualized education programs (IEPs) on statewide assessments:
 Percent of the districts with a disability subgroup that meets the State’s minimum “n” size that meet the State’s adequate yearly progress5(AYP) targets for the disability subgroup.
 Participation rate for children with IEPs.
 Proficiency rate for children with IEPs against grade level, modified and alternate academic achievement standards.
(20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A))
*Note: The definition of Indicator 3, the Measurement and Target sections were revised in 1/10 per federal guidance issued 3/09.
Measurement: (Revised January 2010)
 (A.1) AYP percent = [(# of districts with a disability subgroup that meets the State’s minimum “n” size that meet the State’s AYP targets for the disability subgroup) divided by the (total # of districts that have a disability subgroup that meets the State’s minimum “n” size)] times 100.
 Participation rate percent = [(# of children with IEPs participating in the assessment) divided by the (total # of children with IEPs enrolled during the testing window, calculated separately for reading and math)]. The participation rate is based on all children with IEPs, including both children with IEPs enrolled for a full academic year and those not enrolled for a full academic year.
 Proficiency rate percent = ([(# of children with IEPs scoring at or above proficient against grade level, modified and alternate academic achievement standards) divided by the (total # of children with IEPs who received a valid score and for whom a proficiency level was assigned, and, calculated separately for reading and math)]. The proficiency rate includes both children with IEPs enrolled for a full academic year and those not enrolled for a full academic year.
Notes:
 NYS public reports of assessment results are available at https://reportcards.nysed.gov/.
 NYS administers alternate assessments against alternate achievement standards aligned to grade level content.
 NYS does not administer assessments against modified achievement standards.
 http://www.p12.nysed.gov/sedcar/state.htm#assessments – Report of the Participation of Students with Disabilities on Assessments: “Report of the Participation of Students with Disabilities on Mathematics Assessment” and “Report of the Participation of Students with Disabilities on Reading/Language Arts Assessment”.
 The accountability system applies to all public school districts (including Special Act School Districts) and public schools (including charter schools) and includes all students educated in these institutions or students placed in outofdistrict placements by school districts.
 Schools must make AYP in English language arts (ELA) and mathematics at the elementary, middle and secondary levels; in science at the elementary and middle levels; and in graduation rate at the secondary level.
 Districts and schools are responsible for AYP of students in the following accountability groups, assuming sufficient enrollment in the group:
 all students,
 students with disabilities,
 limited English proficient students,
 economically disadvantaged students,
 American Indian students,
 Asian students,
 Black students,
 Hispanic students, and
 White students.
 The failure of one group to make AYP in ELA or mathematics means that the district or school does not make AYP in that subject.
 Districts and schools must meet two requirements to make AYP in ELA and mathematics:
 the school district must test 95 percent of students in each accountability group with 40 or more students; and
 the performance of each group with 30 or more continuously enrolled students must meet or exceed its Effective Annual Measurable Objective (Effective AMO) or the group must make “safe harbor.”
 To make AYP in science, only the “all students” group is required to meet the performance requirement; there is no participation requirement.
 To make AYP on graduation rate, the “all students” group must achieve a graduation rate of at least 55 percent or improve by one percentage point over its previous year’s performance.
 Assessment performance is defined at four levels:
 Level 1 = Basic
 Level 2 = Basic Proficiency
 Level 3 = Proficient
 Level 4 = Advanced Proficiency
 A Performance Index (PI) is a value from 0 to 200 that is assigned to an accountability group, indicating how that group performed on a required State test (or approved alternative) in ELA, mathematics, or science. PIs are determined using the following equations:
 For elementary and middle level assessments, the PI = [(number of continuously enrolled tested students scoring at Levels 2, 3, and 4 + the number scoring at Levels 3 and 4) ÷ number of continuously enrolled tested students] X 100 . Beginning with assessments administered during the 200506 school year, NYS has a single PI for grades 38 in English and another in math.
 For high school assessments, the PI = [(number of accountability cohort members scoring at Levels 2, 3, and 4 + the number scoring at Levels 3 and 4) ÷ number of accountability cohort members] X 100.
 The State has established Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs) for ELA and mathematics at each grade level. The AMOs increase annually, until reaching the goal of 100 percent student proficiency in 2013–14. In 200506, the AMOs were revised to reflect performance in the combined grades 38 ELA and math.
 Recognizing that the annual performance data for relatively small groups of students are not statistically reliable, the State has established Effective AMOs based on the number of students in a measured group. The Effective AMO is the lowest PI that an accountability group of a given size can achieve in a subject for the group’s PI not to be considered significantly different from the AMO. If an accountability group achieves its Effective AMO, it is considered to have made AYP, as long as the participation requirement, if applicable, has been met.
 The State has established standards on the third indicators, elementary and middlelevel science and high school graduation rate, that districts and schools must meet to make AYP.
 An accountability group whose performance in ELA and mathematics does not equal or exceed its Effective AMO in a subject can make “safe harbor” if its performance improves by a specified amount over its previous year’s performance and if its performance on the third indicator equals or exceeds the State standard or improves by 1.0 percentage point on graduation rate and one point on science over the previous year.
 Federal web site for State Accountability Workbooks, including NYS’ http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/stateplans03/index.html
 State web site for information about NYS accountability requirements and definitions http://www.p12.nysed.gov/irs/accountability/
 State web site for individual school report cards http://www.p12.nysed.gov/irs/nystart/
 69.9 percent of 216 school districts that were required to make AYP in grade 4 ELA made AYP.
 93.4 percent of 213 school districts that were required to make AYP in grade 4 math made AYP.
 68.6 percent of 258 school districts that were required to make AYP in grade 8 ELA made AYP.
 63.4 percent of 254 school districts that were required to make AYP in grade 8 math made AYP.
 48.7 percent of 189 school districts that were required to make AYP in high school ELA made AYP.
 52.4 percent of 189 school districts that were required to make AYP in high school math made AYP.
 In 200405, 48.3 percent of 290 school districts made AYP for the students with disabilities subgroup in all the subjects in which they were required to. This is significant improvement compared to 25.1 percent of 299 school districts in 200304. NYS has established a minimum enrollment of 40 students for participation and 30 for performance.
 The majority of school districts were not required to make AYP for the students with disabilities accountability subgroup because they did not have a minimum enrollment of 30 students with disabilities. In 200405:
 69.9 percent of 216 school districts made AYP in grade 4 ELA;
 93.4 percent of 213 school districts made AYP in grade 4 math;
 68.6 percent of 258 school districts made AYP in grade 8 ELA;
 63.4 percent of 254 school districts made AYP in grade 8 math;
 48.7 percent of 189 school districts made AYP in high school ELA; and
 52.4 percent of 189 school districts made AYP in high school math.
 Beginning in the 200506 school year, many more school districts will be required to make AYP for the students with disabilities subgroup since they will have the minimum numbers of students with disabilities enrolled in grades 38 combined. NYS will have AYP calculations in grades 38 combined for ELA, grades 38 combined for math, high school ELA and in high school math.
 As shown in the table above under the participation heading, in the 200405 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. The participation rates in 200405 were better compared to rates in the 200304 school year.
 As shown in the table above under the proficiency heading, the students with disabilities accountability group achieved a Performance Index of:
 102 on the Grade 4 ELA examination, five points short of the required safeharbor target of 107 and twentyeight points short of the 200405 effective AMO for all students of 130.
 141 on the Grade 4 mathematics examination, which was the effective AMO in 200405 for all students.
 85 on the Grade 8 ELA examination, seven points short of the required safeharbor target of 92 and thirty points short of the 200405 effective AMO for all students of 115.
 82 on the Grade 8 mathematics examination, nine points short of the required safeharbor target of 91 and ten points short of the 200405 effective AMO for all students of 92.
 104 on the high school English examination, five points short of the required safeharbor target of 109 and 43 points short of 200405 effective AMO for all students of 147.
 108 on the high school mathematics examination, one point above the required safeharbor target of 107 and 30 points short of 200405 effective AMO for all students of 138. The group did not make AYP because the group did not meet the third indicator for safe harbor, which is a graduation rate of at least 55 percent or a onepercentage point increase in the graduation rate compared to the previous year.
 Level 1 On Track (Basic and On Track to Proficient)
 Level 1 Off Track (Basic and Not on Track to Proficient)
 Level 2 On Track (Basic Proficient and On Track to Proficient)
 Level 2 Off Track (Basic Proficient and Not on Track to Proficient)
 Level 3 (Proficient)
 Level 4 (Advanced)
 Level 1 (Basic)
 Level 2 (Basic Proficient)
 Level 3 (Proficient)
 Level 4 (Advanced)
 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.”
 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.”
 Conduct a focused review
 Work with one of the State’s funded technical assistance networks
 Use a portion of its IDEA Part B funds to address the area of concern
 Redirect its fiscal or human resources
 Conduct a selfreview of its policies, procedures and practices
 Develop improvement plans
 Distribute and provide training on revised teacher manuals, 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.
 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.
 For additional detail on activities revised, completed or added in the school year 200506, see pp. 2630 at http://www.p12.nysed.gov/specialed/spp/apr2007/june07.pdf.
 For additional detail on activities revised, completed or added in the school year 200607, see pp. 1819 at http://www.p12.nysed.gov/specialed/spp/apr2008/APR1008.pdf.
 For additional detail on activities revised, completed or added in the school year 200708, see pp. 2223 at http://www.p12.nysed.gov/specialed/spp/apr2009/final.pdf.
 For additional detail on activities revised, completed or added in the school year 200809, see pp. 2022 at http://www.p12.nysed.gov/specialed/spp/apr2010/revisedApril2010final.pdf.
 For additional detail on activities revised, completed or added in the school year 200910, see pp. 2324 at http://www.p12.nysed.gov/specialed/spp/apr2011/Revised411.pdf.
 For additional detail on activities revised, completed or added in the school year 201011, see http://www.p12.nysed.gov/specialed/spp/apr2012/revaugust2012.pdf.
 For additional detail on activities revised, completed or added in the school year 201112, see FFY 2011 APR.
Data Source:
The Student Information Repository System (SIRS) is used to collect State assessment data for all students. NYS uses AYP data as is used for accountability reporting under Title I of the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).
Overview of Issue/Description of System or Process  through FFY 2010
NYS’ accountability system for all students that is approved by the United States Education Department (USED) under ESEA is characterized as follows:
The following table identifies the State’s AMOs through the 200405 school year:
School Year  Elementary Level  Middle Level  Secondary Level  
ELA  Math  ELA  Math  ELA  Math  
200304  123  136  107  81  142  132 
200405  131  142  116  93  148  139 
The following table identifies the State’s AMOs for grades 38 ELA and grades 38 math for the 200506 year and from 200506 through 201314 for high school ELA and math.
School Year  Grades 38  Secondary Level  
ELA  Math  ELA  Math  
200506  122  86  154  146 
200607  122  86  159  152 
200708  133  102  165  159 
200809  144  119  171  166 
200910  155  135  177  173 
201011  Pending  Pending  183  180 
201112  Pending  Pending  188  186 
201213  Pending  Pending  194  193 
201314  Pending  Pending  200  200 
The following sources provide additional detailed information about NYS’ Accountability system for all students, including students with disabilities, which is approved under ESEA (updated January 2010).
Baseline Data for FFY 2004 (School Year 200405)
AYP Measure
In 200405, 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 200405 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 AssessmentAlternate Achievement Standards  Participation Rate in 200405 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  31,520  1,793  95%  1,859 
HS EnglishSeniors in 200405  16,686  14,851  0  89.0%  0 
High School MathSeniors in 200405  16,686  15,017  0  90%  0 
* The data in the above table are from USDOE Table 6 containing 200405 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
As shown in the table below, in 200405, the students with disabilities accountability group achieved the effective AMO score on the grade 4 mathematics assessment, but did not achieve a PI score sufficient to make safe harbor for any of the other grade 4, grade 8 or secondary level State assessments.
Assessment  200405 Performance  200405 Standard  Students with Disabilities Made AYP in 200405  200506  
Continuously Enrolled Students with Disabilities in Elementary and Middle Schools and 200001 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 38 during the 200506 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 38 ELA and the other for grades 38 mathematics. Creation of the two new indices will require the State to establish new AMOs and safeharbor targets for school buildings and school districts.
Overview of Issue/Description of System or Process – FFY 2011
The State Education Department (SED) submitted its ESEA Flexibility Request to USED on February 28, 2012. On May 29, 2012, SED received approval from the USED for its flexibility waiver request. Because the State still calculates AYP through its waiver, NYS will be reporting on A.l and not A.2 (AMO percent). Through the waiver, in order to make AYP, schools continue to be required to achieve their EAMO or make Safe Harbor, and demonstrate the required participation rate on State assessments for the subgroup on each measure for which the school is accountable. However, SED eliminated the requirement that in order to make Safe Harbor in grades 38 ELA or Math, an accountability group must also make AYP with that group in science, as well as the requirements that to make Safe Harbor for high school ELA or Math, an accountability group must also make AYP with that group for graduation rate.
Beginning in FFY 2011, due to the approval of an ESEA Flexibility Waiver, the calculations for AYP and PI changed. AYP for students with disabilities is determined using two criteria: participation and performance. To meet the participation criterion in elementary/middle and secondary level ELA and mathematics, 95 percent of students (enrolled during the test administration period at the elementary/middle level and in the 12th grade at the secondary level) must be tested on an approved assessment. To meet the performance criterion, a PI that is calculated using assessment results must be equal to or greater than a predetermined EAMO or a Safe Harbor Target (10 percent improvement over the previous year’s performance). An EAMO is the lowest PI that an accountability group of a given size can achieve in the subject for a group’s PI not to be considered significantly different from the statewide AMO for that subject.
At the elementary/middle level, students may achieve one of six performance levels6:
The PI is calculated using the following formula7:
((Level 1 On Track) + (Level 1 On Track) + (Level 2 On Track) + (Level 2 On Track) + (Level 3) + (Level 3) + (Level 4) + (Level 4) + (Level 2 Off Track)) ¸ number of continuously enrolled tested students) x 100
Continuously enrolled tested students are those enrolled on the first Wednesday of October and during the test administration period.
At the secondary level, students may achieve one of four performance levels:
Under the ESEA waiver calculations, in order to make a level 3 proficiency, a student must have achieved a score between 75 and 89 on the Regents Comprehensive Examination in English or between 80 and 89 on a Regents examination in mathematics; or passed a Stateapproved alternative to those Regents examinations; or a score of level 3 on a State alternate assessment. In order to achieve level 4 proficiency on the high school assessment, a student must have achieved a score of 90 or higher on the Regents Comprehensive Examination in English or a Regents mathematics examination; or a score of level 4 on a State alternate assessment. (Under prior year calculations, the student must have achieved a score between 65 and 84 to earn a level 3. and a score of 85 or higher to earn a level 4.)
The PI is calculated using the following formula:
(((Level 2) + (Level 3) + (Level 3) + (Level 4) + (Level 4)) ¸ number of cohort members) x 100.
Cohort members are students who entered grade 9 in the same school year. Data for these students are calculated on June 30, four years after they first enter 9th grade.
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 (200506) 
AYP: 55.9 percent of school districts that are required to make AYP for the students with disabilities subgroup will make AYP in grades 38 ELA, grades 38 math, high school ELA and high school math. Participation: 95 percent in grades 38 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 38 ELA: 91 Grades 38 Math: 100 High School ELA: 114 High School Math: 124 
2006 (200607) 
AYP: 57 percent of school districts that are required to make AYP for the students with disabilities subgroup will make AYP in grades 38 ELA, grades 38 math, high school ELA and high school math.
Participation: 95 percent in grades 38 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 38 ELA: 96 Grades 38 Math: 105 High School ELA: 119 High School Math: 129 
2007 (200708) 
AYP: 58 percent of school districts that are required to make AYP for the students with disabilities subgroup will make AYP in grades 38 ELA, grades 38 math, high school ELA and high school math.
Participation: 95 percent in grades 38 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 38 ELA: 101 Grades 38 Math: 110 High School ELA: 124 High School Math: 134 
2008 (200809) 
AYP: 59 percent of school districts that are required to make AYP for the students with disabilities subgroup will make AYP in grades 38 ELA, grades 38 math, high school ELA and high school math.
Participation: 95 percent in grades 38 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 38 ELA: 106 Grades 38 Math: 115 High School ELA: 129 High School Math: 139 
2009* (200910) (rev. 1/10)* 
AYP: 61 percent of school districts that are required to make AYP for the students with disabilities subgroup will make AYP in grades 38 ELA, grades 38 math, high school ELA and high school math.
Participation: 95 percent of students with disabilities in grades 38 and high school will participate in State ELA and math assessments. Performance*: The State will achieve the effective annual measurable objective (AMO) or the safeharbor target for the students with disabilities subgroup in Grades 38 ELA, Grades 38 Math, High School ELA and in High School Math. See the FFY 2009 APR for the AMO and safe harbor targets for the 200910 school year assessment data. (rev. 1/10) 
2010* (201011) (rev. 1/10)* 
New Baseline: AYP: 31 percent of school districts that are required to make AYP for the students with disabilities subgroup will make AYP in grades 38 ELA, grades 38 math, high school ELA and high school math. Participation: 95 percent in grades 38 and high school in ELA and math. Performance*: The State will achieve the effective annual measurable objective (AMO) or achieve the safeharbor target for the students with disabilities subgroup in Grades 38 ELA, Grades 38 Math, High School ELA and in High School Math. See the FFY 2010 APR for the AMO and safe harbor targets for the 201011 school year assessment data. (rev 1/10) 
2011** (201112) (rev. 2/11) 
AYP: 31 percent of school districts that are required to make AYP for the students with disabilities subgroup will make AYP in grades 38 ELA, grades 38 math, high school ELA and high school math.
Participation: 95 percent in grades 38 and high school in ELA and math. Performance: The State will achieve the effective annual measurable objective (AMO) or achieve the safeharbor target for the students with disabilities subgroup in Grades 38 ELA, Grades 38 Math, High School ELA and in High School Math. See the FFY 2011 APR for the AMO and safe harbor targets for the 201112 school year assessment data. (rev 2/10) 
2012** (201213) (rev. 2/11) 
AYP: 45 percent of school districts that are required to make AYP for the students with disabilities subgroup will make AYP in grades 38 ELA, grades 38 math, high school ELA and high school math.
Participation: 95 percent in grades 38 and high school in ELA and math. Performance: The State will achieve the effective annual measurable objective (AMO) or achieve the safeharbor target for the students with disabilities subgroup in Grades 38 ELA, Grades 38 Math, High School ELA and in High School Math. See the FFY 2012 APR for the AMO and safe harbor targets for the 201213 school year assessment data. (rev 2/11) 
* Note: Consistent with federal guidance, performance targets were revised in 1/10 to be consistent with the State’s ESEA criteria. 
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.  200512***  SED staff (rev. 1/10) 
Beginning in 200607:
For school districts that had at least 30 students with disabilities in the 2001 total cohort: For school districts with less than 30 students with disabilities enrolled in grades 4 or 8 in the 200405 school year: 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: 
200612***  SEQA Regional Offices
RSETASC (rev. 1/10) 
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.  200512***  SEQA, RSETASC, (rev. 1/10) 
New York State Alternate Assessment (NYSAA) for Students with Disabilities:

200512***  Contract with Measured Progress 
Develop an alternate assessment aligned against grade level standards.  200608 Completed (See APR 2/08) 
Office of State Assessment; Office of Special Education 
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.  200509 Completed (See APR 2/09) 
SEQA staff assist in planning and coordination 
Provide technical assistance to assist targeted school districts to improve math instruction of students with disabilities.  200506 Completed (see APR 2/10) 
IDEA Part B Funds – Math experts on RSSC 
Develop State criteria and identify effective practices to promote the use of “responsetointervention” identification processes for students with learning disabilities, with an emphasis on implementation in early grades 13 statewide. See the description of these improvement activities referenced in Indicator 1. See 8 NYCCRR 200.4(j)  200509 Completed (See APR 2/08) 
See Indicator 1 
Provide financial assistance to the State schools for the deaf and blind to improve academic achievement for their students.  200508 Completed (See APR 2/10) 
IDEA Part B Funds 
Provide resources to ensure students with disabilities have their instructional materials in accessible formats:
Issue guidance and provide training on accessible instructional materials (added 1/10) 
200508
200911 Completed 
NYS Resource Center for the Blind
Contract conversion center 
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.  200510 Completed. (See APR 2/10) 
Technology Resource Center (TRE) 
Provide universal design for assessment training for State assessment test item writers  200811  Office of State Assessment 
Provide staff development on universal design for learning to each of the large 5 cities and other targeted lowperforming schools.  200508 Completed See APR 2/10. 
TRE 
Revise the criteria for identification of districts to align more closely with the State’s NCLB differentiated accountability system, both for identification and the support to be provided to schools. See http://www.p12.nysed.gov/specialed/spp/2011annualcriteria.htm 
201112 
NYSED Staff 
*** Note: Extended the end dates to 2012 coinciding with extended dates of the SPP (rev. 2/11). 
5 The State Education Department (SED) submitted its Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Flexibility Request to the U.S. Education Department (USED) on February 28, 2012. On May 29, 2012, SED received approval from USED for its flexibility wavier request. In order to make AYP, schools continue to be required to achieve their Effective Annual Measurable Objective (EAMO) or make Safe Harbor, and demonstrate the required participation rate on State assessments for the subgroup on each measure for which the school is accountable. However, SED eliminated the requirement that in order to make Safe Harbor in grades 38 English language arts (ELA) or Math, an accountability group must also make AYP with that group in science, as well as the requirements that to make Safe Harbor for high school ELA or Math, an accountability group must also make AYP with that group for graduation rate.
6New York’s approved ESEA flexibility waiver increased the number of performance levels to six from four to accommodate student growth.
7 This is a new formula under New York’s approved ESEA Flexibility Waiver.