Special Education

State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012- 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:

  1. 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.
  2. Participation rate for children with IEPs.
  3. 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)

  1. (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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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”.

    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 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 out-of-district 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 2005-06 school year, NYS has a single PI for grades 3-8 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 2005-06, the AMOs were revised to reflect performance in the combined grades 3-8 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 middle-level 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.

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

    School Year Elementary Level Middle Level Secondary Level
    ELA Math ELA Math ELA Math
    2003-04 123 136 107 81 142 132
    2004-05 131 142 116 93 148 139

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

    School Year Grades 3-8 Secondary Level
    ELA Math ELA Math
    2005-06 122 86 154 146
    2006-07 122 86 159 152
    2007-08 133 102 165 159
    2008-09 144 119 171 166
    2009-10 155 135 177 173
    2010-11 Pending Pending 183 180
    2011-12 Pending Pending 188 186
    2012-13 Pending Pending 194 193
    2013-14 Pending Pending 200 200

    The following sources provide additional detailed information about NYS’ Accountability system for all students, including students with disabilities, which is approved under ESEA (updated January 2010).

    Baseline Data for FFY 2004 (School Year 2004-05)

    AYP Measure

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

      • 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.

      Participation Rate in State Assessments

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

      `
      Assessment Enrollment of Students with Disabilities Regular Assessment, With or Without Accommodations* Alternate Assessment-Alternate Achievement Standards Participation Rate in 2004-05 School Year Absent or Administrative Error
      Grade 4 ELA 30,927 28,036 1,803 96% 1,088
      Grade 4 Math 30,534 28,000 1,753 97% 781
      Grade 8 ELA 35,572 32,065 1,822 95% 1,685
      Grade 8 Math 35,172 31,520 1,793 95% 1,859
      HS English-Seniors in 2004-05 16,686 14,851 0 89.0% 0
      High School Math-Seniors in 2004-05 16,686 15,017 0 90% 0

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

      Proficiency Rate

      As shown in the table below, in 2004-05, 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 2004-05 Performance 2004-05 Standard Students with Disabilities Made AYP in 2004-05 2005-06
      Continuously Enrolled Students with Disabilities in Elementary and Middle Schools and 2000-01 Accountability Cohort in High School (HS) NYS PI Effective AMO Safe- Harbor Target Met Third Indicator for Safe Harbor Safe- Harbor Target
      Grade 4 ELA 29,028 102 130 107 Yes No NA
      Grade 4 Math 28,754 141 141  NA NA Yes NA
      Grade 8 ELA 33,006 85 115 92 Yes No NA
      Grade 8 Math 32,041 82 92 91 Yes No NA
      HS Eng.  2001 cohort 19,140 104 147 109 No No 114
      HS Math- 2001 cohort 19,140 108 138 107 No No 117

      Discussion of Baseline Data

      Adequate Yearly Progress:

      • In 2004-05, 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 2003-04. 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 2004-05:
        • 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 2005-06 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 3-8 combined. NYS will have AYP calculations in grades 3-8 combined for ELA, grades 3-8 combined for math, high school ELA and in high school math.

      Participation:

      • As shown in the table above under the participation heading, in the 2004-05 school year, the participation rates of students with disabilities in State assessments were 95 percent or higher in elementary and middle school ELA and math assessments. However, at the high school level, 89 percent of the seniors with disabilities participated in a high school English assessment and 90 percent in a high school mathematics assessment.  The participation rates in 2004-05 were better compared to rates in the 2003-04 school year.

      Proficiency:

      • 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 safe-harbor target of 107 and twenty-eight points short of the 2004-05 effective AMO for all students of 130. 
        • 141 on the Grade 4 mathematics examination, which was the effective AMO in 2004-05 for all students.
        • 85 on the Grade 8 ELA examination, seven points short of the required safe-harbor target of 92 and thirty points short of the 2004-05 effective AMO for all students of 115.
        • 82 on the Grade 8 mathematics examination, nine points short of the required safe-harbor target of 91 and ten points short of the 2004-05 effective AMO for all students of 92.
        • 104 on the high school English examination, five points short of the required safe-harbor target of 109 and 43 points short of 2004-05 effective AMO for all students of 147.
        • 108 on the high school mathematics examination, one point above the  required safe-harbor target of 107 and 30 points short of 2004-05 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 one-percentage point increase in the graduation rate compared to the previous year.

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

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

      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 3-8 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:

      • 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)

      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:

      • Level 1 (Basic)
      • Level 2 (Basic Proficient)
      • Level 3 (Proficient)
      • Level 4 (Advanced)

      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 State-approved 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
      (2005-06)
      AYP:   55.9 percent of school districts that are required to make AYP for the students with disabilities subgroup will make AYP in grades 3-8 ELA, grades 3-8 math, high school ELA and high school math.
      Participation: 95 percent in grades 3-8 and high school in ELA and math.
      Performance:  The State’s average performance on the performance indices (PI) which represent the percent of students with disabilities performing at Level 2 (basic proficiency) and above plus the percent of students with disabilities performing at Level 3 (proficiency) and above will be as follows:
      Grades 3-8 ELA: 91
      Grades 3-8 Math: 100
      High School ELA: 114
      High School Math: 124
      2006
      (2006-07)
      AYP: 57 percent of school districts that are required to make AYP for the students with disabilities subgroup will make AYP in grades 3-8 ELA, grades 3-8 math, high school ELA and high school math.
      Participation: 95 percent in grades 3-8 and high school in ELA and math.
      Performance: The State’s average performance on the performance indices (PI) which represent the percent of students with disabilities performing at Level 2 (basic proficiency) and above plus the percent of students with disabilities performing at Level 3 (proficiency) and above will be as follows:
      Grades 3-8 ELA: 96
      Grades 3-8 Math: 105
      High School ELA: 119
      High School Math: 129
      2007
      (2007-08)
      AYP: 58 percent of school districts that are required to make AYP for the students with disabilities subgroup will make AYP in grades 3-8 ELA, grades 3-8 math, high school ELA and high school math.
      Participation: 95 percent in grades 3-8 and high school in ELA and math.
      Performance: The State’s average performance on the performance indices (PI) which represent the percent of students with disabilities performing at Level 2 (basic proficiency) and above plus the percent of students with disabilities performing at Level 3 (proficiency) and above will be as follows:
      Grades 3-8 ELA: 101
      Grades 3-8 Math: 110
      High School ELA: 124
      High School Math: 134
      2008
      (2008-09)
      AYP: 59 percent of school districts that are required to make AYP for the students with disabilities subgroup will make AYP in grades 3-8 ELA, grades 3-8 math, high school ELA and high school math.
      Participation: 95 percent in grades 3-8 and high school in ELA and math.
      Performance: The State’s average performance on the performance indices (PI) which represent the percent of students with disabilities performing at Level 2 (basic proficiency) and above plus the percent of students with disabilities performing at Level 3 (proficiency) and above will be as follows:
      Grades 3-8 ELA: 106
      Grades 3-8 Math: 115
      High School ELA: 129
      High School Math: 139
      2009*
      (2009-10)
      (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 3-8 ELA, grades 3-8 math, high school ELA and high school math.
      Participation: 95 percent of students with disabilities in grades 3-8 and high school will participate in State ELA and math assessments.
      Performance*: The State will achieve the effective annual measurable objective (AMO) or the safe-harbor target for the students with disabilities subgroup in Grades 3-8 ELA, Grades 3-8 Math, High School ELA and in High School Math. See the FFY 2009 APR for the AMO and safe harbor targets for the 2009-10 school year assessment data. (rev. 1/10)
      2010*
      (2010-11)
      (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 3-8 ELA, grades 3-8 math, high school ELA and high school math.
      Participation: 95 percent in grades 3-8 and high school in ELA and math.
      Performance*: The State will achieve the effective annual measurable objective (AMO) or achieve the safe-harbor target for the students with disabilities subgroup in Grades 3-8 ELA, Grades 3-8 Math, High School ELA and in High School Math. See the FFY 2010 APR for the AMO and safe harbor targets for the 2010-11 school year assessment data. (rev 1/10)
      2011**
      (2011-12)
      (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 3-8 ELA, grades 3-8 math, high school ELA and high school math.
      Participation: 95 percent in grades 3-8 and high school in ELA and math.
      Performance: The State will achieve the effective annual measurable objective (AMO) or achieve the safe-harbor target for the students with disabilities subgroup in Grades 3-8 ELA, Grades 3-8 Math, High School ELA and in High School Math. See the FFY 2011 APR for the AMO and safe harbor targets for the 2011-12 school year assessment data. (rev 2/10)
      2012**
      (2012-13)
      (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 3-8 ELA, grades 3-8 math, high school ELA and high school math.
      Participation: 95 percent in grades 3-8 and high school in ELA and math.
      Performance: The State will achieve the effective annual measurable objective (AMO) or achieve the safe-harbor target for the students with disabilities subgroup in Grades 3-8 ELA, Grades 3-8 Math, High School ELA and in High School Math. See the FFY 2012 APR for the AMO and safe harbor targets for the 2012-13 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.
      ** In FFY 2009, USED requested states to add two additional years to the SPP, including adding two additional years of targets.
      *** NYS established a new baseline in FFY 2011 due to the approval of an ESEA Flexibility Waiver.  A revised target was necessary for FFY 2012 based on the FFY 2011 data.

      Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources

      Activity Timeline Resources
      The required sanctions for schools and districts not making AYP are defined in federal and State law and include a continuum of consequences. 2005-12*** SED staff
      (rev. 1/10)
      Beginning in 2006-07:
      For school districts that had at least 30 students with disabilities in the 2001 total cohort:
      • School districts with performance below the statewide average performance index in two or three areas for districts that did not make AYP for the students with disabilities subgroup in the two or three areas were identified as districts “in need of assistance.”
      • School districts with performance below the statewide average performance index in four areas and the district did not make AYP for the students with disabilities subgroup were identified as “districts in need of intervention.”

      For school districts with less than 30 students with disabilities enrolled in grades 4 or 8 in the 2004-05 school year:
      • School districts with performance significantly below the statewide average in two or three areas were identified as districts “in need of assistance.”
      • School districts with performance significantly below the statewide average in four areas were identified as districts “in need of intervention.”

      Each school district, as a result of this designation, was required to engage in one or more of the following activities to improve its graduation rates:
      • Conduct a focused review
      • Work with one of the State’s funded technical assistance networks
      • Use a portion of its IDEA Part B funds to address the area of concern
      • Redirect its fiscal or human resources
      • Conduct a self-review of its policies, procedures and practices
      • Develop improvement plans
      2006-12*** SEQA Regional Offices
      RSE-TASC
      (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. 2005-12*** SEQA,
      RSE-TASC, (rev. 1/10)
      New York State Alternate Assessment (NYSAA) for Students with Disabilities:
      • 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.     
      2005-12*** Contract with Measured Progress
      Develop an alternate assessment aligned against grade level standards. 2006-08
      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.  2005-09
      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. 2005-06
      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 “response-to-intervention” identification processes for students with learning disabilities, with an emphasis on implementation in early grades 1-3 statewide.  See the description of these improvement activities referenced in Indicator 1. See 8 NYCCRR 200.4(j) 2005-09
      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. 2005-08
      Completed
      (See APR 2/10)
      IDEA Part B Funds
      Provide resources to ensure students with disabilities have their instructional materials in accessible formats:
      • Expand the distribution of Braille materials in the downstate area.
      • Provide materials in electronic formats for students unable to use standard print, large print or Braille textbooks due to visual, physical and perceptual disabilities.

      Issue guidance and provide training on accessible instructional materials (added 1/10)

      2005-08
      Completed


       

       

       

      2009-11 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. 2005-10
      Completed. (See APR 2/10)
      Technology Resource Center (TRE)
      Provide universal design for assessment training for State assessment test item writers 2008-11 Office of State Assessment
      Provide staff development on universal design for learning to each of the large 5 cities and other targeted low-performing schools.  2005-08
      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

      2011-12
      Completed

      See APR 2/12
      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 3-8 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.

       

Last Updated: March 5, 2013ate -->