Special Education

State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012- Revised February 2013 - Indicator 4

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, and to establish the baseline for Indicator 4B.  The State’s technical assistance and support networks were also involved in these discussions.

Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE

Indicator 4:  Rates of suspension and expulsion:

  1. Percent of districts that have a significant discrepancy in the rate of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year for children with individualized education programs (IEPs) ; and
  2. Percent of districts that have (a) a significant discrepancy, by race or ethnicity, in the rate of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year for children with IEPs; and (b) 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.
    (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A); 1412(a)(22))

Measurement 4A:

A. Percent = [(# of districts that have a significant discrepancy in the rates of suspensions and expulsions for greater than 10 days in a school year of children with IEPs) divided by the (# of districts in the State)] times 100.

NYS’ Definition of Significant Discrepancy and Methodology:

In NYS, the rates of suspensions and expulsions of students with disabilities out of  school for more than 10 days in a school year are compared among the school districts in the State. 

For the baseline year 2004-05 through 2006-07, significant discrepancy was defined as a suspension rate of greater than three times the baseline statewide average (i.e., a rate of 4.0 percent or higher).

Beginning in 2007-08 through 2010-11, significant discrepancy is defined as a suspension rate of greater than two times the baseline statewide average, (i.e., a rate of more than 2.7 percent or higher).

The 2004-05 baseline statewide average suspension rate was 1.34 percent. School districts with at least 75 school-age students with disabilities that had a suspension rate of 4.0 percent or higher were identified as having significant discrepancy in their rate among school districts.  A minimum number of 75 students with disabilities was used since small numbers of students with disabilities may distort percentages. 

The State uses a minimum of 75 students with disabilities “n” size requirement in its formula to compute significant discrepancy. However, it does not exclude school districts from the denominator when calculating results for this indicator.

Data Source:

NYS collects data on the number of students with disabilities suspended or expelled out of school for more than 10 days in a school year on the PD-8 report.  See http://www.p12.nysed.gov/sedcar/forms/pdforms/1112/pdf/pd8_1112.pdfPDF document.  Data for this report are collected through the PD Data System, which is a web-based application used by school districts to provide aggregate data.  The State verifies the reliability and accuracy of the State’s data through automated edit checks and verification procedures.

Section 618 data are used to analyze for discrepancy in the rates of out-of-school suspensions of students with disabilities for greater than 10 days in a school year among school districts.  Suspension rates were calculated for all school districts.  From 2004-05 through 2007-08, the rates were computed by dividing the number of students with disabilities suspended out of school for more than 10 days, by the December 1 count of school-age students with disabilities and the result expressed as a percent.  From 2008-09 onward, the date for determining the count for school-age students changed from December 1 to the first Wednesday in October.

Overview of Issue/Description of System or Process

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

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

  • For suspensions of five school days or less, the student's parent(s) or guardian must be provided with a written notice (section 3214 notice), and a follow-up telephone call if possible, within 24 hours of the incident leading to the suspension which describes the basis for the suspension and explains that the parent or guardian has a right to request an informal conference with the principal prior to the proposed suspension to discuss the incident and question any complaining witness(es) against the student.
  • For suspensions in excess of five consecutive school days, the student's parent(s) or guardian must be provided with a written notice which indicates that the district proposes to suspend the student from school in excess of five consecutive school days, describes the basis for the proposed suspension, explains that the student has an opportunity for a fair hearing conducted by either the superintendent or hearing officer designated by the superintendent at which the student will have a right to question any witnesses accusing him/her of committing the misconduct charged and to present witnesses on his/her own behalf. Where possible, notification must also be provided by telephone.
  • For any student of compulsory school age, the school must provide alternative education to the student during the suspension.

In addition to the above requirements that apply to all students, the requirements, procedures and protections in federal law and regulations pertaining to students with disabilities are established section 3212 of the Education Law and Part 201 of the Commissioner’s Regulations.  These requirements may be found at: http://www.p12.nysed.gov/specialed/lawsregs/Part201-Dec2010.pdf.PDF document

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

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

Discussion of 4A Baseline Data

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

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

# of districts % of 684  districts % of students with disabilities suspended for greater than 10 days Comparison to statewide baseline average % of total 10-day out-of-school suspensions in public school districts
84 12.3% Not applicable These districts each had less than 75 students with disabilities enrolled on December 1, 2004. 0.5%
440 64.3% 0% to < 1.3% Below the baseline 42.6%
110   16.1% ≥ 1.3%  < 2.7% Between baseline and 2 times the baseline statewide average 17.4%
30   4.4% ≥ 2.7%< 4.0% Between 2 and 3 times the baseline statewide average   8.4%
20 2.9% ≥ 4.0% Three time or more than the  baseline statewide average 31.1%

Measurable and Rigorous Targets for 4A

FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target for Indicator 4A
2005
(2005-06)
No more than 2 percent of school districts in the State will suspend students with disabilities for more than 10 days at a rate of 4.0 percent or higher. (This rate is three times the baseline average.)
2006
(2006-07)
No more than 0 percent of the school districts in the State will suspend students with disabilities for more than 10 days at a rate of 4.0 percent or higher. (This rate is three times the baseline average.)
2007
(2007-08)
No more than 2 percent of school districts in the State will suspend students with disabilities for more than 10 days at a rate of 2.7 percent or higher. (This rate is two times the baseline average.)
2008
(2008-09)
No more than 2 percent of school districts in the State will suspend students with disabilities for more than 10 days at a rate of 2.7% or higher. (This rate is two times the baseline average.)
2009
(2009-10)
No more than 2 percent of school districts in the State will suspend students with disabilities for more than 10 days at a rate of 2.7 percent or higher. (This rate is two times the baseline average.)
2010
(2010-11)
No more than 2 percent of school districts in the State will suspend students with disabilities for more than 10 days at a rate of 2.7 percent or higher. (This is two times the baseline average.)
2011
(2011-12)*
No more than 2 percent of school districts in the State will suspend students with disabilities for more than 10 days at a rate of 2.7 percent or higher. (This is two times the baseline average.)
2012
(2012-13)*
No more than 2 percent of school districts in the State will suspend students with disabilities for more than 10 days at a rate of 2.7 percent or higher. (This is two times the baseline average.)
*In FFY 2009, USED requested states to add two additional years to the SPP, including adding two additional years of targets.

4B: Significant Discrepancies by Race/Ethnicity in High Suspension Rates

A new baseline for Measurement 4B is reported in this SPP, submitted February 1, 2011, with Annual Performance Reports (APRs) resuming thereafter.

Measurement 4B (Revised for reporting new baseline data for FFY 2009):

B.  Percent = [(# of districts that have: (a) a significant discrepancy, by race or ethnicity, in the rate of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year for children with IEPs; and (b) 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) divided by the (# of districts in the State)] times 100. 

Definition of significant discrepancy:

Baseline year through FFY 2009:

NYS compared the number of students suspended of each race/ethnicity category with the number suspended of all other race/ethnicity categories combined and computed relative risk ratios and weighted relative risk ratios to determine if there was significant discrepancy in suspensions.  In subsequent years, the State may revise the definition by lowering the relative risk ratio, weighted relative risk ratio, as well as the minimum numbers of suspensions:

  • At least 75 students with disabilities enrolled on 10/1/09;
  • At least 10 students with disabilities of the particular race/ethnicity were suspended;
  • At least 20 students with disabilities of all other race/ethnicities were enrolled; and
  • Either:
    • Both the relative risk ratio and weighted relative risk ratio for any minority group  was 2.0 or higher; or
    • All students with disabilities suspended were from only one minority group regardless of the size of the relative risk ratio and weighted relative risk ratio.

Beginning with FFY 2010 APR Reporting

NYS compares the number of students suspended in each race/ethnicity category with the statewide number suspended of all students with disabilities and computes a standard deviation to determine if there is significant discrepancy in suspensions.  The State uses the following definition of “significant discrepancy”:

  • At least 75 students with disabilities enrolled on 10/1;
  • At least 10 students with disabilities in the particular race/ethnicity were suspended;
  • The suspension rate of the particular race/ethnicity was greater than two standard deviations above the mean of all suspensions of students with disabilities in the State.

For school district calculations, the minimum numbers of students with disabilities is used because of the potential for small numbers of students with disabilities to distort percentages.  NYS includes the total number of LEAs in the State in the denominator.  The Statewide calculation, does not exclude school districts from the denominator calculation as a result of this minimum “n” size. 

Beginning with the school year 2009-10 data, reports include significant discrepancies of children in the “two or more races” category for Indicator 4B.

For each school district identified by its data as having a significant discrepancy in the rate of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year of students with disabilities, the State ensures that a review is conducted of the district’s policies, procedures and practices relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the uses of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards among students with disabilities subject to discipline.  The State provides for the review of policies, procedures and practices each year a school district’s data shows a significant discrepancy in its suspension rates for students with disabilities as follows:

  • The first year a district’s data indicates a significant discrepancy, the State requires the district to must complete a State-developed self-review monitoring protocol, which requires the review of specific policies, practices and procedures related to discipline of students with disabilities, including requirements relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, use of positive behavioral interventions and supports and procedural safeguards.  The monitoring protocol for this review is available at http://www.p12.nysed.gov/specialed/spp/indicators/4.htm.  A report of the results of this review is submitted by the district to the State.  At the time of submission, school districts that identify issues of noncompliance are immediately notified through a written finding of noncompliance that they must correct all issues of noncompliance as soon as possible, but not later than 12 months.  The results from this review are reported to the State for follow-up and corrective actions if compliance issues are identified.  Districts that are identified with inappropriate policies, procedures and/or practices are identified for purposes of reporting in the APR for indicator 4B.
  • For subsequent years in which a school district’s data indicates significant discrepancies, the State conducts the monitoring review of the district’s policies, procedures and practices in the areas as identified above. 

Data Source:

For 4B, NYS uses data collected for Table 5 of Information Collection 1820-0621 (Report of Children with Disabilities Unilaterally Removed or Suspended/Expelled for More than 10 Days) and reported in the annual 618 report to USED.  For 4B, NYS also includes data from reviews of policies, practices and procedures as defined in the above Measurement for this indicator.

Overview of Issue/Description of System or Process

IDEA requires States to collect and examine data to determine if significant discrepancies based on race and ethnicities are occurring in the State and the LEAs of the State with respect to the incidence, duration, and type of disciplinary actions, including suspensions and expulsions that are the result of inappropriate policies, procedures and practices.  In the case of a determination of significant discrepancy, the State provides for the review and if appropriate revision of the school district’s discipline policies, procedures, and practices to comply with the requirements of federal and State law and regulations.

Plan to Collect the Baseline Data for 4B:

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

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

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

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

Baseline Data for FFY 2005 (2005-06) for Indicator 4B

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

School Year Number of School Districts Identified in the State as Having Significant Discrepancy by Race and Ethnicity Number of Identified Districts Reporting Some Inappropriate Policies, Practices or Procedures Percent of All Districts in the State (684) Identified as Having Significant Discrepancy by Race and Ethnicity That is Result of Inappropriate policies, practices or procedures
2005-06 10 10 1.5%

School district 2005-06 results based review of their policies, practices and procedures:

Indicator 4B Baseline Data 2005-06
8 NYCRR Regulatory Citation # out of  10 School Districts Reporting Compliance % of 10 School Districts Reporting Compliance
§200.4(b)(1)(v) Initial evaluations of students with disabilities include a functional behavioral assessment (FBA) for students whose behaviors impede their learning or that of others. 6 60%
§200.4(b)(4) The reevaluation is sufficient to determine the student's individual needs. 7 70%
§200.1(r) FBAs identify the problem behavior, define the behavior in concrete terms, identify contextual factors that contribute to the behavior and formulate a hypothesis regarding the general conditions under which a behavior usually occurs and the probable consequences that serve to maintain it. 7 70%
§201.3(a) FBAs are conducted when students are suspended for behaviors determined to be related to their disabilities. 6 60%
§200.4(d)(3) For students whose behaviors impede their learning or that of others, the IEPs include positive behavioral interventions and supports and other strategies to address the behaviors. 5 50%
§200.3(d)(1) The general education teacher participated in the Committee on Special Education (CSE) meeting to identify appropriate positive behavioral interventions and strategies for the student. 5 50%
§201.4(e) The IEP was revised as a result of any deficiencies noted during a manifestation determination review. 5 50%
§201.2(a) Behavioral intervention plans are based on the results of the FBA and, at a minimum, include a description of the problem behavior, global and specific hypotheses as to why the problem behavior occurs and intervention strategies to address the behavior. 8 80%
§201.3(a) When a student has been removed for more than 10 days and the student's conduct was determined to be a manifestation of the student's disability, the CSE conducted a FBA and implements a behavioral intervention plan for that student. 7 70%
§201.3(b) If the student already has a behavioral intervention plan, the CSE meets to review the plan and its implementation and modifies the plan and its implementation, as necessary, to address the behavior that resulted in the disciplinary change of placement. 6 60%
§200.4(e) Behavioral intervention plans are implemented, monitored and progress documented. 4 40%
§201.4(a) The manifestation review is conducted immediately, but not later than 10 days after the decision to remove or suspend the student. 3 30%
§201.4(b) A team that includes the student’s parent, an individual knowledgeable about the student and the interpretation of behavior and other relevant members of the CSE as determined by the parent and the school district conducts the manifestation review. Parents are notified in writing of the meeting. 5 50%
§201.4(c) All relevant information in the student’s file, including the student’s IEP, any teacher observations and relevant information provided by the parent is reviewed. 6 60%
§201.4(d)(2) The manifestation determination is made based on whether the conduct was caused by or had a direct and substantial relationship to the student’s disability or was a direct result of the school district’s failure to implement the IEP. 7 70%
§201.4(d)(2)(ii) If the conduct was determined to be related to the student’s disability, the student is returned to the placement from which the student was removed (except drugs, weapons or serious bodily injury removals). 8 80%
§201.7(a) The parent is notified and provided a copy of the procedural safeguards notice within 10 days of the decision to suspend the student for more than 10 days. 8 80%
§201.7(b) Suspensions of students with disabilities do not exceed the amount of time that a nondisabled student would be subject to suspension for the same behavior. 10 100%
§201.7(c) A manifestation determination has been made prior to the removal for more than 10 school days.  If the behavior is a manifestation of the disability, the penalty phase of a superintendent's hearing is dismissed. 8 80%
§201.7(d) Short-term suspensions are reviewed to determine if they constitute a pattern of removals. 5 50%
§201.7(f) School personnel consider unique circumstances on a case-by-case basis when determining whether to suspend a student with a disability. 10 100%
§201.10(b) Students with disabilities of compulsory school age are provided with alternative instruction for short-term suspensions (10 days or less in the school year). 6 60%
§201.10(c) and (d) During suspensions of more than 10 days in a school year, regardless of the manifestation determination, students with disabilities receive services to enable them to participate in the general curriculum and to continue to progress toward IEP goals. 5 50%
§201.10(e) Interim alternative educational settings (IAES) and the services to be provided to a student are determined by the CSE. 7 70%

Explanation of 2005-06 Baseline Data for Indicator 4B

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

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

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

  • §200.4(d)(3) - For students whose behaviors impede their learning or that of others, the IEPs include positive behavioral interventions and supports and other strategies to address the behaviors.
  • §200.3(d)(1) - The general education teacher participated in the CSE meeting to identify appropriate positive behavioral interventions and strategies for the student.
  • §201.4(e) - The IEP was revised as a result of any deficiencies noted during a manifestation determination review.
  • §200.4(e) - Behavioral intervention plans are implemented, monitored and progress documented.
  • §201.4(a) - The manifestation review is conducted immediately, but not later than 10 days after the decision to remove or suspend the student.
  • §201.4(b) - A team that includes the student’s parent, an individual knowledgeable about the student and the interpretation of behavior and other relevant members of the CSE as determined by the parent and the school district conducts the manifestation review.  Parents are notified in writing of the meeting.
  • §201.7(d) - Short-term suspensions are reviewed to determine if they constitute a pattern of removals.
  • §201.10(c) and (d) - During suspensions of more than 10 days in a school year, regardless of the manifestation determination, students with disabilities receive services to enable them to participate in the general curriculum and to continue to progress toward IEP goals. 

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

New Baseline Data for Indicator 4B Established for FFY 2009 (2009-10)

Federal changes in SPP reporting requirements for Indicator 4B resulted in suspending reporting for Indicator 4B from FFY 2006 through FFY 2008.  Reporting is being resumed as of FFY 2009, requiring setting a new baseline.  2009-10 school year data are the State’s new baseline data; they cannot be compared to prior year’s data.

2.2 percent (15 school districts) of all school districts in the State (682) were identified as having a significant discrepancy by race and ethnicity and policies, procedures and practices that contributed to the significant discrepancy and did not comply with requirements relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards. NYS evaluated suspension data from 574 school districts with a minimum enrollment of 75 students with disabilities (enrollment as of October 1, 2008) to determine if significant discrepancies were occurring in the rates of suspension by race/ethnicity.

School Year Number of School Districts Identified in the State as Having Significant Discrepancy by Race and Ethnicity Number of Identified Districts Reporting Some Inappropriate Policies, Practices or Procedures Percent of All Districts in the State (684) Identified as Having Significant Discrepancy by Race and Ethnicity That is Result of Inappropriate policies, practices or procedures
2008-09 17 15 2.2%

Discussion of Indicator 4B FFY 2009 Baseline Data

During the 2009-10 school year, 17 school districts were identified by the State as having significant discrepancy based on race/ethnicity in the percent of students with disabilities suspended out-of-school for more than 10 days based on their 2008-09 school year data. Seven (7) of these school districts were sent notifications with directions to use a State developed self-review monitoring protocol to review their policies, practices and procedures. Ten (10) school districts received focused or comprehensive reviews by the special education monitoring office to review their policies, procedures and practices because these school districts had two or more consecutive years of data with significant discrepancies.  All 17 school districts were also required to reserve 15 percent of their IDEA flow through allocation to provide Coordinated Comprehensive Early Intervening Services.

It was determined that 15 of the 17 school districts or 2.2 percent of all school districts in the State had one or more policies, procedures or practices that contributed to the significant discrepancy and did not comply with requirements relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards.   These school districts have been notified that they must correct their policies, practices and procedures within one year from being notified of noncompliance. They are also required to publicly report on the revision(s) to their policies, procedures and/or practices.  

The State will report on the correction of noncompliance on findings related to this indicator in a subsequent year’s APR.

Measurable and Rigorous Targets for Indicator 4B

FFY Measurable and Rigorous Targets for 4B
2005
(2005-06)
Baseline data were collected
2006
(2006-07)
0 percent of school districts will be identified by the State as having a significant discrepancy in the rates of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year of children with disabilities by race and ethnicity that is the result of inappropriate policies, procedures and/or practices.
Revision February 2008: Reporting on this indicator by race and ethnicity in the APR is not required beginning with FFY 2006.*   
2007
(2007-08)
0 percent of school districts will be identified by the State as having a significant discrepancy in the rates of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year of children with disabilities by race and ethnicity that is the result of inappropriate policies, procedures and/or practices.
Revision February 2008: Reporting on this indicator by race and ethnicity in the APR is not required beginning with FFY 2006.*
2008
(2008-09)
0 percent of school districts will be identified by the State as having a significant discrepancy in the rates of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year of children with disabilities by race and ethnicity that is the result of inappropriate policies, procedures and/or practices.
Revision February 2009: Reporting this indicator by race and ethnicity is not required for the FFY 2008 APR due February 1, 2010.  Baseline, targets and improvement activities will be provided in the FFY 2009 APR due February 1, 2011.
2009
(2009-10)
0 percent of school districts will be identified by the State as having a significant discrepancy in the rates of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year of children with disabilities by race and ethnicity that is the result of inappropriate policies, procedures and/or practices.
Revision February 2009: Baseline, targets and improvement activities will be provided in the FFY 2009 APR due February 1, 2011.
2010
(2010-11)
0 percent of school districts will be identified by the State as having a significant discrepancy in the rates of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year of children with disabilities by race and ethnicity that is the result of inappropriate policies, procedures and/or practices.
Revision February 2009: Reporting on attainment of targets will resume in the FFY 2010 APR due February 1, 2012.
2011
(2011-12)**
0 percent of school districts will be identified by the State as having a significant discrepancy in the rates of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year of children with disabilities by race and ethnicity that is the result of inappropriate policies, procedures and/or practices.
2012
(2012-13)**
0 percent of school districts will be identified by the State as having a significant discrepancy in the rates of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year of children with disabilities by race and ethnicity that is the result of inappropriate policies.
*NYS continued to monitor school districts' policies, procedures and practices when data has indicated a significant discrepancy in rates of suspension of students with disabilities by race/ethnicity pursuant to 34 CFR section 300.170.
**In FFY 2009, USED requested states to add two additional years to the SPP, including adding two additional years of  targets.

Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources

Activity Timelines Resources
Annually notify and provide a State developed self-review protocol to all school districts in the State whose data on long-term suspensions exceeds 2.7 percent with a recommendation that these districts conduct a self-review of policies, procedures and practices.  These districts will be targeted for review by SED in the school year in which SED redefines “significant discrepancy.”  February 2008
Annually
SED staff
“Suspension Review Monitoring Protocol”
Require each identified school district to either: 1) submit the results of the monitoring self review of policies, procedures and practices to SED or 2) if identified for consecutive years, participate in an on-site review of policies, procedures and practices conducted by SED special education monitoring staff.  If the self-review identifies inappropriate policies, procedures and/or practices, SED will direct the school district to revise its policies, procedures and/or practices as soon as possible, but not later than within one year. 2006 -12***
Annually
SED, Regional Special Education Technical Assistance Support Centers (RSE-TASC) (rev. 1/10)
Direct a school district to obtain technical assistance on its policies, procedures and practices relating to long-term suspensions if the data continues to indicate significant discrepancies after two years. Annually SED staff
Revise State regulations to establish standards on behavioral interventions, including standards for functional behavioral assessments, behavioral intervention plans, use of time out rooms and emergency interventions.  Issue a guidance document on positive behavioral supports and services.  2006-07
Completed
(See APR 2/08)
SED staff
Update technical assistance documents to schools and parents to assist in their understanding of the requirements relating to the suspension of students with disabilities. 2007-12*** Discipline of Students with Disabilities
Establish a Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS) Statewide Technical Assistance Center to coordinate activities of PBIS.  2007-10
Completed
PBIS
Increase school district access to community resources to assist with support for families and students.  Provide support to the Coordinated Children's Services Initiative (CCSI). 2006-10
Completed
CCSI
OSE central and regional staff
See improvement activities for Indicators 9 and 10. 2006-12***
Expand field-based PBIS technical assistance resources to work directly with schools identified by the State as having disproportionate rates of suspension of students with disabilities. (added APR 2/08) 2008-12***
Completed
RSE-TASC Behavioral Specialists technical assistance network (rev. 1/10)
Through regional planning process, direct RSE-TASC and TAC-D to work with schools identified with disproportionate rates of suspension. (added APR 2/08; rev. 1/10) 2008-12*** RSE-TASC professional development specialists  (rev. 1/10)
Provide regional training on functional behavioral assessments and behavioral intervention plans (added APR 2/08) 2008-12*** RSE-TASC regional trainers (rev. 1/10)
***Note: Extended the end dates to 2012 coinciding with extended dates of the SPP (rev. 2/11).
Last Updated: March 5, 2013ate -->