Special Education

State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012- Revised February 2013 - Indicator 5

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 5*:  Percent of children with individualized education programs (IEPs) aged 6 through 21 served:

A.  Inside the regular class 80% or more of the day;
B.  Inside the regular class less than 40% of the day; and
C.  In separate schools, residential facilities, or homebound/hospital placements.
(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A))

*Note: As of 1/10, this indicator is reworded per federal guidance issued 3/09.  Categories have the same content, but are expressed more positively as “inside” instead of “removed from.”

Measurement:

  1. Percent = [(# of children with IEPs served inside the regular class 80% or more of the day) divided by the (total # of students aged 6 through 21 with IEPs)] times 100.
  2. Percent = [(# of children with IEPs served inside the regular class less than 40% of the day) divided by the (total # of students aged 6 through 21 with IEPs)] times 100.
  3. Percent = [(# of children with IEPs served in separate schools, residential facilities, or homebound/hospital placements) divided by the total (# of students aged 6 through 21 with IEPs)] times 100.

Data Source:

Student Information Repository System (SIRS), used to collect individual student data on all students.

NYS will use data collected for Table 3 of Information Collection 1820-0517 (Part B, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Implementation of FAPE Requirements) and reported annually in the 618 report to the United States Education Department (USED).  These data are also provided to USED in the corresponding EDFacts files.

Overview of Issue/Description of System or Process

Section 200.4 of the Commissioner’s Regulations sets forth the requirements for placement of students with disabilities in the least restrictive environment.

NYS Education law and regulations also establish procedures for students with disabilities determined to be at future risk for residential placement:  These procedures require, where a student is determined to be at risk of a future placement in a residential school, that the committee on special education (CSE) request in writing that a designee of the appropriate county or State agency participate in any proceeding of the CSE to make recommendations concerning the appropriateness of residential placement and other programs and placement alternatives, including but not limited to, community support services that may be available to the family. The CSE must notify the local social services district when a student who is in a foster care placement is at risk of a future placement in a residential school.

Section 200.2(g) of the Commissioner’s Regulations establishes the procedures for development and submission of “Special Education Space Requirements Plans.”  The purpose of the plan is to determine the need for additional facilities space for all special education programs in the geographic area served by the BOCES, including programs provided by the public school districts, approved private schools for students with disabilities and State-supported schools which are located within the geographic boundaries of the BOCES supervisory district.  The plan must ensure that students with disabilities are educated in age appropriate settings and to the maximum extent appropriate with students who are not disabled.  The annual progress report must provide the actual and projected numbers and projected percentages of students with disabilities in settings with nondisabled peers in the region.  The Department publishes annual data on the progress regions are making to improve their rates of placements of students with disabilities in integrated settings.

Section 200.7 of the Commissioner’s Regulations relating to the approval of new or expanded private schools to serve students with disabilities requires documentation of regional need and sufficient evidence to establish that the proposed program will serve only those students who, because of the nature or severity of their disability, would require a separate facility.

Baseline Data for FFY 2004 (2004-05)

  1. 53.6 percent of students with disabilities, ages 6-21, removed from regular class less than 21 percent of the day (i.e., in general education programs for 80 percent or more of the school day).
  2. 27.3 percent of students with disabilities, ages 6-21, were removed from regular class greater than 60 percent of the day (i.e., in general education programs for less than 40 percent of the school day).
  3. Seven (7.0) percent of students with disabilities, ages 6-21, were served in public or private separate schools, residential placements, or homebound or hospital placements.

Discussion of Baseline Data

  • Disaggregation of the data indicates that, compared with the rest of the State, the Big Five Cities where the special education population is the highest and resources are the lowest, place almost twice as many of their students with disabilities in programs in which they are removed from general education classes for more than 60 percent of the day or are in separate educational settings. 
  • Trend data shows that the rate of students with IEPs who participate daily in general education programs for 40 percent or more of the day has increased steadily from 1997-98 to 2003-04 (56.1 percent to 65.7 percent). 
  • 71 school districts are below the current 65.7 percent statewide average for students participating in general education programs 40 percent or more of the day.

Measurable and rigorous targets

FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target
2005
(2005-06)
The statewide percent of students with disabilities, ages 6-21, removed from regular class less than 21 percent of the day will be greater than 54 percent.
The statewide percent of students with disabilities, ages 6-21, removed from regular class greater than 60 percent of the day will be less than 27.3 percent. 
The statewide percent of students with disabilities, ages 6-21, served in public or private separate schools, residential placements, or homebound or hospital placements will be less than 7.0 percent.
2006
(2006-07)
The statewide percent of students with disabilities, ages 6-21, removed from regular class less than 21 percent of the day will be greater than 55 percent.
The statewide percent of students with disabilities, ages 6-21, removed from regular class greater than 60 percent of the day will be less than 26 percent. 
The statewide percent of students with disabilities, ages 6-21, served in public or private separate schools, residential placements, or homebound or hospital placements will be less than 6.5 percent.
2007*
(2007-08)
The statewide percent of students with disabilities, ages 6-21, removed from regular class less than 21 percent of the day will be greater than 53.1 percent.
The statewide percent of students with disabilities, ages 6-21, removed from regular class greater than 60 percent of the day will be less than 24.6 percent. 
The statewide percent of students with disabilities, ages 6-21, served in public or private separate schools, residential placements, or homebound or hospital placements will be less than 6.8 percent.
2008**
(2008-09)
The statewide percent of students with disabilities, ages 6-21, served inside the regular class 80 percent or more of the day will be greater than 53.2 percent.
The statewide percent of students with disabilities, ages 6-21, served inside the regular class less than 40 percent of the day will be less than 24.5 percent. 
The statewide percent of students with disabilities, ages 6-21, served in separate schools, residential placements, or homebound/hospital placements will be less than 6.7 percent.
2009**
(2009-10)
The statewide percent of students with disabilities, ages 6-21, served inside the regular class 80 percent or more of the day will be greater than 53.3 percent.
The statewide percent of students with disabilities, ages 6-21, served inside the regular class less than 40 percent of the day will be less than 24.4 percent.
The statewide percent of students with disabilities, ages 6-21, served in separate schools, residential placements, or homebound/hospital placements will be less than 6.6 percent.
2010**
(2010-11)
The statewide percent of students with disabilities, ages 6-21, served inside the regular class 80 percent or more of the day will be greater than 53.4 percent.
The statewide percent of students with disabilities, ages 6-21, served inside the regular class less than 40 percent of the day will be less than 24.3 percent.
The statewide percent of students with disabilities, ages 6-21, served in separate schools, residential placements, or homebound/hospital placements will be less than 6.5 percent.
2011***
(2011-12)
The statewide percent of students with disabilities, ages 6-21, served inside the regular class 80 percent or more of the day will be greater than 57 percent.
The statewide percent of students with disabilities, ages 6-21, served inside the regular class less than 40 percent of the day will be less than 22 percent.
The statewide percent of students with disabilities, ages 6-21, served in separate schools, residential placements, or homebound/hospital placements will be less than 6 percent.
2012***
(2012-13)
The statewide percent of students with disabilities, ages 6-21, served inside the regular class 80 percent or more of the day will be greater than 60 percent.
The statewide percent of students with disabilities, ages 6-21, served inside the regular class less than 40 percent of the day will be less than 20 percent.
The statewide percent of students with disabilities, ages 6-21, served in separate schools, residential placements, or homebound/hospital placements will be less than 5.8 percent.
*Targets revised 2007.                            
**Language revised beginning school year 2008-09.
***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 Timeline Resources
Conduct focused monitoring reviews using a “Least Restrictive Environment” (LRE) protocol, designed to evaluate a school district’s performance regarding placement of students with disabilities in the LRE, including a review of the districts’ LRE data and policies and practices and determination of root causes for high rates of placements in the most restrictive settings.  2005-12* Special Education Quality Assurance (SEQA),
Regional Special Education Technical Assistance Support Centers (RSE-TASC) (rev. 1/10)
Target technical assistance and professional development network activities to focus on districts identified with high rates of placement of students with disabilities in separate sites.  2005-12*
Completed 2010
State Personnel Development Grant, NYS Metro Center,
RSE-TASC, Parent Centers (rev. 1/10)
Provide Quality Assurance Review grants to large city school districts to offset the costs that these school districts may incur to participate in the focused monitoring reviews.  2005-09
Completed
(See APR 2/10)
IDEA Part B Discretionary funds (see indicator 1)
Provide Quality Assurance Improvement grants to school districts to implement improvement activities identified through the focused review monitoring process. 2005-09
Completed
(See APR 2/10)
IDEA Part B Discretionary funds (see indicator 1)
Use a data-driven strategic planning model to develop annual improvement plans and professional development programs for the Big Four Cities (Buffalo, Syracuse, Rochester and Yonkers). 2005-12* Urban Initiative (see indicator 1)
Implement regional space planning requirements to ensure regional planning that result in students with disabilities educated in age appropriate settings and to the maximum extent appropriate with students who are not disabled.  2005-12* District superintendents, Office of Special Education(OSE) staff, Office of Management Services
Revise State policy relating to the continuum of special education programs and services to provide more instructional delivery designs in general education classes.  See 8 NYCRR 200.6. 2007
Completed
(See APR 2/08)
State regulations
Regents State Aid Proposal
Share information with school districts/agencies about innovative instructional delivery designs in general education settings; early intervening services and strategies to ensure student access to the general curriculum. 2006-12* National technical assistance centers:
  • National Institute for Urban School Improvement
  • LRE Part B Community of Practice
  • The Access Center
  • National Center for Special Education Accountability Monitoring
Require school districts identified with significant disproportionality to reserve 15 percent of its IDEA funds to provide coordinated early intervening services to address the disproportionality issue.  2006-12 LEA Application
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 2/07)
State Education Department (SED) Policy Staff
Develop regional short-term intensive behavioral assessment and intervention residential and day units to assist school districts to assess and address the needs of students with severe self-injurious and/or aggressive behaviors to prevent more restrictive placements. 2007-09 Consultants
SED staff
IDEA Part B funds for start up costs
NYS requires documentation of regional need prior to any expansion and/or approval of new private school programs to serve students with disabilities in separate settings. 2005-12* SEQA staff
Develop quality indicators and a tool kit of resources to provide technical assistance to school districts to support the delivery of specially designed instruction in general education environments.
http://www.p12.nysed.gov/specialed/techassist/QIcover.htm
2006-08
Completed
(See APR 2/09)
RSE-TASC Workgroup with collaboration from SED staff, and other technical assistance networks, including the Higher Education Support Center (HESC) (rev. 1/10)
Provide technical assistance and monitoring to school districts placing students in approved private schools, in-State and out-of-State 2007-12* Nondistrict Unit
RSE-TASC Nondistrict Technical Assistance Providers (added 1/10)
Reduce the number of NYS students with disabilities placed in out-of-State programs through interagency collaboration and program development 2007-12* Nondistrict Unit, Interagency Out-of-State Placement Committee
School Support Projects
The Department has funded, in collaboration with OMH, DOH and FTNYS, Inc., the Mental Health School Support Projects to provide services in approximately 40 targeted schools to address the needs of children with significant behavioral issues who are at risk of suspension, expulsion or placement in special education programs out of the district. The three components of the project are: integration of mental health services, development or enhancement of family support and training for families and education personnel.
2005-09
Completed
(See APR 2/10)
IDEA Part B Discretionary Funds
Coordinated Children’s Service Initiative (CCSI)
NYS law established CCSI to maintain children who have complex emotional and behavioral disorders in their homes, schools and communities.  A three tier interagency structure assures that services are comprehensive and coordinated; requires parent participation at all levels of the system and provides for the blending of funds across systems and the flexible use of funds to meet the unique needs of each family.
2005-12* IDEA Part B Funds support, in part, the CCSI. – ended fiscal support 2010
*Note: Extended the end dates 2012 coinciding with extended dates of the SPP (rev. 2/11).
Last Updated: March 5, 2013ate -->