Overview of the Annual Performance Report Development:
See Overview of the Development of the Annual Performance Report on page 1.
Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE 
Indicator #3: Participation and performance of children with disabilities on statewide assessments:
A. Percent of districts that have a disability subgroup that meets the State’s minimum “n” size meeting the State’s AYP objectives for progress for the disability subgroup.
B. Participation rate for children with IEPs in a regular assessment with no accommodations; regular assessment with accommodations; alternate assessment against grade level standards; alternate assessment against alternate achievement standards.
C. Proficiency rate for children with IEPs against grade level standards and alternate achievement standards.
(20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A))
Measurement: A. Percent = [(# of districts meeting the State’s AYP objectives for progress for the disability subgroup (children with IEPs)) divided by the (total # of districts that have a disability subgroup that meets the State’s minimum “n” size in the State)] times 100. B. Participation rate = a. # of children with IEPs in assessed grades; b. # of children with IEPs in regular assessment with no accommodations (percent = [(b) divided by (a)] times 100); c. # of children with IEPs in regular assessment with accommodations (percent = [(c) divided by (a)] times 100); d. # of children with IEPs in alternate assessment against grade level achievement standards (percent = [(d) divided by (a)] times 100); and e. # of children with IEPs in alternate assessment against alternate achievement standards (percent = [(e) divided by (a)] times 100). Account for any children included in a but not included in b, c, d, or e above. Overall Percent = [(b + c + d + e) divided by (a)]. C. Proficiency rate = a. # of children with IEPs in assessed grades; b. # of children with IEPs in assessed grades who are proficient or above as measured by the regular assessment with no accommodations (percent = [(b) divided by (a)] times 100); c. # of children with IEPs in assessed grades who are proficient or above as measured by the regular assessment with accommodations (percent = [(c) divided by (a)] times 100); d. # of children with IEPs in assessed grades who are proficient or above as measured by the alternate assessment against grade level achievement standards (percent = [(d) divided by (a)] times 100); and e. # of children with IEPs in assessed grades who are proficient or above as measured against alternate achievement standards (percent = [(e) divided by (a)] times 100). Account for any children included in a but not included in b, c, d, or e above. Overall Percent = [(b + c + d + e) divided by (a)]. New York State Notes:

Target:
FFY 
Measurable and Rigorous Target 
2005 
AYP: There will be an increase annually in the number and percent of school districts that make AYP for the students with disabilities subgroup 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: 
Actual Target Data for FFY 2005:
The participation rate of students with disabilities in 200506
school year in Grades 38 ELA was 95 percent, in Grades 38 math, 96 percent,
in high school ELA, 90 percent and in high school math, 91 percent. The State
met its target of 95 percent participation rate for students with disabilities
in Grades 38 ELA and Grades 38 math, but not in high school ELA and math.
In 200506, the State developed four performance indices (PI). The performance
indices represent the percent of students scoring at Levels 34 plus the percent
of students scoring at Levels 24. These four indices replaced the six indices
that were used to measure performance on State assessments in Grades 4, 8 and
high school ELA and math. The State average performance for the students with
disabilities subgroup on these indices was as follows:
Grades 38 ELA: 91
Grades 38 Math: 100
High School ELA: 114
High School Math: 124
In the 200506 school year, 57.6 percent of school districts that were required
to make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) made AYP in every grade and subject
in which they had sufficient number of students with disabilities. The State
met its 200506 target of 55.9 percent of school districts making AYP.
AYP for Students with Disabilities Subgroup 

FFY 
Number of School Districts Required to Make AYP (had minimum of 40 students for participation and 30 students for performance 
Percent of School Districts that made AYP in all the Subjects they were Required to. 
2004 (200405) 
290 
48.3% 
2005 (200506) 
670 
57.6% 
AYP for Students with Disabilities Subgroup by Need/Resource Capacity Category of School Districts in 200506 

Need/Resource Capacity Category of School Districts 
Number of School Districts Required to Make AYP (had minimum of 40 students for participation and 30 students for performance 
Percent of School Districts that made AYP in all the Subjects they were Required to 
New York City 
33 
9.1% 
Large Four Cities 
4 
0.0% 
UrbanSuburban High Need Districts 
45 
11.1% 
Rural High Need Districts 
137 
66.4% 
Average Need Districts 
325 
60.0% 
Low Need Districts 
126 
73.0% 
Participation Rate for Students with Disabilities Subgroup 

Assessment 
Enrollment in 200405 (Seniors in High School) 
Participation Rate in 200405 School Year 
Enrollment in 200506 (Seniors in High School) 
Participation Rate in 200506 School Year 
Grade 4 ELA 
30,922 
96% 

Grade 4 Math 
30,567 
97% 

Grade 8 ELA 
35,651 
95% 

Grade 8 Math 
35,266 
95% 

Grade 38 ELA 
198,410 
95% 

Grade 38 Math 
198,074 
96% 

High School ELA 
16,686 
89.0% 
17,321 
90% 
High School Math 
16,686 
90% 
17,321 
91% 
Performance Index for the Students with Disabilities Subgroup 

Assessment 
200506 Performance 
200506 Standard 
Students with Disabilities Made AYP in 200506 
200607 Safe Harbor Target 

Continuously Enrolled Students with Disabilities in Grades 38 and in 2002 Accountability Cohort in High School (HS) 
NYS PI 
Effective AMO 
Safe Harbor Target 
Met Third Indicator for Safe Harbor 

Grades 38 ELA 
184,493 
91 
122 
104 
Yes 
No 
102 
Grades 38 Math 
183,411 
100 
86 
Not Applicable 
Not Applicable 
Yes 
110 
HS Eng. 2002 accountability cohort 
19,079 
114 
154 
114 
No 
No 
123 
HS Math 2002 accountability cohort 
19,079 
124 
146 
117 
No 
No 
132 
Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed FFY 2005
In order to focus the State’s technical assistance efforts and improve performance of students with disabilities in school districts that are the lowest performing school districts for students with disabilities, during the 200607 school year, the State notified 107 school districts (or 75 school districts if New York City is counted as a single district) based on their 200405 school year data that they were designated as in “need of assistance” or “in need of intervention”. The designations were based on graduation rates or dropout rates of students with disabilities. Six of the 107 school districts did not have sufficient numbers of students with disabilities in the 2001 total cohort to have a valid graduation or dropout rate, so they were identified based on the performance of students with disabilities on grades 4 and 8 ELA and math assessments.
On October 5, 2006, the Commissioner of Education held a press conference and issued a press release to publicly announce this list of school districts. See press release at http://www.oms.nysed.gov/press/specialed100506.htm and public posting of list of school districts at http://www.p12.nysed.gov/specialed/swd100506/swdlist.html.
See explanation under Indicator #1.
The criteria used for designations specifically related to this indicator were as follows:
2001 total cohort of at least 30 students with disabilities;
School districts with at least 30 continuously enrolled students with disabilities whose PI in 200405 on two State assessments for students with disabilities was below the State’s PI and who did not make adequate yearly progress under NCLB for the students with disabilities subgroup. (School districts with graduation rates above 52% for students with disabilities are not identified, regardless of their performance on State assessments.) The State’s PIs in 200405 were as follows:
 Grade 4 ELA: 102
 Grade 4 Math: 141
 Grade 8 ELA: 85
 Grade 8 Math: 82
School districts that did not have at least 30 students with disabilities in the 2001 total cohort or 30 continuously enrolled students with disabilities in the tested grades in 200405 school year but had at least 30 continuously enrolled students tested in grade 4 ELA and grade 8 ELA combined, and whose performance on at least two of the State assessments listed below (averaged over three years) was significantly below the State average in 200405 were identified “in need of assistance”. Significantly below the State average was defined as:
VESID plans to make the identification of lowest performing school districts for students with disabilities an annual process and will use the best criteria that are consistent with SPP goals and with the NCLB measures.
Explanation of Progress or Slippage that occurred for FFY 2005:
The State met its target of 95 percent participation rate
for students with disabilities in Grades 38 ELA and Grades 38 math, but not
in high school ELA and math. In high school ELA, the participation rate improved
from 89 percent in 200405 to 90 percent in 200506 and from 90 percent in
math to 91 percent. It is anticipated that the high school participation rate
will improve once the State develops appropriate alternative State assessments
for some students with disabilities who cannot participate in the regular assessments
and for whom the New York State Alternate Assessment is not appropriate.
In 200506, the State developed four performance indices (PI). The performance
indices represent the percent of students scoring at Levels 34 plus the percent
of students scoring at Levels 24. These four indices replaced the six indices
that were used to measure performance on State assessments in Grades 4, 8 and
high school ELA and math. The State average performance for the students with
disabilities subgroup on these indices was as follows:
Grades 38 ELA: 91
Grades 38 Math: 100
High School ELA: 114
High School Math: 124
Since the grades 38 PI scores were established for the first time in 200506
school year, it is not possible to evaluate the State’s progress compared
to the previous year. However, in high school ELA, the PI score improved from
104 to 114 and high school math PI improved from 108 to 124. The State met
its 200506 targets since the State’s targets were the State average
PIs.
In the 200506 school year, 57.6 percent of school districts that were required
to make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) made AYP in every grade and subject in
which they had sufficient number of students with disabilities. The State met
its 200506 target of 55.9 percent of school districts making AYP. There was
an increase from 290 school districts in 200405 to 670 school districts in 200506
in the number required to demonstrate AYP. This increase is due to many more
school districts having sufficient enrollment of students with disabilities in
Grades 38 combined, compared to enrollment in Grades 4 or 8 only.
Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets/ Improvement Activities/ Timelines/ Resources for FFY 2005
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.
FFY 
Measurable and Rigorous Target 
2005 
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: 
2006 
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: 
2007 
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: 
2008 
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: 
2009 
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 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: 
2010 
AYP: 65 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: 
Revisions to Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources for FFY 2005:
See Indicator #1.