Overview of the Annual Performance Report Development:

See Overview of the Development of the Annual Performance Report on page 1.

Percent of youth with IEPs graduating from high school with a regular diploma compared to percent of all youth in the State graduating with a regular diploma.

(20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A))

Actual Target Data for FFY 2005:

In 2005-06, the graduation after four years for the cohort of students with disabilities who first entered 9th grade in 2002 or if ungraded became 17 years of age during the 2002-03 school year was 37.5 percent. The State met its 2005-06 school year target of 37 percent. The charts on the next page display the graduation rate of the “Graduation- Rate Cohort” for the same year of 49 percent. While this is the State’s accountability statistic under the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, the State established its targets based on the “total cohort”, which includes more students with disabilities (27,453 in the total cohort and 19,504 in the graduation rate cohort).

As displayed in the tables that follow, there was a wide variation in the 2005-06 graduation rate among school districts of different Need Resource Capacity categories. For example, the graduation rate in NYC was 18.6 percent, in the large four cities (Buffalo, Syracuse, Rochester, and Yonkers) 20.5 percent, in average need districts 45.6 percent and in the low need districts 74.1 percent.

Also as displayed in the tables that follow, students with disabilities are more than twice as likely to graduate with a high school diploma from school districts outside the large five cities. The graduation rate of the 2002 cohort of students with disabilities in the large five cities combined was 19 percent compared to 44.7 percent in rest of the State.

Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed
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 2006-07 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 2004-05 school year data that they were designated under IDEA as “in need of assistance” or “in need of intervention.”  The designations were based on graduation rates or drop-out 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 drop-out 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/swd-100506/swd-list.html .

The criteria used for designations were as follows:

• 2001 total cohort of at least 30 students with disabilities;
• School districts “in need of assistance” had a graduation rate of students with disabilities after four years (as of June) below 35% and/or drop-out rate of 20% or higher.
• School districts “in need of intervention” had a graduation rate of students with disabilities after four years (as of June) of 18.5% or lower and drop-out rate of 33% or higher.

• School districts with at least 30 continuously enrolled students with disabilities whose Performance Index (PI) in 2004-05 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 2004-05 were as follows:
  • Grade 4 ELA: 102
  • Grade 4 Math: 141
  • Grade 8 ELA: 85
  • Grade 8 Math: 82

Small District Criteria:

• 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 2004-05 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 2004-05 were identified “in need of assistance”. Significantly below the State average was defined as:

• Grade 4 ELA: 53.7% or lower at level 2 or above
• Grade 4 math: 63.3% or lower at level 2 or above
• Grade 8 ELA: 53.1% or lower at level 2 or above
• Grade 8 math: 43.3% or lower at level 2 or above

VESID plans to make the identification of lowest performing school districts for students with disabilities an annual process and will use criteria that are consistent with SPP goals and with the NCLB measures.

Explanation of Progress or Slippage that occurred for FFY 2005:

The graduation rate decreased from 37.9 percent for 2001 total cohort of students with disabilities to 37.5 percent for 2002 total cohort.  The State met its 2005-06 target of 37 percent. The State revised its 2004-05 baseline data from 37.0 percent to 37.9 percent. This revision was necessary due to more accurate data reported by school districts.

As displayed in the previous tables, some categories of school districts showed a slight improvement in their total cohort graduation rates, while other categories showed some declines, however, there is a wide variation in the graduation rates among school districts of different need/resource capacity categories. School district with high needs relative to their resource capacity to meet student needs have the lowest graduation rates. For example, in New York City, the graduation rate for the 2002 cohort of students with disabilities was 18.6 percent, in the large four cities combined (Buffalo, Syracuse, Rochester and Yonkers) it was 20.5 percent and in the low need school districts the rate was 74.1 percent.

Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets/ Improvement Activities/ Timelines/ Resources for 2006-07 School Year:

Revision to Proposed Targets for FFY 2005:

NYS has revised its baseline data and targets for this indicator for the following reasons:

• We initially proposed targets for graduation rate based on data on the performance of the 2000 “graduation rate cohort.”  The definition of the graduation rate cohort will be revised beginning with the 2003 graduation rate cohort as explained in the measurement section of this indicator. The definition of the 2003 graduation rate cohort is similar to the current definition of the “total cohort”. The total cohort includes more students and provides a better basis for measuring the graduation rate. NYS has revised its baseline and targets so they are based on data for the “total cohort”.

• NYS will continue to report data on both the “graduation rate cohort” and the “total cohort” until both of these cohorts have the same number of students, at which time we will drop reporting on the “total cohort”. The graduation rate cohort is NYS’ official cohort for school accountability under NCLB.

The revised targets for this indicator, based on the adjusted baseline data, are as follows:

Targeted improvement activities were added to directly impact on the graduation rate for students with disabilities:

1.     Identification of school districts with graduation rates below the State's target

Beginning in 2006-07, school districts with graduation rates of higher than 18.5 percent, but less than or equal to 35 percent were identified as districts “in need of assistance" and school districts with graduation rates of 18.5 percent or less were identified as “districts in need of intervention.”

Each school district, as a result of this designation, are 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

• Development improvement plans

In addition to the above designations, the accountability requirements under NCLB for the students with disabilities subgroup are for every school district to achieve a graduation rate set by the Commissioner of Education or make a 1 percentage point improvement over the previous year’s rate in order to be able to use the safe-harbor criteria to demonstrate improvement in English and math. Currently the graduation rate criterion is set at a minimum of 55 percent of the graduation-rate cohort. These requirements will continue and all the required consequences for schools and school districts that do not meet these requirements will be applied.

2.     Development and implementation of a revised focused monitoring protocol

Beginning in 2006-07, conduct “IDEA Effective Instructional Practices” focused reviews of school districts identified as in need of intervention (see above).  The review protocol targets requirements most directly related to improved instructional practices, with emphasis on:

• Individual evaluations and eligibility determinations

• IEP development and implementation

• Appropriate instruction from qualified staff

• Access to, participation and progress in the general education curriculum

• Specially designed instruction

• Instruction in literacy

• Behavioral supports

• Parental involvement

3.     Directed technical assistance to improve instructional practices

Beginning in 2006-07, VESID redirected its funded networks to provide focused technical assistance to school districts to improve instruction in the areas of literacy, behavior and quality special education services.  VESID Special Education Quality Assurance (SEQA) Regional Offices developed regional work plans to direct and deploy regional office and Special Education Training and Resource Center (SETRC) professional development staff to support school improvement activities in the designated low performing districts.

VESID identified the immediate assistance and interventions that would be provided to these school districts, including:

• On-site review of the districts’ special education instructional programs to ensure compliance and improve program quality; and

• Directed technical assistance, through SETRC, to assess and improve districts’ literacy instruction, behavioral supports and special education supports and services for students with disabilities in the district.

To ensure that interventions with districts are research-based, consistent and effective, VESID is:

• Developing tools and reviewing protocols to evaluate the districts’ programs in the core special education instructional areas through work groups representing SETRC, VESID policy and regional staff, institutions of higher education, staff experts from EMSC and other consultants.

• Providing ongoing comprehensive professional development to all SETRC staff in the areas of literacy, behavioral supports and effective special education supports and services.
  
• Evaluating the progress and results of VESID’s technical assistance work with districts to ensure that the strategies are effective.

To ensure that technical assistance resources are available to identified school districts, VESID is adding SETRC personnel in New York City and in 15 regions of the State beginning with the 2007-08 school year.