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 #4:  Rates of suspension and expulsion:

A. Percent of districts identified by the State as having a significant discrepancy in the rates of suspensions and expulsions of children with disabilities for greater than 10 days in a school year; and

B. Percent of districts 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.

(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A); 1412(a)(22))
 

Measurement:

A.  Percent = [(# of districts identified by the State as having significant discrepancies in the rates of suspensions and expulsions of children with disabilities for greater than 10 days in a school year) divided by the (# of districts in the State)] times 100.

Include State’s definition of “significant discrepancy.”

New York State Notes:

NYS collects data on the number of students with disabilities suspended or removed for more than 10 days in a school year on the PD-8 form. 

Section 618 data was used to analyze the 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. The rates were computed by dividing the number of students with disabilities suspended out-of-school for more than 10 days during the school year by the December 1 count of school-age students with disabilities and the result expressed as a percent.  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.) 

New York State’s Definition of Significant Discrepancy in Suspension Rate:

  • For the baseline year and through 2007-08 school year, significant discrepancy is 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 2008-09 through 2010-11 school years, 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).

B. Percent = [(# of districts identified by the State as having significant discrepancies in the rates of suspensions and expulsions for greater than 10 days in a school year of children with disabilities by race ethnicity) divided by the (# of districts in the State)] times 100.

New York State’s Definition of Significant Discrepancy in Suspensions Based on Race/Ethnicity:

NYS will compare the number of students suspended of each race/ethnicity category with the number of students suspended of all other race/ethnicity categories combined and compute relative risk ratios and weighted relative risk ratios to determine if there is discrepancy in rates of suspension.  For notifications of school districts during the 2006-07 school years based on 2005-06 school year data, the State will use the following definition of “significant discrepancy” and in subsequent years 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 12/1/05;

  • 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.

Data from the 2005-06 school year will be used to identify those districts with discrepancy in their rates of suspension by race/ethnicity.  VESID will require a review of selected policies, procedures and practices of each of these identified school districts.

The school districts that were identified as having significant discrepancy in their rates of suspension of minority students with disabilities during the 2005-06 school year, based on 2004-05 school year data are required to correct any reported noncompliance with their policies, practices and procedures within one year from notification of noncompliance.

FFY

Measurable and Rigorous Target for Indicator 4A

FFY 2005

(2005-06)

4A. 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% or higher. (This rate is three times the baseline average Of 1.3%).

4B. This is a new indicator. Reporting is not due until February 2008.

Actual Target Data for FFY 2005 (Item 4A):

Percent = [(# of districts identified by the State as having significant discrepancies in the rates of suspensions and expulsions of children with disabilities for greater than 10 days in a school year) divided by the (# of districts in the State)] times 100.

State Average Suspension Rates of Students with Disabilities for Greater Than 10 Days in a School Year

School Year

Number of Students with Disabilities Suspended for More than 10 Days in the School Year

Number of School-Age Students with Disabilities Receiving Special Education Services on December 1

Suspension Rate

Significant Discrepancy in Suspension Rate.

Percent of School Districts with Significant Discrepancy in Suspension Rate.

2004-05 (baseline data)

5,502

409,791

1.34%

Three times the State baseline average

2.9%

2005-06

5,294

407,000

1.30%

Three times the State baseline average.

2.5%

Number of School Districts with their Suspension Rates and Percent of all Suspensions in the 2005-06 School Year

# of districts in 2005-06 School Year

% 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

95

13.9%

Not applicable

These districts each had less than 75 students with disabilities enrolled on December 1, 2005

0.7%

430

62.9%

0% to < 1.3%

Below the baseline Statewide average

36.0%

101

  14.8%

≥ 1.3%  < 2.7%

Between baseline and 2 times the baseline statewide average

11.4%

41

 6.0%

≥ 2.7%< 4.0%

Between 2 and 3 times the baseline statewide average

  16.9%

17

2.5%

≥ 4.0%

Three time or more than the baseline statewide average

35.0%

Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that Occurred for FFY 2005:

The average suspension rate of students with disabilities in the 2004-05 school year was 1.34 percent and in 2005-06 it was 1.30 percent.  Also, preliminary data analysis of 2005-06 suspension data indicates that the State will identify 17 school districts that had a suspension rate of 4.0 percent of higher compared to 20 school districts that were initially identified based on 2004-05 school year data (two were subsequently removed from identification). While the State did not meet its 2005-06 school year target of having no more than 2.0 percent of school districts identified with a suspension rate of 4.0 percent or higher, there was a decrease from 2.9 percent of school districts identified based on 2004-05 data to 2.5 percent of school districts that will be identified based on 2005-06 data.  

During the 2005-06 school year, based on 2004-05 school year data, 18 school districts were notified that they had a suspension rate that was significantly greater than the suspension rate in other school districts. These school districts completed a State-developed self-review monitoring protocol to evaluate their compliance with selected regulatory requirements, policies, practices and procedures related to discipline procedures for students with disabilities. The chart below provides the statewide results for the percent of identified school districts reporting compliance with each regulatory requirement. All 18 school districts reported some noncompliance and will need to revise their policies, practices and procedures and become compliant within one year from notification.

The Statewide results of compliance with regulatory citations provided below were disaggregated by the State’s quality assurance 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.

Regulatory Citation
8 NYCRR

Number out of  18 School Districts Reporting Compliance

Percent of 18 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.

7

38.9%

§200.4(b)(4)

The reevaluation is sufficient to determine the student's individual needs.

14

77.8%

§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.

13

72.2%

§201.7(f)

School personnel consider unique circumstances on a case-by-case basis when determining whether to suspend a student with a disability.

14

77.8%

§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).

11

61.1%

§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. 

10

55.6%

§201.10(e)

IAES and the services to be provided to a student are determined by the CSE.

12

66.7%

§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.

13

72.2%

§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.

16

88.9%

§201.7(c)

A manifestation determination has been made prior to the removal of a student with a disability 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.

10

55.6%

§201.7(d)

Short-term suspensions are reviewed to determine if they constitute a pattern of removals.

8

44.4%

§201.3(a)

FBAs are conducted when students are suspended for behaviors determined to be related to their disabilities.

7

38.9%

§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.

8

44.4%

§200.3(d)(1)

The general education teacher participated in the CSE meeting to identify appropriate positive behavioral interventions and strategies for the student.

10

55.6%

§201.4(e)

The IEP was revised as a result of any deficiencies noted during a manifestation determination review.

10

55.6%

§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.

11

61.1%

§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. 

8

44.4%

§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.

8

44.4%

§200.4(e)

Behavioral intervention plans are implemented, monitored and progress documented.

3

16.7%

§201.4(a)

The manifestation review is conducted immediately, but not later than 10 days after the decision to remove or suspend the student.

7

38.9%

§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.

13

72.2%

§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.

15

83.3%

§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.

14

77.8%

§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).

16

88.9%

As shown in the table above, at least one-half of the 18 identified school districts reported being out of compliance with the following eight citations:

Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets/ Improvement Activities/ Timelines/ Resources for 2006-07 and Subsequent Years:

1.     Revisions to State Policy

In 2006, NYS revised its State regulations to establish standards for the development of functional behavioral assessments (FBA) and behavioral interventions. 

As a result, improvement activities have been added to include developing field guidance on behavioral interventions, including standards for functional behavioral assessments, behavioral intervention plans and emergency interventions.

2.     Focusing technical assistance to improve school wide systems of behavioral support


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