Appendix A:

SPP Indicators and Required Attachments
For Part B Annual Performance Report for 2006-07:



State Performance Plan Indicator 7, Revised February 200
8

State Performance Plan Indicator 14, Revised February 2008

Attachment 1: Report on Dispute Resolution for 2006-07 (OSEP Table 7)

Attachment 2: State Assessment Data for 2006-07 (OSEP Table 6)


Overview of the State Performance Plan Development:

See Overview of the State Performance Plan Development in the Introduction to the State Performance Plan and in the Introduction to the Annual Performance Report for 2006-07, both originally submitted February 1, 2006 and revised June 2007.

 

Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE

Indicator 7Percent of preschool children with IEPs who demonstrate improved:

A.     Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships);

B.     Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/ communication and early literacy); and

C.    Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs. (20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A))

Measurement:

A.  Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships):

a.    Percent of preschool children who did not improve functioning = [(# of preschool children who did not improve functioning) divided by the (# of preschool children with IEPs assessed)] times 100.

b.    Percent of preschool children who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-aged peers = [(# of preschool children who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-aged peers) divided by the (# of preschool children with IEPs assessed)] times 100.

c.     Percent of preschool children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it = [(# of preschool children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it) divided by the (# of preschool children with IEPs assessed)] times 100.

d.    Percent of preschool children who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers = [(# of preschool children who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers) divided by the (# of preschool children with IEPs assessed)] times 100.

e.    Percent of preschool children who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers = [(# of preschool children who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers) divided by the (# of preschool children with IEPs assessed)] times 100.

If a + b + c + d + e does not sum to 100%, explain the difference.

B. Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/communication and early literacy):

a.     Percent of preschool children who did not improve functioning = [(# of preschool children who did not improve functioning) divided by the (# of preschool children with IEPs assessed)] times 100.

b.     Percent of preschool children who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-aged peers = [(# of preschool children who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-aged peers) divided by the (# of preschool children with IEPs assessed)] times 100.

c.      Percent of preschool children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it = [(# of preschool children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it) divided by the (# of preschool children with IEPs assessed)] times 100.

d.     Percent of preschool children who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers = [(# of preschool children who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers) divided by the (# of preschool children with IEPs assessed)] times 100.

e.     Percent of preschool children who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers = [(# of preschool children who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers) divided by the (# of preschool children with IEPs assessed)] times 100.

If a + b + c + d + e does not sum to 100%, explain the difference.

C.  Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs:

a.   Percent of preschool children who did not improve functioning = [(# of preschool children who did not improve functioning) divided by the (# of preschool children with IEPs assessed)] times 100.

b.    Percent of preschool children who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-aged peers = [(# of preschool children who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-aged peers) divided by the (# of preschool children with IEPs assessed)] times 100.

c.      Percent of preschool children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it = [(# of preschool children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it) divided by the (# of preschool children with IEPs assessed)] times 100.

d.     Percent of preschool children who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers = [(# of preschool children who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers) divided by the (# of preschool children with IEPs assessed)] times 100.

e.   Percent of preschool children who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers = [(# of preschool children who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers) divided by the (# of preschool children with IEPs assessed)] times 100.

If a + b + c + d + e does not sum to 100%, explain the difference.

New York State’s (NYS) measurement is the same as explained above.

The PD-10 report was used to collect progress data on preschool outcomes during the 2006-07 school year via a web-based data reporting system. The PD-10 report is posted at http://www.p12.nysed.gov/sedcar/0607pdrpts.htm.  Beginning in the 2007-08 school year, these data will be collected at the individual student level through the State’s Student Information Repository System (SIRS). See the 2007-08 SIRS Policy Manual and 2007-08 SIRS Dictionary of Reporting Data Elements posted at http://www.p12.nysed.gov/irs/SIRS/home.shtml.

Overview of Issue/Description of System or Process:

In NYS, preschool children suspected of having a disability are referred to their local school districts through their district's Committee on Preschool Special Education (CPSE). In accordance with State statute, parents maintain the right to select an evaluator from a list of state-approved evaluators.  If, based on the evaluation, the CPSE determines that a child is eligible for special education services, an individualized education program (IEP) is developed that identifies the recommended special education services for the child. Preschool students with disabilities may receive related services only (RSO), services of a Special Education Itinerant Teacher (SEIT), or be placed in a special class program for either half or full day, including integrated programs with students without disabilities when appropriate. NYS’ system allows for the provision of related services and SEIT within general education preschool and/or day-care environments as well as in the child’s home.  In NYS, most preschool children with disabilities receive their special education services from approved private preschool providers.

Identification of assessment measures in preschool outcome areas

At the request of VESID, a survey was conducted by the Early Childhood Direction Centers (ECDCs) of the assessment tools currently being used by special education preschool programs in NYS that measure the required indicator areas.  The most frequently administered assessments used in the State for 3- and 4-year old preschool children to assess preschool children with disabilities in the three outcome areas are provided below.

Assessment Measure

Name, Edition and
Publication Date of
Assessment Measure

Outcome 1

Positive
Social Relationships

Outcome 2

Acquire and Use Skills and Knowledge

Outcome 3

Takes Actions
to
Meet Needs

Adaptive Behavior Assessment System (Ages 0-5)

 .

 .

X

Arizona Articulation Proficiency Scale – 3rd Revision, Western Psychological Service, 2000

 .

X

.

Battelle Developmental Inventory (BDI 2) – 2nd Edition, 2005

X

X

X

Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID 2), 1993

 .

X

.

Behavior Assessment System for Children (BASC) - 2nd Edition, 2004

X

.

X

Brigance Diagnostic Inventory of Development, 1st Edition, Copyright (1978, revised 1991)

X

.

X

Carolina Curriculum for Preschoolers with Special Needs, 2nd Edition, Copyright 2004

X

X

X

Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) – 2nd Edition, 2000

X

.

.

Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals-Preschool II (CELF), 1992 & 2004

.

X

.

Connors’ Parent & Teacher Rating Scale (CRS-R), 1997

X

.

.

Developmental Assessment of Young Children (DAYC), 1998

X

X

X

Differential Ability Scales – Psychological Corporation, 1990

.

X

.

Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation 2, American Guidance Service, Inc., 2000 Edition

.

X

.

Hawaii Early Learning Profile (HELP), 2004

 

X

X

Learning Accomplishment Profile–D (LAP-D)

X

X

.

Mullen Scales of Early Learning, 1995

.

X

 

Peabody Developmental Motor Scales-2, 2002 (1983)

.

 

X

Peabody Picture Vocab. Test (PPVT) – IIIA

.

X

.

Preschool – Kindergarten Behavior Scales – 2nd Edition, 2002

X

.

.

Preschool Evaluation Scale

X

X

X

Preschool Language Scale – (PLS-4), 2002

 

X

.

Rossetti Infant-Toddler Language Scales, 1990

X

X

.

Sensory Profile Checklist (Dunn) Psychological Corporation, 1999

.

.

X

Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale, 2003

.

X

.

Stuttering Severity Instrument for Children & Adults, Third Edition, 1994

.

X

.

Vineland Social Emotional Early Childhood Scales (SEEC)

X

X

X

Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence-III (WPPSI), 2002

.

X

.

Westby Play Scale, 2000

.

X

.

Process to collect entry and exit information

Entry assessments:

All preschool children who were initially evaluated on or after March 1, 2006 and found eligible for preschool special education programs and/or services are required to have entry assessment results. All preschool children suspected of having a disability must have entry assessments. These assessments are conducted by approved preschool evaluators. Results are reported to the CPSE, which determines if the child is eligible for preschool special education programs and services and the entry levels of functioning in three early childhood outcome areas. Approved preschool evaluators are required to include specific assessment information on the Preschool Student Evaluation Summary Report and fill out the supporting evidence for questions 1a, 2a and 3a of the Child Outcomes Summary Form. CPSEs are required to meet to determine a preschool child’s eligibility for preschool special education programs and/or services and review the summary evaluation results and reports from the approved evaluator.  For preschool children found to be eligible, the CPSEs rate the child’s functioning across settings in each of the three outcome areas identified in questions 1a, 2a, and 3a of the Child Outcomes Summary Form.  A representative sample of school districts was required to collect and submit entry data to NYSED using the PD-10 form. All school districts are required to maintain entry level assessment data on all preschool children who are determined to be eligible for preschool special education programs or services.

Exit assessments: 

While all preschool children who were initially evaluated on or after March 1, 2006 and found eligible for preschool special education programs and/or services are required to have entry assessment results, exit assessments only need to be conducted for preschool children with disabilities who stop receiving preschool special education services due to program completion or declassification during the school year in which the school district is required to report exit data on this indicator.  The only children in sample school districts who require exit assessments are those who received an entry assessment and participated in preschool special education for at least six months prior to exiting.

In order to collect exit assessment data on the progress preschool children with disabilities have made as a result of receiving preschool special education programs and/or services, the Committee on Special Education (CSE) must arrange for exit assessment(s) in the three early childhood outcome areas to be conducted as part of the reevaluation process to determine the child’s eligibility for school age special education.  Whenever possible and appropriate, the exit assessment instruments should be the same assessment instruments used by the preschool evaluator for the entry assessment process. The results of these assessments must be provided to the CSE.  The CSE will review the exit assessment results and determine the child’s progress rating in the three identified areas. Some preschool children with disabilities may be referred to the CPSE for possible declassification prior to aging out of preschool special education programs and/or services.  When considering declassification of a preschool child with a disability, the CPSE must arrange for a reevaluation by an approved evaluator selected by the parent.  The reevaluation process must include conducting exit assessments that measure the child’s progress in the three early childhood outcome areas.  Whenever possible, the exit assessment instruments should be the same assessment instruments used by the initial approved preschool evaluator for the entry assessment process.  The results of the reevaluation and exit assessments must be provided to the CPSE, including the child’s parents and the person designated by the municipality in which the child resides.  The CPSE must review the reevaluation and assessment results and determine the child’s progress rating in each of the three identified areas.

Sampling Methodology

During the 2006-07 school year, NYS required a representative sample of one/sixth of the school districts in the State to report progress data on this indicator via a web-based data reporting system. The process for selecting a representative sample of school districts each year to report data on this indicator through the 2010-11 school year is described in NYS’ SPP, as revised in June 2007. NYS’ sampling plan is such that over the six year SPP cycle, every school district will have submitted progress data on preschool outcomes at least once. New York City (NYC) is the only district with a total enrollment of over 50,000 students and submits data for every special education indicator every year. Every school district except NYC reported progress data on all eligible preschool children. NYC reported progress data on a representative sample of students.

Beginning in the 2007-08 school year, NYS will collect entry and exit scores on the Child Outcomes Summary Form on an individual student basis through the Student Information Repository System (SIRS) and categorize children in the progress categories as described in the measure. Except for NYC, all school districts assigned to report data on this indicator will be required to provide data on all exiting preschool children that meet the criteria (no sampling will be permitted). See the 2007-08 SIRS policy manual and 2007-08 SIRS Dictionary of Reporting Data Elements posted at http://www.p12.nysed.gov/irs/SIRS/home.shtml. Reporting data through this new system is expected to improve the accuracy of these data. NYS will collect raw data on the score each child receives on the Child Outcomes Summary Form at entry and again at exit from preschool special education programs or services. Based on the raw data, the State will be able to report children in the correct progress category. Having data at the individual student level and the ability to track children longitudinally until they no longer attend school in NYS will provide the State greater capacity for data analysis.

NYC will be required to maintain documentation regarding selecting students for sampling, since they are the only school district that will be allowed to report these data for a sample of eligible students. The totally random sampling methodology and required documentation should eliminate selection bias.  NYSED will attempt to prevent missing data by first describing precisely what the State needs to collect, providing technical assistance and then following up with school districts to request missing data.  The completeness of data collection will improve after the first year and will continue to improve as long as requirements remain unchanged.  All issues of confidentiality will be handled in accordance with the rules and procedures in the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA).  NYSED will also guard against divulging personally identifiable information by not reporting results when there are less than five students for whom data are available or when those results can be easily calculated based on other data provided. 

Progress Data

At the end of the 2006-07 school year, 87 school districts reported progress data on 894 preschool students with disabilities in each early childhood outcome area. The other school districts assigned to report data on this indicator did not have preschool children that met the criteria for reporting. The 894 students left preschool special education programs and/or services during the 2006-07 school year after receiving special education for at least six months. The results for these students in the three early childhood outcome areas are reported below.

Early Childhood Outcome Area

Progress Category (Refer to Measurement Section for full Description of Progress Categories)

Number of Preschool Students

Percent of 894 students

Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships)

a. Did not improve functioning

29

3.2%

b. Improved-not sufficient to move nearer to same-aged peers

130

14.5%

c. Improved- nearer to same aged peers

220

24.6%

d. Improved-reached functioning to same-aged peers

250

28.0%

e. Maintained functioning as same-aged  peers

265

29.6%

Total

894

100%

Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/communication and early literacy)

a. Did not improve functioning

21

2.3%

b. Improved-not sufficient to move nearer to same-aged peers

140

15.7%

c. Improved- nearer to same aged peers

234

26.2%

d. Improved-reached functioning to same-aged peers

279

31.2%

e. Maintained functioning as same-aged  peers

220

24.6%

Total

894

100%

Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs

a. Did not improve functioning

28

3.1%

b. Improved-not sufficient to move nearer to same-aged peers

121

13.5%

c. Improved- nearer to same aged peers

177

19.8%

d. Improved-reached functioning to same-aged peers

246

27.5%

e. Maintained functioning as same-aged  peers

322

36.0%

Total

894

100%

Discussion of Baseline Data:

Baseline data will be identified in 2009.

Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources:

Activity

Timeline

Resources

Disseminate regional preschool outcome data progress results to approved preschool providers. 

2008-11

Early Childhood Direction Centers (ECDCs)

Provide technical assistance to preschool providers on instructional programs to improve results in positive social-emotional skills; early language/communication and literacy; and use of appropriate behaviors.

2007-11

15 ECDCs covering every county and borough in NYS

Guide for Determining Eligibility and Special Education Programs and/or Services for Preschool Students with Disabilities

Preschool Special Education Learning Outcomes and Indicators for Kindergarten Participation

Preschool Special Education Program Self-Assessment and Quality Improvement Guide

Disseminate the results of the preschool longitudinal study, including the positive effects on social-emotional skills, early language/communication and use of appropriate behaviors of placements of preschool students in integrated versus nonintegrated settings.

2007-08

IDEA Discretionary Funds

Longitudinal Study of Preschool Students

Implement Regents Policy on Early Education to increase the capacity of NYS’ many child care and education services to support families and address social emotional needs of preschool children.

2007-11

University of the State of New York (USNY) Cabinet on Early Childhood Education

Improve knowledge and skills of CPSE and providers:

•        develop training curricula for CPSE chairpersons on eligibility determinations, State and federal requirements and decision making.

•        offer initial training for newly appointed CPSE chairpersons beginning in the summer or fall of 2008 and annually thereafter.

•        update and disseminate the Parent Handbook.

•        update the VESID publication, Guide for Determining Eligibility and Special Education Programs and/or Services for Preschool Students with Disabilities

•        review the continuum of services options for preschool students, seek public comment, and propose a recommendation for discussion with the Board of Regents.

2008-09

2008-09

2008

2009

2009-10

Special Education Training and Resource Center (SETRC) Regional Trainers, ECDC regional staff


IDEA discretionary funds to support training

VESID staff

Improve mechanisms for tracking progress and child outcomes.

2008-2011

VESID staff

Encourage development of UPK for three-and four-year-olds to increase the availability of integrated settings and promote earlier connections between preschoolers with disabilities and the district setting that is most able to meet the needs of children in the least restrictive environment.

2008-11

VESID and P-16 staff

NYSED guidance


Overview of the State Performance Plan Development:

See Overview of the State Performance Plan Development in the Introduction to the State Performance Plan, as revised June 2007 and in the Introduction to the Annual Performance Report for 2006-07. In addition to the plan development activities described in those sections, input on data collection for this indicator was sought from the transition subcommittee of the Commissioner’s Advisory Panel for Special Education (CAP), representatives of the Transition Coordination Site (TCS) technical assistance network and representatives of the State University of New York (SUNY) at Potsdam working on the NYS Longitudinal Post School Indicator Study (NYS LPSI).

Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B / Effective Transition

Indicator 14Percent of youth who had IEPs, are no longer in secondary school and who have been competitively employed, enrolled in some type of postsecondary school, or both, within one year of leaving high school.

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

Measurement:
Percent = [(# of youth who had IEPs, are no longer in secondary school and who have been competitively employed, enrolled in some type of postsecondary school, or both, within one year of leaving high school) divided by the (# of youth assessed who had IEPs and are no longer in secondary school)] times 100.

Overview of Issue/Description of System or Process:

From 2000 through 2007, NYS independently conducted a seven year study to collect post-school outcome data from special and general education exiters. Stratified random samples of 13,000 special and general education students were followed since they were seniors in 2000 and 2001, with data collected during the senior year and at one-, three- and five-years beyond high school exit. The NYS LPSI found that, at one year beyond high school exit, 83 percent of the Class of 2001 completers had successfully transitioned to employment, postsecondary education and/or day program alternatives [2] as compared to 96 percent of general education students who left the same high schools at the same time. Thus, NYS students with disabilities experienced a gap in post-school outcomes of approximately 13 percentage points as compared with their general education peers. However, 75 percent of an earlier group of students with disabilities from the senior class of 1995 at one-year had positive post-school transitions. The LPSI showed that over six years, successful post-school transitions for students with disabilities had climbed 8 percentage points, an improvement resulting from statewide technical assistance, such as provided by the TCS technical assistance centers.

Note that the NYS LPSI used a slightly different criterion for successful post-school transition. While the SPP measure is “engaged at any time” during the post-school year, the LPSI used the criterion of the person being engaged at the point of interview one year out of school. If the federal SPP criterion were applied to the LPSI study data, the rate for all students would have been higher. This difference has implications for understanding the SPP results and improvement planning.

Plan to collect baseline data

Under the SPP requirements, baseline data was collected by interviewing students with disabilities exiting a representative sample of one-sixth of NYS school districts in 2005-06. A short interview protocol was designed to determine post-school transition status in areas of competitive employment and/or enrollment in post-secondary schools.

Definitions

Exiters are defined to include those students with disabilities who had IEPs and who completed the high school program with any diploma or certificate of completion (i.e., Regents or local diploma, IEP diploma, high school equivalency diploma), who completed school by reaching the maximum age to attend special education or those dropping out during the academic year being reviewed.

Employment is defined as competitive employment in the civilian labor market where individuals are earning at least minimum wage or the commensurate wage for specific occupations, either full- or part-time, for any length of time during the year since leaving high school. It does not include military service. Part-time employment is defined as less than 35 hours per week.

Post secondary school enrollment is defined as full-time or part-time participation in a two- or four-year college program, vocational or technical education beyond high school, adult basic education or participation in adult rehabilitation service day programs [3] for severely disabled persons. Part-time is defined differently depending on the standard for the post secondary school program. For colleges, part-time course loads typically are defined as less than 9 credit hours per semester. Each person interviewed responds based on their understanding of what constitutes full- or part-time for the institution or program they are attending. Interviewers are trained to provide guidance if requested or needed.

 

Sampling Plan Used

 Sampling was used to establish the 2005-06 baseline for this indicator. One-sixth of the school districts reported data on this indicator in 2005-06. A different sample group of school districts will report in subsequent school years until all school districts report data on this indicator over the six year life of the SPP. This represents approximately 120 school districts each year. The NYC School District will be included in the sample group each year. It is the only school district in NYS with a total enrollment of 50,000 or more students. Because Indicator 14 data collection takes two years (the first year to identify school exiters and the second year to conduct one-year out interviews), two samples will be identified in the fifth year to enable interview data to be collected during the sixth year, analyzed and reported for every district before the SPP expires. (See Attachment 2 to the SPP as revised June 2007.)

 NYS distributed all school districts among six statewide representative samples. These six groups of school districts were tested with Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and there was no statistical difference among the six groups of school districts on the population variables described in Attachment 2 to the SPP as revised June 2007. These population variables were from the 2000 decennial census.

 For Indicator 14, school districts with over 100 exiters have a choice of reporting data on all exiters or submitting data on a randomly selected representative sample of exiters. The minimum number of students required for sampling under this indicator can be obtained by using the sampling calculator provided by the State (http://www.p12.nysed.gov/sedcar/randomno.htm) and the guidelines provided below. The vast majority of school districts will need to submit data on all exiters for this indicator. For a few large school districts, if it is less burdensome to report on a sample of students, the methodology described below (totally random sampling) is likely to produce a sample that is representative of the school district in terms of all variables, since every exiting student has the same chance as another student to be selected for the sample.

 NYSED requires that school districts maintain documentation as described below if they choose to report data on a sample of students. The totally random sampling methodology and required documentation should eliminate selection bias. NYSED will attempt to prevent missing data by first describing precisely what the State needs to collect, providing technical assistance and then following up with school districts to request missing data. The completeness of data collection will improve after the first year and will continue to improve as long as requirements remain unchanged. All issues of confidentiality are addressed by following procedures in accordance with FERPA. NYSED will also guard against divulging personally identifiable information by not publicly reporting results when there are less than five students for whom data are available or when those results can be easily calculated based on other data provided.

 

Federal Indicator Number

Eligible Population of Students From Which A Random Sample Must be Selected

Minimum Number of Students in the Sample

Method for Selecting Students

Required Documentation

14

All students with disabilities who are no longer in secondary school but received some special education service during the

school year (July 1-June 30) in district-operated programs or under contract with other service provider. (Include all students who left with a credential, reached maximum age for educational services or dropped out.)

School districts with less than 100 students with disabilities exiting, survey all students.

School districts with 100 or more students use the sampling calculator. Require 95% confidence interval and plus or minus 5% margin of error.

If less than 100 exiters, survey all students.

For larger districts, use random selection using a random number table.

Documentation period is seven years. Maintain list of all eligible students, copy of Random Number Table used, beginning random number for selecting students and of all students who were selected their number.

 

Establishing the Baseline Sample for 2005-06

·          By January 2006, school districts selected for this indicator for the 2005-06 reporting year were notified by NYSED that they must obtain contact information and consent to be contacted from all or their sample of students who left secondary school between the months of January to June 2006. The shorter period for the baseline cycle was used because this was the earliest that schools could reasonably be expected to be implement the process created under the first submission of the SPP in December 2005. School districts provided demographic and contact data for these students to the contractor, the Potsdam Institute for Applied Research (PIAR) at SUNY Potsdam. Demographic data included name of the school district and student identification, date of birth, year of exit, primary disability, gender, race/ethnicity information, type of school exit (e.g., graduation, drop out, aging out) and special education placement during the student’s last year of school participation.

·          By September 2006, school districts submitted the contact and demographic information to PIAR, who verified completeness of information with school districts and initiated planning for interviewing, via a calling center and creating mail and on-line survey alternatives. Survey protocols were programmed and interviewer training was designed. Recruitment of interviewers anticipated addressing the multi-lingual needs of former students as identified in the student information provided to PIAR.

·          In mid-March 2007, PIAR sent letters to the entire survey pool of 2,936 former students to remind them of the purpose of the future call. If contact information failed to reach the former student, PIAR followed up with the school district to seek additional contact information. Most districts except NYC were able to provide additional contact information. PIAR also used web searches of on-line directories and databases to search for alternative addresses to supplement the outreach process.

·          From April through the end of July 2007, interviews were conducted by PIAR using a modified form of the National Post-School Outcomes Center Post-School Data Collection Protocol, involving twelve basic questions plus one qualitative question regarding connections to adult services and supports. Call Center hours included early morning through evening hours, seven days per week, except holidays. English and Spanish-speaking interviewers were available.  A maximum of 20 calls per former student was made, varied across time-of-day and day-of-week.

·          Questions pertaining to employment and postsecondary education include the following:
 

Employment  

1.      The level of employment, from working in a competitive employment setting for pay to supported employment.

2.      If employed at all during the previous year.

3.      If currently employed.

4.      Hours worked per week.

5.      Typical hourly wage received.

6.      If the job provides health insurance benefits (an indicator of the stability of the level of engagement in the world of work).

7.      If not employed, why?

 Postsecondary Education

8.      The level of postsecondary education (from 4-year college program to Adult Basic Education).

9.      If ever participated in postsecondary education.

10. If currently involved in postsecondary education.

11. Whether enrolled full or part time.

12. If not engaged in postsecondary education, why? 


Awareness of and engagement with vocational rehabilitation and related adult services.
 

Baseline Data for FFY 2005 (2005-2006)

        Out of a targeted 2,917 student exiters from 107 school districts (NYC counts as one district), 1,908 students were available for interview, for a response rate of 65 percent. 92 percent of those who were interviewed reported being in post secondary school and/or competitive employment at some point during the year after exiting high school in 2005-06. The post-school status of the 1,009 former students who could not be reached for interview is unknown.

Discussion of Baseline Data:

Representativeness of Survey Pool

Table 1 addresses the representativeness of the survey pool compared with all exiters for 2005-06. The survey pool is the group of students that school districts identified to PIAR to be interviewed. The NPSO recommends using a +/-3 percent difference to judge the representativeness of demographic subgroups reported in Table 1. Using this criterion, the survey pool is representative of disability subgroups and gender. Minority students and students who dropped out of school are under represented at -15.9 percent and -14.8 percent, respectively. Similar analysis of representation by geographic region showed that for the Big Five Cities included in the sample, only students who dropped out are under represented at -8.6 percent. For the Rest-of-State, students who dropped out are under represented at -10.2 percent and minority students are slightly under represented at -4.7 percent.

Table 1: Representativeness of Survey Pool Compared to Total Exiters for All NYS Schools

During 2005-06, as reported in PD-5 Data Reports.

Statewide Demographic Representativeness

Statewide

Learning Disabilities

Emotional Disabilities

Mental Retardation

All Other Disabilities

Female

Minority

Dropout

PD-5 Report

61%

13%

5%

21%

35%

44%

30%

Survey Pool Representation

63%

11%

4%

22%

36%

28%

16%

Note: positive difference indicates over-representation; negative difference indicates under-representation on the interview pool.  

Difference

2.2%

-2.6%

-0.6%

1%

0.7%

-15.9%

-14.8%

                 

Two factors are believed to contribute to these differences in representation:

(1)   The PD-5 report represents exiters for the entire school year, but the 2005-06 survey pool represents exiters from the second half of the year. Dropping out is believed to more often occur during the first semester.

(2)   The consent process influences the composition of the survey pool. The consent process requires school districts to contact exiters and their families to inform them about Indicator 14, to obtain contact information and to expect to be interviewed a year after leaving school. If a district cannot contact exiters or their families or if there is a refusal of consent, the person is removed from the survey pool. Most often, these students have left by dropping out or have less stable living situations.

Representativeness of Response Pool

Table 2 addresses the representativeness of the response pool, compared with the PD-5 report about all exiters. The response pool is comprised of the students from the survey pool who actually were interviewed and who fit the criteria of being exiters after one year. Using the PSO criteria of +/-3 percent to judge representativeness of subgroups, the response pool is representative of gender and all but one disability group. Exiters with emotional disabilities are slightly under represented at -4.5 percent. Minority and students and students who dropped out of school are under represented at -22.7 percent and -20.5 percent respectively. For the Big Five Cities, the response pool is representative of gender, minority and all but one disability subgroup. Exiters with emotional disabilities are slightly under represented at -4.1 percent. Students who dropped out of school are under represented at -18.2 percent. For the Rest-of-State, students who dropped out and minority students are under represented at -13.8 percent and -8.9 percent, respectively. Students with emotional disabilities are slightly under represented at -3.5 percent. The factors contributing to under representation by these groups include their under representation in the survey pool and having lower response rates.
 

Table 2: Representativeness of Response Pool Compared to Total Exiters for All NYS Schools

During 2005-06, as reported in PD-5 Data Reports.

Statewide Demographic Representativeness

Statewide

Learning Disabilities

Emotional Disabilities

Mental Retardation

All Other Disabilities

Female

Minority

Dropout

Census Representation

61%

13%

5%

21%

35%

44%

30%

Response Pool Representation

63%

9%

4%

24%

35%

21%

10%

Note: positive difference indicates over-representation; negative difference indicates under-representation on the interview pool.  

Difference

1.4%

-4.5%

-0.7%

3.8%

0.1%

-22.7%

-20.5%

               

Response Rate

Implications for Interpreting and Applying the Data

In reviewing the data results, readers are cautioned that the percent of former students with positive post-school outcomes is not representative of students who dropped out of school, minority students and students with emotional disabilities since these subgroups were underrepresented in student responses to the survey interviews.


Data Reliability and Validity

Strategies are needed to equalize the response rates between the largest school districts and the rest of the participating schools that provide data for this indicator. Outreach activities need to be enhanced to find students who dropped out and assure their representation in the data. Strategies for improving response rates and representativeness for this indicator are discussed under the Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources section:

Major Findings

2005-06 Post-School Outcomes by Type of Exit

2005-06 Post-School Outcome

Statewide Responses 2005-06

Regular HS Diploma (Regents, Local, HS Equivalency

Certificate or Modified Diploma (IEP Diploma)

Dropped Out

Other Exit Reasons*

 

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

Total in category

1908

100%

1312

100%

377

100%

188

100%

31

100%

All Post-school Outcomes**

1747

92%

1262

96%

316

84%

146

78%

23

74%

Post secondary school only

318

17%

215

16%

77

20%

16

9%

10

32%

Both competitively employed and post secondary school

882

46%

733

56%

91

24%

53

28%

5

16%

Only competitively employed

547

29%

314

24%

148

39%

77

41%

8

26%

Other: military service

25

1%

20

2%

3

1%

1

1%

1

3%

Neither

136

7%

30

2%

58

15%

41

22%

7

23%

* ”Other” may include that the student reached maximum age or that reasons were not reported.

** ”All” represents the sum of post secondary school and/or competitive employment. It excludes military service.

Measurable and Rigorous Targets

FFY

Measurable and Rigorous Target

2005
(2005-06)
Baseline

Baseline = 92 percent of youth with IEPs*, who exited school in 2005-06 are no longer in secondary school and who have been competitively employed**, enrolled in some type of post secondary school, or both, within one year of leaving school (i.e., during 2006-07).

2006
(2006-07)

92 percent of youth with IEPs*, who exited school in 2006-07 are no longer in secondary school and who have been competitively employed**, enrolled in some type of post secondary school, or both, within one year of leaving school (i.e., during 2007-08)

2007
(2007-08)

92 percent of youth with IEPs*, who exited school in 2007-08 are no longer in secondary school and who have been competitively employed**, enrolled in some type of post secondary school, or both, within one year of leaving school (i.e., during 2008-09)

2008
(2008-09)

92 percent of youth with IEPs*, who exited school in 2008-09 are no longer in secondary school and who have been competitively employed**, enrolled in some type of post secondary school, or both, within one year of leaving school (i.e., during 2009-10)

2009
(2009-10)

93 percent of youth with IEPs*, who exited school in 2009-10 are no longer in secondary school and who have been competitively employed**, enrolled in some type of post secondary school, or both, within one year of leaving school (i.e., during 2010-11)

2010
(2010-11)

94 percent of youth with IEPs*, who exited school in 2010-11 are no longer in secondary school and who have been competitively employed**, enrolled in some type of post secondary school, or both, within one year of leaving school (i.e., during 2011-12)

*”Percent of youth with IEPs” refers to the percent of students who could be reached for interview.

**In these targets, competitive employment excludes military service.

Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources:

Improvement activities center around efforts to target technical assistance and transition funding based on gaps identified in the baseline data for students at-risk of dropping out and who exit with IEP diplomas and in improving the reliability and validity of data collected on this measure. Assistance will be provided regarding development of student samples of an adequate size to offset anticipated low response rates.

Activity

Timeline

Resources

See activities for indicators 2 and 13

2008-11

7 regional TCS funded through IDEA Part B discretionary funds

Prioritize training and technical assistance delivered by TCSs to improve transition outcomes based on gaps in post-school outcomes identified for subpopulations: i.e., for students who dropped out and for students who exited with IEP diplomas.

2007-11

7 regional TCS funded through IDEA Part B discretionary funds

Implement Model Transition Programs in 60 consortia of school districts throughout the State to build capacity for in-school career preparation and smooth transitions to vocational rehabilitation (VR) for students needing those services.

2007-11

Competitive contracts with 60 school district consortia in collaboration with VESID VR District Offices

VR policy development will be revised to enhance the availability of VR counseling to transitioning students no later than their junior year and the revision of economic need policies related to funding support during postsecondary education, including provision of career-related internships during postsecondary education study.

2007-09

VESID VR Policy Unit

Increase Independent Living Center (ILC) initiatives to facilitate making and sustaining post-school transitions, including identifying and connecting appropriate adult role models with currently transitioning secondary students (e.g., through mentoring programs, shadowing experiences and other innovations to increase student awareness of successful adult roles).

2008-11

ILC network

VR District Offices

TCS network

Improving Response Rates and Representativeness of Indicator 14 Data:


Attachment 1: Report of Dispute Resolutions, 2006-07

 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

TABLE 7

PAGE 1 OF 1

 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION

   
 

AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES

REPORT OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION UNDER PART B, OF THE

OMB NO.: 1820-0677

 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION

INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT

 
 

PROGRAMS

2006-07

FORM EXPIRES: 08/31/2009

       
     

STATE:_____NEW YORK_____

 


SECTION A: Written, signed complaints

 
 

(1)  Written, signed complaints total

210

 
 

(1.1)  Complaints with reports issued

198

 
 

(a)  Reports with findings

169

 
 

(b)  Reports within timeline

162

 
 

(c)  Reports within extended timelines

2

 
 

(1.2)  Complaints withdrawn or dismissed

10

 
 

(1.3)  Complaints pending

2

 
 

(a)  Complaint pending a due process hearing

0

 
 

SECTION B: Mediation requests

 
 

(2)  Mediation requests total

397

 
 

(2.1)  Mediations                                                                                                     

 
 

(a)  Mediations related to due process

23

 
 

(i)   Mediation agreements

15

 
 

(b)  Mediations not related to due process

255

 
 

(i)  Mediation agreements

237

 
 

(2.2)  Mediations not held (including pending)

110

 
 

SECTION C: Hearing Requests

 
 

(3)  Hearing requests total

5990

 
 

(3.1)  Resolution sessions

5664

 
 

(a)  Settlement agreements

587

 
 

(3.2)  Hearings (fully adjudicated)

810

 
 

(a)  Decisions within timeline

175

 
 

(b)  Decisions within extended timeline

470

 
 

(3.3)  Resolved without a hearing

4846

 

SECTION D: Expedited hearing requests (related to disciplinary decision)

 

(4)  Expedited hearing requests total

29

 

(4.1)  Resolution sessions

0

 

(a)  Settlement agreements

0

 

(4.2)  Expedited hearings (fully adjudicated)

16

 

(a)  Change of placement ordered

6

 

Attachment 2: State Assessment Data for 2006-007 (OSEP Table 6)

PDF File Only