Overview of the Annual Performance Report Development:

See Overview of the Development of the Annual Performance Report in the Introduction section, page 1.

Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B / Child Find

Indicator 11: Percent of children with parental consent to evaluate, who were evaluated within 60 days (or State established timeline).

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

Measurement:

a.      # of children for whom parental consent to evaluate was received.

b.      # determined not eligible whose evaluations were completed within 60 days (or State established timeline).

c.      # determined eligible whose evaluations were completed within 60 days (or State established timeline).

Account for children included in a but not included in b or c.  Indicate the range of days beyond the timeline when the evaluation was completed and any reasons for the delays.

Percent = [(b + c) divided by (a)] times 100.

New York State’s Measurement in 2006-07 School Year:

NYS’ established timeline to complete the initial evaluation is 30 school days for preschool students and 60 calendar days for school age students.

In the 2006-07 school year, NYS collected data for this indicator in the PD-11 report, which is a web-based report that collects aggregate data from school districts. This report is posted at http://www.p12.nysed.gov/sedcar/0607pdrpts.htm. The data that were collected did not distinguish between students who were found eligible for special education from those who were not. Because the indicator was revised by OSEP to require states to report on the percent of children with consent to evaluate who were evaluated within 60-days (or State established timeline) and to no longer require states to report on timelines for eligibility determinations, NYS did not  collect information on eligibility determinations for this measure.  Requiring states to report data on the numbers of students determined eligible and not eligible for special education services whose evaluations were completed within State required timelines is inconsistent with the indicator measure.  However, in the 2007-08 school year, the State will collect these data at the individual student level through SIRS and will be able to distinguish between students who are found eligible for special education from those who are not.

New York’s formula for 2006-07 school year to calculate results for this indicator is as follows:

a.      # of children for whom parental consent to evaluate was received. (Does not include students whose evaluations were completed past the State established timelines for reasons that are in compliance with State requirements.)

b.      # of children whose evaluations were completed within 30 school days for preschool children and 60 calendar days for school age students.

Percent = [b divided by a] times 100.


FFY

Measurable and Rigorous Target

FFY 2006

(School year 2006-07)

100 percent of children with parental consent to evaluate will be evaluated and eligibility determined within State required timelines.

Actual Target Data for FFY 2006:

NYS’ new baseline data [1] are that 64.2 percent of all students received evaluations within the State required timeline. School age students were more likely to receive a timely evaluation at 78.4 percent compared to preschool students at 44.2 percent.  

During the 2006-07 school year, one sixth of the school districts in the State were required to report data for this indicator. The data provided below represents data from 113 school districts. All school districts except NYC provided data on all eligible children. NYC provided data for a representative sample.

 

A

B

C

Category of Students

Number of Students for Whom Parental Consent to Evaluate Was Received

Number of Students Whose Evaluations were Completed Within State Timelines

Percent = [b divided by a] times 100

Preschool Children

4,836

2,139

44.2%

School-Age Students

6,815

5,342

78.4%

Total for All Students

11,651

7,481

64.2%

The following data is presented by the SEQA regions of the State to inform needed regional improvement activities. 

 

A

B

C

Category of Students

Number of Students for Whom Parental Consent to Evaluate Was Received

Number of Students Whose Evaluations were Completed Within State Timelines

Percent = [b divided by a] times 100

Central Region

Preschool Children

580

134

23.1%

School-Age Students

877

639

72.9%

Total for All Students

1,457

773

53.1%

Eastern Region

Preschool Children

409

155

37.9%

School-Age Students

499

385

77.2%

Total for All Students

908

540

59.5%

Hudson Valley Region

Preschool Children

438

115

26.3%

School-Age Students

592

489

82.6%

Total for All Students

1,030

604

58.6%

Long Island Region

Preschool Children

806

623

77.3%

School-Age Students

836

621

74.3%

Total for All Students

1,642

1,244

75.8%

New York City

Preschool Children

1,261

501

39.7%

School-Age Students

2,133

1,738

81.5%

Total for All Students

3,394

2,239

66.0%

Western Region

Preschool Children

1,342

611

45.5%

School-Age Students

1,878

1,470

78.3%

Total for All Students

3,220

2,081

64.6%

Reasons

Following are reasons why school districts were not able to meet the State required timeline.  Reasons have been separated into two categories: those that are determined to be "in compliance" with NYS regulations and those that are determined to be "out of compliance" with NYS regulations. 

As stated in NYS’ measure for this indicator, the percent does not include students whose evaluations were completed past the State established timelines for reasons that are in compliance with State requirements.  Some of the “in compliance” reasons for exceeding the required timeline for 1,338 preschool children and 374 school-age students were as follows:

Some of the “out of compliance” reasons provided by school districts exceeding the required timeline for 2,697 preschool and 1,473 school-age students were as follows:

Extent of Delays

Following is an analysis of the number of days past the timeline for completion of evaluations for preschool children. Some of these delays are for reasons determined to be "in compliance" while others have been determined to be "out of compliance". However, NYS did not collect data in such a way as to be able to differentiate between the two types of delays. NYS will be able to differentiate in the 2007-08 school year, when these data will be collected at the individual student level.

Number of Days of Delay in Completing Evaluations of Preschool Students

Special Education Quality Assurance Region

1-10 Days of Delay

11-20 Days of Delay

21-30 Days of Delay

More than 30 Days of Delay

Central

131

142

95

149

Eastern

91

85

59

68

Hudson Valley

116

99

70

71

Long Island

175

38

13

15

New York City

382

291

188

213

Western

286

257

144

156

Total State

1,181

912

569

672

Below is the number of days past the timeline that evaluations of school-age students were completed. Some of these delays are for reasons that are “in compliance” with NYS regulations and some for reasons that are “not in compliance”. NYS did not collect data in such a way as to be able to differentiate between the two types of delays. NYS will be able to differentiate in the 2007-08 school year, when these data will be collected at the individual student level:

Number of Days of Delay in Completing Evaluations of School Age Students

Special Education Quality Assurance Region

1-10 Days of Delay

11-20 Days of Delay

21-30 Days of Delay

More than 30 Days of Delay

Central

92

49

67

43

Eastern

38

24

38

18

Hudson Valley

63

27

23

9

Long Island

99

52

71

51

New York City

116

62

99

91

Western

147

82

96

49

Total State

555

296

394

261

Discussion of Baseline Data

Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that occurred for FFY 2006:

Explanation of Progress or Slippage

NYS did not meet its target of 100 percent.

During the 2006-07 school year, all school districts reporting data for this indicator received electronic notices of compliance with this indicator based on 2005-06 school year data.  During the 2007-08 school year, all school districts reporting data for this indicator received electronic notices of compliance with this indicator based on 2006-07 school year data.

School districts that were not in 100 percent compliance with this indicator were required to analyze the reasons for their delays in determining eligibility and to develop and or revise their processes and procedures related to ensuring timely completion of initial evaluations. Also, school districts were required to provide a Statement of Assurance to the State once they had made the required changes. In addition to this, school districts with less than a 90 percent compliance rate have been re-assigned to report data to the State on this indicator for the 2008-09 school year in order to document full compliance. See the schedule of the school years in which school districts must re-submit data on this indicator, posted at http://www.p12.nysed.gov/sedcar/resubschedule.html. The Special Education School District Data Profiles will be updated with school districts’ revised compliance rates based on re-submission of data. These profiles are posted at http://eservices.nysed.gov/sepubrep/,

NYS will collect data on this indicator in the 2007-08 school year at the individual student level through SIRS. See information contained in the SIRS 2007-08 Policy Manual and in the SIRS 2007-08 Dictionary of Reporting Data Elements posted on line at http://www.p12.nysed.gov/irs/SIRS/home.shtml. Collecting data through the new system is expected to improve the accuracy of these data.

Improvement Activities Completed in 2006-07

Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources for FFY 2006 [If applicable]

The following improvement activity has been added:

Activity

Timelines

Resources

All school districts with less than 90 percent compliance on this indicator will be required to re-submit data for this indicator to the State to demonstrate correction of noncompliance. 

2008-2011

SIRS


Overview of the Annual Performance Report Development:

See Overview of the Development of the Annual Performance Report in the Introduction section, page 1.
 

Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B / Effective Transition

Indicator 12:  Percent of children referred by Part C prior to age 3, who are found eligible for Part B, and who have an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthdays.

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

Measurement:

a.      # of children who have been served in Part C and referred to Part B for eligibility determination.

b.      # of those referred determined to be NOT eligible and whose eligibilities were determined prior to their third birthdays.

c.      # of those found eligible who have an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthdays.

d.      # of children for whom parent refusal to provide consent caused delays in evaluation or initial services.

Account for children included in a but not included in b, c or d.  Indicate the range of days beyond the third birthday when eligibility was determined and the IEP developed and the reasons for the delays.

Percent = [(c) divided by (a – b – d)] times 100.

NYS will use the above formula except it will add “e” to the equation as follows:

e.      # of children whose IEPs were not implemented by their third birthdays but for reasons that are “in compliance” with NYS regulations.

NYS Data = [(c ) divided by (a-b-d-e)] times 100

In 2006-07 school year, NYS used the PD-12 report to collect these data. This report is posted at http://www.p12.nysed.gov/sedcar/0607pdrpts.htm.


FFY

Measurable and Rigorous Target

FFY 2006

(School Year 2005-06)

100 percent of children referred by Part C prior to age 3, who are found eligible for Part B, will have an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthday or in compliance with timelines established in State law.


Actual Target Data for FFY 2006:

Based on data submitted for the 2006-07 school year by 116 school districts that are representative of the State, 73.8 percent of children, who transitioned from Early Intervention (Part C) and were found to be eligible for preschool special education services under Part B, had their IEP developed and implemented by their third birthday. All children for whom there were delays in eligibility determination or who did not have their IEP implemented for reasons that are in compliance with State requirements were removed from the denominator as illustrated in the data chart below.  All school districts that were required to submit data on this indicator reported data on all eligible children, except that New York City provided data on a representative sample of students.
 

 

A

B

C

D

E

F

Region

# of children who have been served in Part C and referred to Part B for eligibility determination

# of those referred determined to be NOT eligible and whose eligibilities were determined prior to their third birthday

# of those found eligible who have an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthday

# of children for whom parent refusal to provide consent caused delays in eligibility determination or initial services

# of children for whom delays in determination of eligibility or delays in implementing the IEP were caused by reasons that are “in compliance” with State requirements

Baseline Data Calculation

[( C ) /(A-B-D-E)]*100

Central

67

3

22

3

39

100%

Eastern

183

12

51

4

110

89.5%

Hudson Valley

413

27

103

9

233

71.5%

Long Island

389

17

143

11

211

95.3%

New York City

1,696

27

161

177

1,181

51.8%

Western

260

14

101

4

139

98.1%

Total State

3,008

100

581

208

1,913

73.8%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Column E in the table above includes the following other reasons determined to be "in compliance” with NYS requirements for implementing the IEP past the child’s third birthday for children included in Column A above:

Some of the reasons provided by school districts for implementing the child’s IEP past the third birthday determined to be "out of compliance" with NYS requirements were as follows:

Number of Days Past the Third Birthday When IEPs were Implemented - Some of these children had delays for reasons that are “in compliance” with NYS requirements and some are for reasons that are considered to be “out of compliance” with NYS requirements. Data were not collected in such a way as to be able to distinguish between the two types of delays. Next year, when these data will be collected at the individual student level, we will be able to distinguish between the length of the delays which are “in compliance” with State requirements from those that are not.

Region

1 to 10 Days

11 to 20 Days

21-30 Days

More than 30 Days

Central

1

8

5

25

Eastern

7

2

23

72

Hudson Valley

21

6

12

193

Long Island

32

12

21

152

New York City

6

12

10

577

Western

21

11

14

87

Total State

88

51

85

1,106


Days of Delay in Implementing IEPs of Children Eligible for Preschool Special Education who are Transitioning from Part C to Part B by SEQA Region

Region

1 to 10 Days

11 to 20 Days

21-30 Days

More than

30 Days

Central

2.6%

20.5%

12.8%

64.1%

Eastern

6.7%

1.9%

22.1%

69.2%

Hudson Valley

9.1%

2.6%

5.2%

83.2%

Long Island

14.7%

5.5%

9.7%

70.0%

New York City

1.0%

2.0%

1.7%

95.4%

Western

15.8%

8.3%

10.5%

65.4%

Total State

6.6%

3.8%

6.4%

83.2%

Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that occurred for FFY 2006:

Explanation of Progress or Slippage

NYS did not meet its target of 100 percent compliance for this indicator.

NYS’ average performance on this indicator decreased from 86.5 percent in 2005-2006 to 73.8 percent in 2006-07. The State made some improvements to the data collection instrument to collect more precise data regarding reasons for delays. It is possible that last year’s compliance rate was somewhat inflated.

All school districts received electronic notices of compliance with this indicator based on 2005-06 school year data during the 2006-07 school year. All school districts received electronic notices of compliance with this indicator based on 2006-07 school year data during the 2007-08 school year.

School districts that were not in 100 percent compliance with this indicator were required to analyze the reasons for their delays in determining eligibility and to develop and or revise their processes and procedures related to ensuring timely determinations of eligibility for special education services and to provide a Statement of Assurance to the State once they had made the required changes. In addition to this, school districts with less than a 90 percent compliance rate have been re-assigned to report data to the State on this indicator for the 2008-09 school year in order to document full compliance. See the schedule of the school years in which school districts must re-submit data on this indicator, posted at http://www.p12.nysed.gov/sedcar/resubschedule.html. The Special Education School District Data Profiles will be updated with school districts’ revised compliance rates based on re-submission of data. These profiles are posted at http://eservices.nysed.gov/sepubrep/,

NYS will collect data on this indicator in the 2007-08 school year at the individual student level through SIRS. See information contained in the SIRS 2007-08 Policy Manual and in the SIRS 2007-08 Dictionary of Reporting Data Elements posted on line at http://www.p12.nysed.gov/SIRS/home.shtml. Collecting data through the new system is expected to improve the accuracy of these data.

Improvement Activities Completed in 2006-07

Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources for FFY 2006 [If applicable]

The following improvement activity has been added:

Activity

Timelines

Resources

All school districts with less than 90 percent compliance on this indicator will be required to re-submit data for this indicator to the State to demonstrate correction of noncompliance. 

2008-2011

SIRS



Overview of the Annual Performance Report Development:

See Overview of the Development of the Annual Performance Report in the Introduction section, page 1.

Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B / Effective Transition

Indicator 13:  Percent of youth aged 15* and above with an IEP that includes coordinated, measurable, annual IEP goals and transition services that will reasonably enable the student to meet the post-secondary goals.

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

* The federal indicator is age 16. NYS has elected to measure this beginning at age 15, since NYS regulations require that transition services be indicated on a student’s IEP to be in effect when the student turns age 15.

Measurement:
Percent = [(# of youth with disabilities aged 15 and above with an IEP that includes coordinated, measurable, annual IEP goals and transition services that will reasonably enable the student to meet the post-secondary goals) divided by the (# of youth with an IEP age 16 and above)] times 100.

FFY

Measurable and Rigorous Target

FFY 2006

(School year 2006-07)

100 percent of youth* aged 15 and above will have IEPs that include coordinated, measurable, annual IEP goals and transition services that will reasonably enable the student to meet the post-secondary goals.

*i.e., percent of youth with IEPs reviewed.

Actual Target Data for FFY 2006:

The 2006 data are based on the monitoring review of IEPs from a representative sample of 109 school districts, including NYC.  The total number of students with IEPs, ages 15-21 in NYS during the 2005-06 school year was 56,140.  The total number of IEPs reviewed from these representative school districts was 3,376.  Of the 3,376 IEPs, 1,546 (45.8 percent) were found to have been in compliance with all IEP transition requirements.

Of the 109 school districts:

Regional variations are noted in the following chart. NYC, from which nearly one third of the students with disabilities are educated, reported that three of their 100 IEPs reviewed met all of the compliance indicators.  However, NYC significantly improved in developing IEPs that met compliance with individual citations, with an average increase in compliance across all eight IEP required citations of 45 percentage points.

2006-07 Indicator 13 - Transition IEP Data

Transition Coordination Site (TCS) Region

Total # of School Districts Reviewed

Number of Reviewed School Districts with IEPs found in Compliance

0% of IEPs in compliance

1-49% of IEPs in compliance

50-79% of IEPs in compliance

80-100% of IEPs in compliance

Eastern

24

5

8

3

8

Hudson Valley

20

4

7

2

7

Long Island

17

5

6

5

1

Mid-State

13

2

4

2

5

Mid-West

15

2

4

4

5

NYC

1

0

1

0

0

Western

19

4

6

4

5

Totals

109

22

36

20

31

Data for each of the eight compliance indicators is reported in the chart below for two years. Major findings include:

Compliance Rate for Individual Regulatory Citations - Transition IEPs

 

2005

Number and Percent of 108 District in Compliance

2006

Number and Percent of 109 Districts in Compliance

Requirement

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

When the CSE met to consider transition service needs, the school district invited the student. If the student did not attend, the district ensured that the student's preferences and interests were considered

62

57.41%

66

60.6%

Under the student's present levels of performance, the IEP includes a statement of the student's needs, taking into account the student's strengths, preferences and interests, as they relate to transition from school to post-school activities.

26

24.07%

47

43.1%

The IEP includes appropriate measurable post-secondary goals based upon age appropriate transition assessments relating to training, education, employment and, where appropriate, independent living skills.

25

23.15%

53

48.6%

The IEP includes measurable annual goals consistent with the student's needs and abilities, including (if applicable) benchmarks or short-term objectives.

58

53.70%

72

66.1%

The IEP includes a statement of the transition service needs of the student that focuses on the student's courses of study.

45

41.67%

62

56.9%

The IEP indicates the recommended special education program and services to advance appropriately toward meeting the annual goals relating to transition needs.

76

70.37%

87

79.8%

The IEP includes needed activities to facilitate the student's movement from school to post-school activities, including: instruction, related services, community experiences, the development of employment and other post-school adult living objectives, and when appropriate, acquisition of daily living skills and functional vocational evaluation.

35

32.41%

58

53.2%

The IEP includes a statement of the responsibilities of the school district and, when applicable, participating agencies, for the provision of such services and activities that promote movement from school to post-school opportunities, or both.

40

37.04%

62

56.9%

Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that occurred for FFY 2006:

Explanation of Progress or Slippage

While NYS did not meet its target that 100 percent of youth aged 15 and above will have IEPs that include coordinated, measurable, annual IEP goals and transition services that will reasonably enable the student to meet the post-secondary goals, there was substantial improvement in compliance against all the regulatory requirements related to transition planning. In 2006, 45.8 percent of IEPs were in compliance with all regulatory requirements compared to 33.2 percent in 2005. 

Technical assistance personnel from VESID's funded TCSs and/or SETRC facilitated the reviews of most of the school districts compliance with this indicator.  This served as part of the verification process and afforded districts technical assistance during the compliance review.  In most cases it was indicated that districts are often providing appropriate transition programs and services but not accurately documenting this information on the students' IEPs.

Thus far, during the 2005-06 and 2006-07 school years, two representative samples of school districts in NYS have reviewed a sample of IEPs by using the State developed self review monitoring protocol and reported compliance with each of eight regulatory requirements related to transition IEPs. Results of the self-review and correction of noncompliance is reported through a web-based data submission system. The results of the reviews and status of compliance with regulatory requirements is displayed in the table below.

School Year

Number of School Districts

Conducted Reviews of IEPs

Reported Some Non Compliance

Corrected Non Compliance Within one Year from Notification

Corrected Non Compliance After one Year from Notification

Not in Compliance to Date

2005-06

108

108

9

69

30**

2006-07

109

78*

This information will be reported in the next APR

*31 school districts will go through a verification review of their report of 100 percent compliance.

**Of the 30 school districts, fifteen made progress and corrected some noncompliance; however, they have not corrected compliance with all eight regulatory citations.

Improvement Activities Completed in 2006-07

Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources for FFY 2006 [If applicable]

Activity

Timelines

Resources

All school districts with less than 90 percent compliance on this indicator will be required to re-submit data for this indicator to the State to demonstrate correction of noncompliance. 

2008-2011

Self Review Checklist



Overview of the Annual Performance Report Development:

See Overview of the Development of the Annual Performance Report in the Introduction section, page 1.

Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B / Effective Transition

Indicator 14:  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.

(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.

FFY

Measurable and Rigorous Target

FFY 2006

(School Year 2005-06)

None this year. This is the baseline year. See State Performance Plan for discussion of baseline data, establishment of future targets and improvement activities.

Actual Target Data for FFY 2006:

Not applicable.

Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that occurred for FFY 2006:

Not applicable.

Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources for FFY 2006 [If applicable]

Not applicable.


[1] This indicator was revised by USED from the previous year from date of eligibility determination to date evaluations were completed. Also, NYS followed the federal calculation more closely this year compared to last year. For these reasons, the 2006-07 school year data are the State’s new baseline data; they cannot be compared to last year’s data.