Part B Annual Performance Report for 2007-08 - New York State
February 2009
Revised April 2009

Overview of the Annual Performance Report Development:

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

Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE

Indicator 4:  Rates of suspension and expulsion:

  1. 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
  2. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.

Include State’s definition of “significant discrepancy.”

New York State’s (NYS) Notes:

NYS collects data on the number of students with disabilities suspended or expelled out of school for more than 10 days in a school year on the PD-8 report.  This report is available at http://www.p12.nysed.gov/sedcar/forms/pdforms/0809/08pdf/08pd8.pdf.

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.)

NYS’ Definition of Significant Discrepancy in Suspension Rate:

  • For the baseline year and through the 2006-07 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 2007-08 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 2.7 percent or higher).

 

FFY

Measurable and Rigorous Target

FFY 2007
(School Year 2007-08)

4.A.   No more than 2 percent of the school districts in the State will suspend students with disabilities for more than 10 days at a rate of 2.7 percent or higher.  (This rate is two times the baseline average)
4.B.   Reporting this indicator by race and ethnicity is not required for the FFY 2007 APR due February 1, 2009.

Actual Target Data for FFY 2007:

9.4 percent of school districts in the State suspended students with disabilities for more than 10 days at a rate of 2.7 percent or higher.

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%

2006-07

5,622

409,149

1.37%

Three times the State baseline average

2.3%

2007-08

5,173

409,856

1.26%

Two times the State baseline average

9.4%

 

Number of School Districts with their Suspension Rates and Percent of all Suspensions Comparing the 2006-07 to 2007-08 School Year

% of students with disabilities suspended for greater than 10 days

Comparison to statewide baseline average

2006-07

2007-08

# of districts in 2006-07 School Year

% of 684 districts in 2006-07

% of total 10-day out-of-school suspen-sions in 2006-07

# of districts in 2007-08 School Year

% of 683 districts in 2007-08

% of total 10-day out-of-school suspen-sions in 2007-08

Not applicable

Districts with less than 75 students with disabilities enrolled on December 1

100

14.6%

0.8%

104

15.2%

0.6%

0% to <1.3%

Below the baseline Statewide average

415

60.7%

43.1%

400

58.6%

45.3%

≥ 1.3% but <2.7%

Between baseline and 2 times the baseline statewide average

109

15.9%

14.6%

115

16.8%

16.5%

≥ 2.7% but < 4.0%

Between 2 and 3 times the baseline statewide average

44

6.4%

15.2%

45

6.6%

16.4%

≥ 4.0%

Three times or more than the baseline statewide average

16

2.3%

26.4%

19

2.8%

21.1%

Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that occurred for FFY 2007:

Explanation of Progress or Slippage

The State did not achieve its 2007-08 target that no more than two percent of the school districts in the State would suspend students with disabilities for more than 10 days at a rate of 2.7 percent or higher (i.e., at a rate of two times the baseline average).  In the 2007-08 school year, 64 school districts (9.4 percent) had a suspension rate of 2.7 percent or higher.  This rate is the percent of students with disabilities who are suspended out-of-school for more than 10 days during the school year.  Please note that beginning in 2007-08, NYS’ target for this indicator became more rigorous than in prior years.  School districts are now identified as having a significant discrepancy in their rate if they suspend 2.7 percent or more students with disabilities during the year compared to school districts with a rate of 4.0 percent or higher in previous years.

The State did demonstrate progress in the average suspension rate of students with disabilities, which was lower in 2007-08 compared to previous years.  In the 2004-05 school year the Statewide suspension rate was 1.34 percent, in 2005-06 it was 1.30 percent, in 2006-07 it was 1.37 percent and in 2007-08 it was 1.26 percent.

The table below provides a history of notifications that required school districts to review their policies, practices and procedures related to discipline of students with disabilities and to correct their reported noncompliance within one year from notification.  Out of 40 school districts that have completed these self-reviews, 10 remain with some noncompliance; however four of these school districts still have time remaining (within one year from notification) to report on their corrections.

Data Year

Monitoring Year

Number of Districts Identified Based on Their Data

Number of Districts Reporting Noncompliance

Number of Districts Correcting Noncompliance Within one Year

Number of Districts Correcting Noncompliance After one Year

Number of Districts that have not Corrected Noncompliance to Date

2004-05

2005-06

18

18

0

16

2

2005-06

2006-07

17
(4 identified in the previous year)

13

8

1

4

2006-07

2007-08

16
(7 identified in the previous year)

7
(possibly two more after verification review

3

 

4*

2007-08

2008-09

64
(8 identified in the previous year)

These data will be reported in the next APR.

*Time is still remaining for these districts to report correction of noncompliance within one year.

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.

During the 2006-07 school year, based on 2005-06 school year data, 17 school districts were notified that they had a suspension rate that was significantly greater than the suspension rate in other school districts.

During the 2007-08 school year, based on 2006-07 school year data, 16 school districts were notified that they had a suspension rate that was significantly greater than the suspension rate in other school districts.

 
During the 2008-09 school year, based on 2007-08 school year data, 64 school districts will be notified that they have a suspension rate that is significantly greater than the suspension rate in other school districts.

The number of school districts identified based on 2007-08 data is much larger than in previous years because the State’s target for 2007-08 and subsequent years data is much more rigorous.  School districts with two or more times the baseline Statewide average suspension rate (2.7 percent or higher) are being identified, compared to school districts with three or more times the baseline Statewide average (4.0 percent or higher) in previous years.

The table below provides the number and percentage of school districts reporting compliance by regulatory issue relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards, comparing the data from 2006-07 to 2007-08.

Results of Suspension Self-Reviews

Regulatory Citation 8 NYCRR

2006-07
Number and Percent out of 13 School Districts Reporting Compliance

2007-08
Number and Percent out of 9 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.

4

30.8%

6

66.7%

§200.4(b)(4)

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

8

61.5%

7

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.

7

53.8%

5

55.6%

§200.22(a)(3)*

FBAs are based on multiple sources of data, including but not limited to, information obtained from direct observation of the student, information from the student, the student’s teacher(s) and/or related service provider(s), a review of available data and information from the student’s record and other sources including any relevant information provided by the student’s parent. The FBA is not based solely on the student’s history of presenting problem behaviors.

7

53.8%

5

55.6%

§200.22(a)(3)*

The FBA provides a baseline of the student's problem behaviors with regard to frequency, duration, intensity, and/or latency across activities, settings, people and times of the day and includes information in sufficient detail to form the basis for a behavioral intervention plan (BIP) for the student that addresses antecedent behaviors, reinforces consequences of the behavior, recommendations for teaching alternative skills or behaviors and an assessment of student references for reinforcement.

5

38.5%

5

55.6%

§201.3(a)

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

6

46.2%

6

66.7%

§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.

5

38.5%

7

77.8%

§200.3(d)(1)

The general education teacher participated in the Committee on Special Education (CSE) meeting to identify appropriate positive behavioral interventions and strategies for the student.

7

53.8%

8

88.9%

§201.4(e)

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

8

61.5%

8

88.9%

§201.2(a)

BIPs 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.

7

53.8%

5

55.6%

§200.22(b)(4)(i)**

BIPs identify the baseline measure of the problem behavior, including the frequency, duration, intensity and/or latency of the targeted behaviors. Such baseline, to the extent practicable include data taken across activities, settings, people and time of the day.

4

30.8%

5

55.6%

§200.22(b)(4)(ii)**

BIPs identify the intervention strategies to be used to alter antecedent events to prevent the occurrence of the behavior, teach individual alternative and adaptive behavior to the student, and provide consequences for the targeted inappropriate behavior(s) and alternative acceptable behaviors.

8

61.5%

5

55.6%

§200.22(b)(4)(iii)**

BIPs include a schedule to measure the effectiveness of the interventions, including the frequency, duration and intensity of the targeted behaviors at scheduled intervals.

6

48.2%

5

55.6%

§200.22(b)(5)**

The implementation of a student’s BIP includes regular progress monitoring of the frequency, duration and intensity of the behavioral interventions at scheduled intervals. The results of the progress monitoring are documented and reported to the student’s parents and to the CSE and are considered in any determination to revise the student’s BIP or IEP.

5

38.5%

4

44.4%

§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. 

6

46.2%

7

77.8%

§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.

7

53.8%

5

55.6%

§200.4(e)

Behavioral intervention plans are implemented, monitored and progress documented.

6

46.2%

5

55.6%

§201.4(a)

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

8

61.5%

7

77.8%

§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.

10

76.9%

8

88.9%

§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.

8

61.5%

8

88.9%

§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.

10

76.9%

8

88.9%

§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).

9

69.2%

9

100%

§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.

11

84.6%

7

77.8%

§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.

13

100%

9

100%

§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

76.9%

8

88.9%

§201.7(d)

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

7

53.8%

7

77.8%

§201.7(f)

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

13

100%

8

88.9%

§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).

13

100%

7

77.8%

§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. 

12

92.3%

8

88.9%

§ 201.10(e)

Interim alternative educational setting (IAES) and the services to be provided to a student are determined by the CSE

10

76.9%

9

100%

* FBAs conducted after July 1, 2006.

**For BIPs developed after July 1, 2006

Note that in 2006, new NYS regulations were amended to establish new standards for functional behavioral assessments (FBA) and behavioral intervention plans (BIP) (noted in the above chart with * and **).

As shown in the table above, there was a greater percentage of school districts that reported compliance with most regulatory citations in 2007-08 compared to school districts in 2006-07 school year.  Five school districts out of nine in the 2007-08 school year reported being in compliance with 29 of the 30 regulatory requirements.

NYS will use the above information to focus technical assistance and professional development to school districts through the State’s Policy, SEQA and technical assistance networks.

Improvement Activities 1 Completed in 2007-08

The Office of Vocational and Educational Services for Individuals with Disabilities (VESID) accessed technical assistance to further inform its activities to address suspension rates of students with disabilities and to promote positive behavioral supports and interventions in NYS' public and private schools from the Center for Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS).

Also see technical assistance resources accessed as identified for Indicator 1.

Activities completed:

  1. See graduation rates Improvement Activities Completed - Indicator 1
  2. VESID's Behavioral Supports and Interventions Quality Indicator Review and Resource Guide 2 was completed to guide the school improvement support work of VESID funded Special Education Training and Resource Center (SETRC) professional development specialists with school districts identified by VESID as needing assistance or intervention.  This guide was used to assess a school district's system of behavioral supports and to provide research-based technical assistance to school personnel on school-wide positive behavioral supports, classroom management, targeted small group behavioral interventions and intensive individualized behavioral interventions.
  3. SETRC regional trainers provided regional professional development sessions across NYS on NYS standards and quality indicators for FBAs and BIPs.
  4. VESID conducted regular meetings with the New York City Department of Education (NYCDOE) special education central office administration to monitor NYCDOE's implementation of its school improvement plan relating to special education.  Since the 2006-07 review of NYC high schools with high suspension rates, NYC has made changes to their policies and practices to address implementation of FBAs, BIPs, manifestation determination reviews (MDR) and provision of special education services during suspensions.  A suspension manual, including forms for notifying parents, conducting MDRs and developing suspension plans, was developed.  NYC initiated PBIS in 34 schools based on data that indicated high need in regard to suspensions of students with disabilities, in particular those schools disproportionately suspending male minority students.  In addition, training continues to be provided on PBIS. 
  5. SEQA conducted regular meetings with key administrators in the Big 4 City School Districts to address any and all noncompliance including that which was identified for high level of suspension of students with disabilities.
  6. The State Performance Plan (SPP) web page for Indicator 4 was updated during 2007-08 adding links for additional technical assistance resources for school districts, including national technical assistance centers and resources.
  7. NYS-PBIS regional technical assistance centers provided training to approximately 4500 school personnel during 2007-08, through more than 27 distinct trainings encompassing approximately 165 training events.  NYS-PBIS Regional Specialists attended and/or presented in more than 165 professional development training events and meetings within NYS and at national PBIS events during 2007-08; and attended 70 different professional development and training events featuring approximately 20 nationally-recognized PBIS figures, including United States Education Department (USED), Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) PBIS Technical Assistance Centers (TAC) co-directors George Sugai and Robert Horner, OSEP Associate for NYS Independent Living (IL) PBIS Network Statewide Director Dr. Lucille Eber, and Dr. Dean Fixsen.  At the current time, 414 schools are actively implementing PBIS through NYS-PBIS Regional TAC training and technical assistance efforts.
  8. VESID presented to approximately 100 individuals at a statewide meeting of the New York State Association of Behavior Analysis on the State’s standards on positive behavioral supports and interventions.

Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources for FFY 2007 [If applicable]

Consistent with the proposed targets in NYS' SPP, beginning in the 2007-08 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 2.7 percent or higher).

See New York SPP Indicator 4 improvement activities at http://www.p12.nysed.gov/specialed/spp/plan/suspension.htm

http://www.p12.nysed.gov/specialed/techassist/QIcover.htm