Special Education

Annual Performance Report for 2008-09 - February 2010 - Indicator 11

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 11: Percent of children who were evaluated within 60 days of receiving parental consent for initial evaluation or, if the State establishes a timeframe within which the evaluation must be conducted, within that timeline.
(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B))

Measurement:

(a) # of children for whom parental consent to evaluate was received.
(b) # of children whose evaluations were completed within 60 days (or State established timelines*).

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

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

*The State’s established timelines to complete the initial evaluation and eligibility determinations is 30 school days for preschool students and 60 calendar days for school-age students.

New York State’s (NYS) Calculation:

NYS’ formula calculating 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.

Data Source:

Beginning with the 2007-08 year, NYS collects data for this indicator via the Student Information Repository System (SIRS) and verifies these data by displaying them in a VR11 report, which was developed in the PD Data System.  SIRS is NYS' individual student data reporting system.

Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) Measurable and Rigorous Target
FFY 2008
(2008-09 school year)
100 percent of children with parental consent to evaluate will be evaluated within State required timelines.

Actual Target Data for FFY 2008:

In FFY 2008, 74.6 percent of students were evaluated within State established timelines.

NYS’ Method Used to Collect Data

NYS collects individual student data through SIRS.  School districts report specific dates when special education events occur such as the date of referral, date of written parent consent for an initial individual evaluation and the date of the Committee on Preschool Special Education (CPSE) or Committee on Special Education (CSE) meeting to discuss evaluation results.  Information is also collected regarding the number of days from receipt of parent consent to evaluate the child and the date of the CPSE or CSE meeting to discuss evaluation results. If the number of days exceeds the State established timelines, reasons for delays are collected.  Some reasons are considered to be in compliance with State requirements and other reasons are not in compliance.  Each school district’s compliance rate is calculated.  NYS requires documentation from each school district whose compliance rate is less than 100 percent that demonstrates each student’s evaluation was completed and that it complies with the regulatory time lines associated with timely completion of initial individual evaluations.

Children Evaluated Within 60 Days (or State-established timeline) during FFY 2008:

a. Number of children for whom parental consent to evaluate was received = 9456

b. Number of children whose evaluations were completed within 60 days (or State-established timelines) = 7050

Percent of children with parental consent to evaluate, who were evaluated within 60 days (or State-established timeline)  (Percent = [(b) divided by (a)] times 100) = 74.6%

Account for children included in (a) but not included in (b) in the above table:

There are 2,406 students in (a.) and not in (b.) of the above table. These are students for whom evaluations were not completed within State established timelines for reasons which are not in compliance with State requirements. The chart below provides information regarding the extent of delays and reasons for not completing the initial evaluations of children within the State established timelines.

 

Reasons for Delays Number of Children by Number of Days of Delay in Completing Evaluations Total Percent of Total
1-10 11-20 21-30 Over 30
An approved evaluator was not available to provide a timely evaluation. 151 120 84 109 464 19.3%
Evaluator delays in completing evaluations. 341 237 156 246 980 40.7%
Delays in scheduling CPSE or CSE meetings. 427 244 127 164 962 40.0%
Total 919 601 367 519 2,406  
Percent of Total 38.2% 25.0% 15.3% 21.6%   100%

Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that Occurred for FFY 2008:

Explanation of Progress or Slippage in FFY 2008:

In 2008-09, NYS’ compliance rate improved to 74.6%, an increase of 7.2 percentage points over 67.4% in 2007-08.  However, the State did not achieve its target of 100% compliance.  The State measures its performance each year based on a different representative sample of school districts.  Therefore, the State’s results do not reflect improvements made by other districts that have corrected their noncompliance.  Ninety percent (90%) of findings of noncompliance identified in 2007-08 have been corrected.  Improvement for this indicator therefore demonstrates the proactive attention given to this compliance issue.

A review of the length of delays indicates: 38.2 percent of all delays in completing initial evaluations were for 1-10 days; 25.0 percent for 11-20 days; 15.3 percent for 21-30 days; and 21.6 percent for more than 30 days.

A review of the reasons for the delays indicates: 19.3 percent of delays were because an approved evaluator was not available to provide a timely evaluation; 40.7 percent because of evaluator delays in completing the evaluations; and 40.0 percent related to timeliness of scheduling CPSE or CSE meetings to discuss evaluation results. 

Correction of FFY 2007 Findings of Noncompliance (if State reported less than 100% compliance):

NYS issued notifications of noncompliance for this indicator to 210 school districts.  These school districts had submitted data representing the 2005-06 and 2006-07 school years.  School districts that submitted data representing the 2007-08 school year were issued notifications of noncompliance in the 2008-09 school year, so the State will report on their correction of noncompliance in the next APR, due February 1, 2011.  Delays in systems development resulted in late notifications based on data collected for the 2005-06 and 2006-07 school years.  The specifications for developing automated programs that evaluate each reason for delay and accurately compute each school district’s compliance rate for preschool and school-age students were complex and required significant amount of collaboration among staff and revisions in the program code.  These programs continue to be enhanced as new scenarios such as additional reasons for delays are identified.

The chart below provides information on the timely correction of findings of noncompliance in 210 school districts.

  1. Number of findings of noncompliance the State made during FFY 2007 (the period from July 1, 2007 through June 30, 2008) = 367 (210 districts – counting NYC twice)
  2. Number of FFY 2007 findings the State verified as timely corrected (corrected within one year from the date of notification to the local educational agency (LEA) of the finding) =   147 (86 districts)
  3. Number of FFY 2007 findings not verified as corrected within one year [(1) minus (2)] = 220
    (124 districts)

Correction of FFY 2007 Findings of Noncompliance Not Timely Corrected (corrected more than one year from identification of the noncompliance):

4. Number of FFY 2007 findings not timely corrected (same as the number from (3) above) = 220 (124 districts)

5. Number of FFY 2007 findings the State has verified as corrected beyond the one-year timeline (“subsequent correction”) = 210 (119 districts)

6. Number of FFY 2007 findings not verified as corrected [(4) minus (5)] = 10 (5 districts)

Actions Taken if Noncompliance Found in FFY 2007 Was Not Corrected:

For FFY 2007 findings for which the State has not yet verified correction, explain what the State has done to identify the root cause(s) of continuing noncompliance, and what the State is doing about the continued lack of compliance, including, as appropriate, enforcement actions taken against an LEA that continues to show noncompliance. 

Each school district that failed to report and verify its correction of noncompliance within 12 months of the date of notification of noncompliance was issued written notification to develop a corrective action plan that included the reasons for the district’s failure to provide each student with an individual evaluation within the State’s required timeline, which was required to consider the district’s procedures and practices for conducting timely individual evaluations, staff training and supervision that relate to the current noncompliance; and in addition, for delays in preschool evaluations, the corrective action plan had to identify those approved evaluators that did not complete the preschool child's individual evaluation within the required time period and the reasons for such delays; and include consideration of procedures to ensure CPSE meetings are conducted in a timely manner to determine a child’s eligibility for special education and provide its recommendation to the Board of Education within 30 school days of the parent’s written consent for the evaluation.  Further, the corrective action plan had to identify the actions the district would take to demonstrate compliance, including the strategies related to these categories of factors/reasons and, for each strategy, identification of who is responsible and the timeline for completing the strategy.

Each of the districts with identified noncompliance beyond one year was also directed to technical assistance resources that were available to assist with the district’s responsibility to correct the noncompliance for this indicator as follows:

SEQA staff followed up with each of the districts with identified noncompliance beyond one year to determine the status of the district’s corrective action plan and the status of the district’s correction of noncompliance.

Verification of Correction of Noncompliance Found in FFY 2007 (either timely or subsequent):

For those findings for which the State has reported correction, describe the process the State used to verify that the LEA:  (1) is correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirements; and (2) has completed the initial evaluation, although late, unless the child is no longer within the jurisdiction of the LEA, consistent with OSEP Memorandum 09-02.

The State verified the correction of noncompliance by requiring the school district to submit an assurance of the accuracy of the district’s report of correction of noncompliance and by requiring the district to resubmit data on Indicator 11 (timely evaluations) for the 2008-09 school year through SIRS.  Correction of noncompliance for Indicator 11 (timely evaluations) requires that each student who had not received his or her initial individual evaluation with the State's required timeline as reported for Indicator 11 has since been evaluated to determine eligibility for special education.  In addition, correction of noncompliance also means that the district has addressed the reasons why the students did not receive their evaluations on time to ensure that all students receive timely individual evaluations. 

An on-site review has been scheduled in each district that has not submitted an assurance that they have successfully corrected their noncompliance that has continued beyond 12 months after identification.  During the review, SEQA determines the reasons that a district has not successfully corrected the noncompliance and requires specific corrective actions to resolve any remaining instances of individual noncompliance as well as to resolve any systemic reasons causing the district to go beyond the State-established timelines for evaluation.

Correction of Remaining FFY 2006 Findings of Noncompliance (if applicable):

For FFY 2006 findings for which the State has not yet verified correction, explain what the State has done to identify the root cause(s) of continuing noncompliance, and what the State is doing about the continued lack of compliance, including, as appropriate, enforcement actions taken against an LEA that continues to show noncompliance.

As explained above, the State issued findings based on FFY2006 data in the FFY 2007 school year.

Correction of Any Remaining Findings of Noncompliance from FFY 2005 or Earlier (if applicable):

As explained above, the State issued findings based on FFY2005 data in the FFY 2007 school year.

Additional Information Required by the OSEP APR Response Table for this Indicator (if applicable):

Statement from the Response Table State’s Response
The State must demonstrate, in the FFY 2008 APR due February 1, 2010, that the State is in compliance with the timely initial evaluations requirements in 34 CFR §300.301( c)(1), including correction of the noncompliance that the State reported under this indicator in the FFY 2007 APR, and the findings issued in FFY 2007 based on the FFY 2005 and FFY 2006 data.
The State must report, in its FFY 2008 APR due February 1, 2010, that it has verified that each LEA with noncompliance reported by the State under this indicator in the FFY 2007 APR, including the findings of noncompliance based on the FFY 2005 and FFY 2006 data: (1) is correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirements; and (2) has completed the initial evaluation although late, unless the child is no longer within the jurisdiction of the LEA consistent with OSEP Memo 09-02.
To date, the State has verified the correction of 357 findings of noncompliance identified for this Indicator.  This represents 97 percent of all identified findings for this indicator.
As explained above, to ensure correction of 100 percent of findings, the State continues to monitor each remaining school district’s corrective action plan and to take appropriate monitoring actions for unresolved noncompliance.
If the State is unable to demonstrate compliance in the FFY 2008 APR, the State must review its improvement activities and revise them, if necessary to ensure compliance. The State has reviewed its improvement activities.  Revisions are noted below.

Improvement Activities Completed in 2008-09

ECDC and NYS SEQA staff facilitated regional meetings with preschool evaluators and school district to identify and address the reasons that preschool students were not receiving their evaluations within the required timelines. 

References to the federal technical assistance resources were built into the notifications to school districts that demonstrated continuing noncompliance as well as into the correspondence to superintendents letting them know of their FFY 2009 reporting responsibilities.  The federal technical assistance centers recommended to assist with field understanding of issues and effective practices included National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center (NECTAC).  Directions for corrective action planning contained in the notifications of continuing noncompliance were modeled on the “Resources for Systems Change and Improvement Planning” section of the SPP/APR calendar, available at http://spp-apr-calendar.rrfcnetwork.org/explorer/view/id/650?1#category1. Additionally, a team of policy, program development and monitoring staff that work with early childhood issues and programs participate regularly in the monthly Community of Practice (CoP) calls sponsored by NECTAC to gain insight into critical issues and benchmark practices nationally.

Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources for FFY 2008 [If applicable]

Beginning in 2010, the State will require a school district to develop a corrective action plan to address continuing noncompliance if it fails to report correction of noncompliance within nine months.

Verification of correction of noncompliance will be measured based on a review to ensure that each identified student, whose initial evaluation was not completed in compliance with State time lines, and for whom data was not already available in SIRS, has since had his or her initial evaluation completed.  If not, there is a reason that is in compliance with State requirements.  Additionally, during a three-month period determined by the district, a review of all students for whom parent consent to evaluate was received demonstrates that all students during this time period received their initial individual evaluations within the State required timelines.  This revised procedure will provide more timely verification of correction of noncompliance for this Indicator.

Last Updated: June 30, 2010