Special Education

Annual Performance Report for 2008-09 - February 2010 - Indicator 12

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 12:

  Percent of children referred by Part C prior to age 3, who are found eligible for Part B, and who have an individualized education program (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 eligibility was determined prior to their third birthdays.

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

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

e. # of children who were referred to Part C less than 90 days before their third birthdays.*

f. # of children whose parents chose to continue their child in Early Intervention Program.**

g. # of children who moved, # of children who died,  # of children who started receiving services on the recommended program’s beginning date, even though it was after the child’s third birthday.**

*Note: In March 2009, the United Stated Education Department (USED) added category (e) to the Measurement.
**Note: In 2008-09, New York State (NYS) added f and g to the measurement to be accurate in measurement, consistent with NYS requirements.

Account for children included in a, but not included in b, c, d, e, f or g.  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 – e- f - g)] times 100.

Data Source:

NYS now uses data taken from the State data system.  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 VR12 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% 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 2008:

In FFY 2008, 74.8 percent of children referred from Part C had their eligibility for Part B determined or IEP implemented by their 3rd birthdays or in compliance with timelines established in State law.

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 evaluation, date of the Committee on Preschool Special Education (CPSE) meeting to determine eligibility and date the IEP is implemented.  Reasons for delays are collected for children whose eligibility determination is not made or whose IEPs are not implemented by their third birthday. 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.

The State verifies that each school district whose compliance rate is less than 100 percent completes any remaining eligibility determinations and implements any remaining IEPs.  The State also requires documentation that the school district complies with the time lines associated with this indicator.

Children referred from Part C who had their eligibility for Part B determined or IEP implemented by their 3rd birthday during FFY 2008

a.  Number of children who have been served in Part C and referred to Part B for Part B eligibility determination = 2,849

b.  Number of those referred determined to be NOT eligible and whose eligibility was determined prior to third birthday = 135

c.  Number of those found eligible who have an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthdays = 306

d.  Number for whom parent refusals to provide consent caused delays in evaluation or initial services = 1,133

e.  Number of children who were referred to Part C less than 90 days before their third birthdays.= 19

[This information is not required until the 2011 submission but may be reported in 2010 if the State’s data are available.]

f.   Number of children whose parents chose to continue their child in Early Intervention Program = 1,032

g.  Number of children who either moved (18), # of children who died (1), # of children who started receiving services on the recommended program’s beginning date, even though it was after the child’s third birthday (102) = 121

Number in a but not in b, c, d, e, f or g. = 103

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
Percent = [(c) / (a-b-d-e-f-g)] * 100 = 74.8%

Account for Children Included in a, but not in b, c, d, e, f or g in the above table:

There were 103 students for whom there were delays in implementing the IEP or determining eligibility for Part B services for reasons that are not in compliance with State requirements. The chart below provides reasons for the delays and the extent of delays.

Reasons for Delays Number of Children by Number of Days of Delay in Developing an IEP by Third Birthday or Determining Eligibility for Preschool Special Education Total Percent
Of
Total
1-10 11-20 21-30 Over 30
An approved evaluator was not available to provide an evaluation. 2 0 1 46 48 48%
Additional evaluations were requested outside of the required timeline. 1 2 0 3 6 6%
There were evaluator delays in completing the evaluation. 1 1 1 20 23 22%
Delays in scheduling the CPSE meetings. 1 0 2 12 15 15%
The recommended Part B services were not available when child turned three years of age. 0 0 0 2 2 2%
Inaccurate or incomplete data. 8
(length of delay to be determined)
8* 8%
Total 5 3 4 83 103 100%
Percent of Total 5% 3% 4% 81%

* 8 children have missing or inaccurate data. These children have been counted as not in compliance in the State’s rate.

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 dropped from 78.2 percent to 74.8 percent. Data are analyzed by regions of the State and will be used in developing regional strategies for improvement.

A review of the length of delays indicates: 5 percent of all delays in completing initial evaluations were for 1-10 days; 3 percent for 11-20 days; 4 percent for 21-30 days; and 81 percent for more than 30 days. The number of days of delay has not been determined for 8 children by the time this report was prepared.

A review of the reasons for the delays indicates: 49 percent of delays were because an approved evaluator was not available to provide an evaluation; 6 percent because additional evaluations were requested outside of the required timeline; 23 percent of delays were evaluator delays in completing the evaluation; 15 percent were related to timeliness of scheduling CPSE or Committee on Special Education (CSE) meetings to determine eligibility; and 2 percent were because the recommended Part B services were not available when child turned three years of age. Due to inaccurate or incomplete data, reasons for delays could not be determined for 8 children by the time this report was prepared.

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

NYS issued notifications of noncompliance for this indicator to 28 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 noncompliance notifications 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 chart below provides information on the timely correction of noncompliance among these 28 school districts. Each school district represents one finding.

  1. Number of findings of noncompliance the State made during FFY 2007 (the period from July 1, 2007 through June 30, 2008)  = 28

  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)  = 6
  3. Number of FFY 2007 findings not verified as corrected within one year [(1) minus (2)] = 22

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) = 22

5. Number of FFY 2007 findings the State has verified as corrected beyond the one-year timeline (“subsequent correction”) = 18

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

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

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.

Each school district with continuing noncompliance with this Indicator received notification from the State that it must develop a corrective action plan that includes:

  • The reasons for the district’s failure to provide each eligible preschool child transitioning from early intervention services with special education services by the child’s third birthday, which may include whether the:

a. district received the notification from the early intervention program of children transitioning from early intervention;

b. Chairperson of the CPSE or his/her designee participated in the transition planning meeting conducted by the early intervention program in compliance with 8 NYCRR §200.16(f);

c. eligible child received his/her evaluation within the required timelines, which should include consideration of which of the approved evaluators did not complete the preschool child's individual evaluation within the required time period and the reasons for such delays; and

d. CPSE meeting to determine the child’s eligibility for preschool special education was conducted in a timely manner before the child’s third birthday.

  • The corrective action plan required the identification of 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 such district was provided with technical assistance resources available to assist with the district’s responsibility to correct the noncompliance for this indicator including:

SEQA monitoring 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 to ensure their 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 developed and implemented the IEP, 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 12 for the 2008-09 school year through SIRS.  Correction of noncompliance requires that the district can assure that students transitioning from early intervention programs have their IEPs developed and implemented and that the district can assure the future appropriate provision of timely services to children transitioning from early intervention programs to preschool special education. To demonstrate correction of noncompliance, each school district with noncompliance was scheduled to resubmit data on Indicator 12 (timely transitions from early intervention to preschool special education) for the 2008-09 school year through SIRS.

An on-site review has been scheduled in each district that has not successfully corrected 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 will require specific corrective actions to resolve any remaining instances of individual noncompliance as well as to resolve any systemic reasons causing the district to fail to develop and implement an IEP for a child by their 3rd birthday who has been referred by Part C prior to the age of 3 and who is found eligible under Part B.

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.

NYS issued notifications of noncompliance in FFY 2007 based on data submitted for the FFY 2006 school year.  Correction of these findings is reported above.

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

For FFY 2005 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.

NYS issued notifications of noncompliance in FFY 2007 based on data submitted for the FFY 2005 school year.  Correction of these findings is reported above.

Additional Information Required by the OSEP APR Response Table (if applicable)

Statement from the OSEP 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 early childhood transition requirements in 34 CFR §300.124(b), 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 regulations comply with 34 CFR §300.124(b) for the transition of children from Part C to Part B.  The State is implementing a Court Order Settlement Agreement for the timely placement of preschool children in New York City.  A copy of this agreement was provided to USED.  In addition, the State is implementing actions under the Jose P. Court case in New York City (NYC) relating to timely placements of student.
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 developed and implemented the IEP, although late, unless the child is no longer within the jurisdiction of the LEA consistent with OSEP Memo 09-02. The State, to date, has verified the correction of 24 findings of noncompliance identified for this Indicator. This represents 86 percent of all identified noncompliance. As explained above, 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 and revised its improvement activities as identified 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 based on reviewing data that shows that:

  1. each identified student who did not receive their preschool special education services by their 3rd birthday or within the timeline required by State regulations, and for whom data was not already available in SIRS, has since had his or her IEP developed and implemented or if not, there is a reason that is in compliance with State requirements; and
  2. the district has data to verify that all children who transition from Part C program to preschool special education during a three-month period determined by the district have had their eligibility for preschool special education determined and if found eligible, had their IEP developed and implemented by the child’s third birthday. If not, the district will identify those reasons that are in compliance with State requirements.

This revised procedure will provide more timely verification of correction of noncompliance for this Indicator.

Last Updated: June 30, 2010