Special Education

Annual Performance Report for 2008-09 - February 2010 - Indicator 13

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 13:

Indicator definition used through school year 2008-09:  Percent of youth aged 15* and above with an individualized education program (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. New York State (NYS) has elected to measure this beginning at age 15, since NYS law and regulations require that transition services be indicated on a student’s IEP to be in effect when the student turns age 15.

Because of the change in definition in March 2009, the United States Education Department (USED) does not require reporting in the February 2010 APR for the 2008-09 school year, although NYS completed the data collection and will report individual school district data using the prior definition.  NYS will resume reporting in the APR due February 1, 2011 using data collected during 2009-10 under the new definition.

Measurement used through school year 2008-09:

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 15 and above times 100.

Data Source:

NYS will use data taken from State monitoring.

Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) Measurable and Rigorous Target
FFY 2008
(2008-09 school year)
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. Note: No reporting is required in the February 2010 submission, although data continued to be collected from individual school districts using the prior definition.

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

Actual Target Data for FFY 2008:

N/A

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

Explanation of Progress or Slippage

N/A

Correction of Identified Noncompliance

Correction of FFY 2007 Findings of Noncompliance:

The level of compliance (actual target data) that the State reported for FFY 2007 for this indicator was 58.6%

  1. Number of findings of noncompliance the State made during FFY 2007 (the period from July 1, 2007 through June 30, 2008) = 391 (83 districts)
  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) = 247 (59 districts)
  3. Number of FFY 2007 findings not verified as corrected within one year [(1) minus (2)] = 144 (35 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) = 144 (35 districts)

5. Number of FFY 2007 findings the State has verified as corrected beyond the one-year timeline (“subsequent correction”) = 123 (31 districts)

6. Number of FFY 2007 findings not yet verified as corrected [(4) minus (5)] = 21 (5 districts)

Actions Taken if Noncompliance Found in FFY 2007 Is 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.

Ninety-five percent (95%) of the FFY 2007 findings of noncompliance for this Indicator have been corrected to date.  Each school district that did not provide a report of correction of noncompliance within 12 months of notification received written notice that it must develop a corrective action plan to identify the root cause of the continuing noncompliance and obtain technical assistance to correct its noncompliance. 

The State is monitoring the districts’ implementation of their corrective action plans with Special Education Quality Assurance (SEQA) staff following 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.

An on-site review has been scheduled in each district that has not successfully corrected the noncompliance that has continued beyond 12 months after identification.  During the review, SEQA staff determine the reasons that a district has not successfully corrected the noncompliance and requires specific corrective actions to resolve any remaining instances of individual noncompliance.

Verification of Correction of FFY 2007 Noncompliance (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 an IEP that includes the required transition content for each individual case of noncompliance, unless the child is no longer within the jurisdiction of the LEA, consistent with OSEP Memorandum 09-02.

The State requires that a team from each school district conduct a review of each student's IEP to verify correction of noncompliance using the State's monitoring protocol related to transition planning. Correction of noncompliance is required for each individual student whose IEP was determined to be not in compliance with all regulatory citations.  Upon completion of the individual IEP reviews, the school superintendent must provide an assurance verifying accuracy of the district's report to the State.  All reports to the State are subject to verification.

To verify correction of noncompliance, the State requires the district to document on a State-developed Individual Student Record Review Form that, for each student whose IEP did not include appropriate transition goals and services in the 2007-08 school year and for whom the district continues to have Committee on Special Education (CSE) responsibility, the CSE has met to develop a new IEP that is in compliance with the transition requirements.  In addition, the district must have addressed the reasons why the students did not receive appropriate IEPs in order to ensure that other students will have appropriate transition planning on their IEPs.  This documentation is subject to verification by the State.

For any district with continuing noncompliance beyond 12 months, they were required to develop a corrective action plan to document:

  • the reasons for the district’s failure to provide each student with an IEP that includes coordinated, measurable, annual IEP goals and transition services that will reasonably enable students to meet their post-secondary goals. In considering the reasons, the district must consider information obtained during the self-review process for each compliance issue identified; and
  • identification of the actions the district has taken and will take to demonstrate compliance, including the strategies related to these categories of factors/reasons and, for each strategy, who is responsible and the timeline for completing the strategy.

The State verifies the correct of noncompliance for New York City (NYC) by requiring annual monitoring for compliance with this indicator.

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.

Each school district that did not provide a report of correction of noncompliance within 12 months of notification received written notice that it must develop a corrective action plan to identify the root cause of the continuing noncompliance and obtain technical assistance to correct its noncompliance.

The State is monitoring the districts’ implementation of their corrective action plans with SEQA staff following 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.

An on-site review has been scheduled in each district that has not successfully corrected the noncompliance that has continued beyond 12 months after identification.  During the review, SEQA staff determine the reasons that a district has not successfully corrected the noncompliance and requires specific corrective actions to resolve any remaining instances of individual noncompliance.

To address continuing noncompliance with this Indicator in NYC, SEQA regional associates meet on a monthly basis with NYC administrators to discuss the status of compliance issues and the action steps taken by the school, including district-wide trainings and initiatives to ensure compliance.  The State supported the NYC Department of Education in developing multi-agency Transition Forums for all five boroughs.  These Forums were open to school principals, school psychologists and Transition Linkage Coordinators, to familiarize school-level staff with regulatory requirements, best practices, and available resources.  The State provided NYC with additional grant funds to provide training to its school personnel on IEP transition planning and to develop transition programs in several schools.

Correction of noncompliance for FFY 2006 is reported by compliance findings rather than by school district.

  1. Number of findings of noncompliance the State made during FFY 2006 (the period from July 1, 2006 through June 30, 2007) = 525 (105 districts)
  2. Number of FFY 2006 findings the State verified as timely corrected (corrected within one year from the date of notification to the LEA of the finding) = 94 (24 districts)
  3. Number of FFY 2006 findings not verified as corrected within one year [(1) minus (2)] = 431 (89 districts)

Correction of FFY 2006 Findings of Noncompliance Not Timely Corrected (corrected more than one year from identification of the noncompliance):

4. Number of FFY 2006 findings not timely corrected (same as the number from (3) above) = 431 (89 districts)

5. Number of FFY 2006 findings the State has verified as corrected beyond the one-year timeline (“subsequent correction”) = 421 (88 districts)

6. Number of FFY 2006 findings not yet verified as corrected [(4) minus (5)] = 10 (3 districts)

Ninety-eight percent (98%) of all findings from FFY 2006 have been corrected to date.

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

School districts that identified some noncompliance in FFY 2005 were provided notification of noncompliance in FFY 2006. The correction of this noncompliance is reported in the data for FFY 2006, above. The delay in notification was the result of systems development to use State reported data and develop processes to notify school districts and processes to track the correction of noncompliance.

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

Statement from the OSEP Response Table State’s Response
The State reported that noncompliance identified in FFY 2005 and FFY 2006 with the secondary transition requirements in 34 CFR §300.320(b) was partially corrected. The State must demonstrate, in the FFY 2008 APR, due February 1, 2010, that the remaining noncompliance 39 uncorrected noncompliance findings were corrected.
Although the State is not required to report data for this indicator in the FFY 2008 APR, the State must report on the timely correction of the noncompliance reported by the State under this indicator in the FFY 2007 APR and the findings of noncompliance from FFY 2005 and FFY 2006 not reported as corrected in the FFY 2007 APR
In the previous APRs, the State reported on the number of school districts that reported some noncompliance for this indicator by the year in which they reported the noncompliance. In this APR, the State is reporting on the correction of noncompliance based on the year in which school districts were notified of noncompliance (or the year in which the findings were made). This format of reporting is consistent with the guidance provided by USED.
As reported above, school districts have corrected 95 percent of findings made during the FFY 2007 school year and 98 percent of findings made during the FFY 2006 school year.
The Department continues to monitor the corrective action plans in the remaining school districts to ensure correction of 100 percent of findings from all school years.
The State must report, in its FFY 2008 APR due February 1, 2010, that it has verified that each LEA with remaining noncompliance: (1) is correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirements; and (2) has developed an IEP that includes the required transition content for each youth, unless the youth is no longer within the jurisdiction of the LEA consistent with OSEP Memo 09-02. The State verified that the LEAs corrected noncompliance through a review of each student's IEP using the State developed self-review monitoring protocol and through written assurance from the school superintendent of the accuracy of the monitoring report and correction of noncompliance.  The State also required these districts to re-report on this indicator to demonstrate sustained correction of 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 for this indicator as described below.

Improvement Activities Completed in 2008-09

  • The Office of Vocational and Educational Services for Individuals with Disabilities (VESID) accessed federal technical assistance to further inform its activities to improve transition planning for students with disabilities.  This included a review of information and resources, including but not limited to information available through the following Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) technical assistance centers:  National Post-School Outcome Center (NPSO), National Dropout Prevention Center for Students with Disabilities (NDPC-SD), and National Secondary Transition Technical Assistance Center (NSTTAC).  VESID plans to continue calling upon federal technical assistance resources to assist with the redesign of our State’s transition technical assistance process as described below.
  • NYS redesigned its special education technical assistance system to replace the seven separately funded Transition Coordination Site (TCS) network with a new system through which Transition Specialists (TS) are part of a team of specialists in each region of the State through 10 Regional Special Education Technical Assistance Support Centers (RSE-TASC).  Through this redesign, the number of transition specialists increased from seven to 10.
  • A three-day training program for CSE chairpersons was developed.  This training, delivered in multiple sessions in each region of the State, provides extensive information on appropriate IEP development and transition planning.
  • The State provided school districts identified as needing assistance or intervention with grant funds to address the root causes of the compliance and performance issues.
  • Also see activities completed for Indicators 1, 2, 8 and 14.

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

The State will issue a State Model IEP form in 2010 with accompanying guidance.  This form will be required for use beginning with all NYS IEPs developed for the 2011-12 school year and thereafter.  This form is expected to assist districts to appropriately document transition plans on students’ IEPs.

In 2010, the State will issue additional guidance to school districts on IEP transition planning and standards for the review of IEPs to ensure compliance with the State’s requirements.

The State will provide, through its RSE-TASC, increased training and technical assistance on transition planning requirements to all school districts, with priority for attendance to districts identified as needing assistance or intervention based on the quality of transition IEPs.

Last Updated: June 30, 2010