Special Education

Annual Performance Report for 2008-09 - February 2010 - Indicator 3

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 3:  Participation and performance of children with individualized education programs (IEPs) on statewide assessments:

A.  Percent of the districts with a disability subgroup that meets the State’s minimum “n” size that meet the State’s adequate yearly progress (AYP) targets for the disability subgroup.
B. Participation rate for children with IEPs
C.  Proficiency rate for children with IEPs against grade level, modified and alternate academic achievement standards.
(20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A))

Measurement:

A. AYP percent = [(# of districts with a disability subgroup that meets the State’s minimum “n” size that meet the State’s AYP targets for the disability subgroup) divided by the (total # of districts that have a disability subgroup that meets the State’s minimum “n” size)] times 100.

B. Participation rate percent = [(# of children with IEPs participating in the assessment) divided by the (total # of children with IEPs enrolled during the testing window, calculated separately for reading and math)].  The participation rate is based on all children with IEPs, including both children with IEPs enrolled for a full academic year and those not enrolled for a full academic year.

C. Proficiency rate percent = [(# of children with IEPs enrolled for a full academic year scoring at or above proficient) divided by the (total # of children with IEPs enrolled for a full academic year, calculated separately for reading and math)].

Notes:

  • New York State (NYS) Public reports of assessment results are available at http://www.p12.nysed.gov/irs/reportcard/.
  • NYS administers alternate assessments against alternate achievement standards aligned to grade level content.
  • NYS does not administer assessments against modified achievement standards.

Data Source:

NYS uses AYP data as is used for accountability reporting under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).

 

Federal Fiscal Year (FFY)

Measurable and Rigorous Target

FFY 2008
(2008-09 school year)

AYP: 59 percent of school districts that are required to make AYP for the students with disabilities subgroup will make AYP in grades 3-8 English language arts (ELA), grades 3-8 math, high school ELA and high school math.

Participation: 95 percent in grades 3-8 and high school in ELA and math.

Performance: The State’s average performance on the performance indices (PI) which represent the percent of students with disabilities performing at Level 2 (basic proficiency) and above plus the percent of students with disabilities performing at Level 3 (proficiency) and above will be as follows:
Grades 3-8 ELA:  106
Grades 3-8 Math: 115
High School ELA:  129
High School Math: 139

Actual Target Data for FFY 2008:

AYP

In the 2008-09 school year, 82.7 percent of school districts (including Charter Schools) that were required to make AYP did so in every grade and subject in which they had a sufficient number of students with disabilities.  This exceeds the target by 23.7 percentage points, and represents more than an 11 percentage point increase over last year.

AYP for Students with Disabilities Subgroup

FFY

Number of School Districts Required to Make AYP (had minimum of 40 students for participation and 30 students for performance)

Number and Percent of School Districts that made AYP in all Required Subjects

2004 (2004-05)

290

48.3%

2005 (2005-06)

675 (includes 5 Charter Schools)

57.2%

2006 (2006-07)

648 (includes 12 Charter Schools)

75.5%

2007 (2007-08)

655 (includes 19 Charter Schools)

71.3% (n=467)

2008 (2008-09)

665 (includes 25 Charter Schools)

82.7% (n=550)

 

AYP for Students with Disabilities Subgroup by Need/Resource Capacity Category of School Districts

Need/Resource Capacity Category of School Districts

2007-08

2008-09

Number of School Districts Required to Make AYP
(minimum 40 students for participation and 30 students for performance)

Percent of School Districts that made AYP in all Required Subjects

Number of School Districts Required to Make AYP
(minimum 40 students for participation and 30 students for performance)

Percent of School Districts that made AYP in all Required Subjects

New York City

32

6.3%

32

9.4%

Large Four Cities

4

0.0%

4

0.0%

Urban-Suburban High Need Districts

43

48.8%

43

48.8%

Rural High Need Districts

123

69.1%

121

91.7%

Average Need Districts

316

74.7%

321

86.0%

Low Need Districts

118

88.1%

119

95.8%

Charter Schools

19

100.0%

25

100.0%

Participation Rate

The participation rate of students with disabilities in the 2008-09 school year exceeded the target in every category, as follows:

  • Grades 3-8 ELA:98 percent
  • Grades 3-8 Math:98 percent
  • High School ELA: 95 percent
  • High School Math: 96 percent

Participation Rates for Students with Disabilities Subgroup

Assessment

2007-08

2008-09

Enrollment

Participation
Rate

Enrollment

Participation
Rate

Grade 3-8 ELA

211,495

96.8%

208,435

98%

Grade 3-8 Math

211,104

96.9%

208,210

98%

High School ELA (seniors)

19,080

92.7%

19,659

95%

High School Math (seniors)

19,080

94.0%

19,659

96%

Performance

The State has four Performance Indices (PI).  The PIs represent the percent of students scoring at Levels 3-4, plus the percent of students scoring at Levels 2-4.  If 100 percent of students performed at proficient levels, the index score would be 200 (100 Percent at Level 3-4 and 100 percent at Level 2-4). In the 2008-09 school year, the State's average performance for the students with disabilities subgroup on these indices was as follows:

  • Grades 3-8 ELA:           133 (met the target)
  • Grades 3-8 Math:         149 (met the target)
  • High School ELA:         123 (missed the target by 6 points)
  • High School Math:        128 (missed the target by 11 points)

 

Performance Index for the Students with Disabilities Subgroup

Assessment

2008-09 Performance

2008-09 Standard

Students with Disabilities Made AYP in 2008-09

2009-10 AMO or
Safe- Harbor Target

Continuously Enrolled Students with Disabilities in Grades 3-8 and in 2005 Accountability Cohort in High School (HS)

NYS PI

Effective AMO*

Safe- Harbor Target

Met Third Indicator for Safe Harbor

Grades 3-8 ELA

198,953

133

144

124

Yes

Yes

140

Grades 3-8 Math

197,203

149

119

--

Yes

Yes

  135

HS ELA 2005 accountability cohort

24,883

123

171

126

No

No

131

HS Math 2005 accountability cohort

24,883

128

166

133

No

No

135

* Annual measurable objective (AMO)

Public Reporting of Assessment Information:

Public reports of assessment results are available at http://www.p12.nysed.gov/irs/reportcard/.

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

Explanation of Progress or Slippage

AYP:

The State far exceeded its 2008 AYP target for the percentage of school districts that achieved AYP in all of their required subjects.  In the 2007-08 school year, 71.3 percent of the required school districts (including Charter Schools) made AYP and in the 2008-09 school year, 82.7 percent of school districts (including Charter Schools) made AYP.  The target for the 2008-09 school year was 59 percent.

The data provided in the above charts indicate a significant difference in the percent of school districts that made AYP for the students with disabilities subgroup in the Big Five Cities and the urban-suburban high need school districts compared with other school districts in the State.  For example, three community school districts in New York City (NYC) made AYP, none of the large four cities made AYP, and less than half of the urban-suburban high need districts made AYP compared to 91.7 percent of rural high need districts, 86 percent of average need school districts, 95.8 percent of low need school districts and 100 percent of Charter schools.


Participation:

The State met or exceeded the participation rate target of 95 percent in all the required subjects and grades for the first time since assessments began to be administered in each of Grades 3-8 and high school (in the 2005-06 school year).  In grades 3-8 ELA and math, the State’s rate was 98 percent compared to 97 percent in 2007-08. In high school ELA, for the first time, the State achieved a rate of 95 percent compared to 94 percent in 2007-08. In high school math, the rate improved to 96 percent compared to 95 percent in the 2007-08 school year.

Performance:

The State’s performance target was to increase each year’s PI target by five points.  The 2008-09 target for grades 3-8 ELA was a PI of 106, which the State exceeded with a PI of 133.  The target for grades 3-8 math was a PI of 115, and the State exceeded this target with a PI of 149.  The high school ELA target was 129, and the State achieved a PI of 123 (only six points short of the target).  In high school math, the target was 139 but the State’s PI was 128 (11 points short of the target).

Improvement Activities Completed during 2008-09

The Office of Vocational and Educational Services for Individuals with Disabilities (VESID) obtained technical assistance from the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) National Technical Assistance Center on Response to Intervention (RtI), the National Instructional Materials Accessibility Standards (NIMAS) Technical Assistance Center, the National Center on Student Progress Monitoring and the New York Comprehensive Center to further inform and advance the State's initiatives in this area.

  • Through a regional planning process, resources were directed to identified school districts. This included focused reviews by VESID, Special Education Quality Assurance (SEQA) and /or quality improvement technical assistance provided by the State’s special education technical assistance centers.
  • In four of the five largest school districts in NYS, SEQA monitoring staff conducted reviews to determine if the district’s policies, practices and procedures offered the foundation for students with disabilities to receive programs that are reasonably calculated to result in educational benefit and improved outcomes. The reviews focused on the areas of individual initial evaluations/reevaluations; Committee on Special Education annual review and progress monitoring processes; and the delivery of special education programs and services.  As a result of these reviews, district-wide systemic Compliance Assurance Plans were implemented in each of the Big 4 City Districts.
  • SEQA staff conducted 32 monitoring reviews that focused on special education delivery, access to the general education curriculum and educational benefit.  Through the reviews, districts’ policies, instructional practices and procedures were targeted to ensure positive outcomes for students with disabilities.  Compliance is used to ensure effective and appropriate instruction is delivered.
  • VESID funded a State technical assistance center on RtI and provided 14 grants to school districts to develop high quality RtI programs. 

Also see technical assistance obtained as noted under indicator 1.

See activities reported as completed under Indicator 1.

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

As required for this indicator, the State will need to revise its future Performance targets beginning with the 2009-10 school year, to be consistent with those under Title I of ESEA.

Last Updated: June 30, 2010