Special Education

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:  Percent of youth with IEPs aged 15 and above with an individualized education program (IEP) that includes appropriate measurable post-secondary goals that are annually updated and based upon an age-appropriate transition assessment, transition services, including courses of study, that will reasonably enable the student to meet those post-secondary goals, and annual IEP goals related to the student’s transition services needs.  There also must be evidence that the student was invited to the IEP Team meeting where transition services are to be discussed and evidence that, if appropriate, a representative of any participating agency was invited to the IEP Team meeting with the prior consent of the parent or student who has reached the age of majority.   (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 beginning with the IEP in effect when the student turns age 15. In NYS, the IEP Team is the Committee on Special Education (CSE).

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.

Measurement used as of school year 2009-10:
Percent = [(# of youth with IEPs aged 15 and above with an IEP that includes appropriate measurable post-secondary goals that are annually updated and based upon an age-appropriate transition assessment, transition services, including courses of study, that will reasonably enable the student to meet those post-secondary goals, and annual IEP goals related to the student’s transition services needs.  There also must be evidence that the student was invited to the CSE meeting where transition services are to be discussed and evidence that, if appropriate, a representative of any participating agency was invited to the CSE meeting with the prior consent of the parent or student who has reached the age of majority) divided by the (# of youth with an IEP age 15 and above)] times 100.

Data Source:
NYS uses data taken from State monitoring.

Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) Measurable and Rigorous Target
FFY 2009
(2009-10 school year)
100 percent of youth* aged 15 and above will have IEPs that include appropriate measurable post-secondary goals that are annually updated and based upon an age-appropriate transition assessment, transition services, including courses of study, that will reasonably enable the student to meet those post-secondary goals, and annual IEP goals related to the student’s transition services needs, with evidence that the student was invited to the CSE meeting where transition services are to be discussed and evidence that, if appropriate, a representative of any participating agency was invited to the CSE meeting with the prior consent of the parent or student who has reached the age of majority.

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

Actual Target Data for FFY 2009:

Year Number of Youth Age 15 and Above Whose Transition IEPs were Reviewed Number of IEPs in Full Compliance with all Transition Requirements Percent of IEPs in Full Compliance with all Transition Requirements
FFY 2008 3,290 2,029 61.7%
FFY 2009 See SPP for new baseline data See SPP for new baseline data See SPP for new baseline data

See SPP for new baseline data.

Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress

See SPP for new baseline data, targets and improvement activities.

Correction of FFY 2008 Findings of Noncompliance:

  1. Number of findings of noncompliance the State made during FFY 2008 (the period from July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2009)
523
(127 school districts)
  1. Number of FFY 2008 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)
291
(75 school districts)
  1. Number of FFY 2008 findings not verified as corrected within one year [(1) minus (2)]
232
(52 school districts)
Correction of FFY 2008 Findings of Noncompliance Not Timely Corrected (corrected more than one year from identification of the noncompliance):
  1. Number of FFY 2008 findings not timely corrected (same as the number from (3) above)
232
(52 school districts)
  1. Number of FFY 2008 findings the State has verified as corrected beyond the one-year timeline (“subsequent correction”) 
223
(50 school districts)

  1. Number of FFY 2008 findings not yet verified as corrected [(4) minus (5)]
9
(2 school districts)

Actions Taken if Noncompliance Found in FFY 2008 Is Not Corrected:

For FFY 2008 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.

There remain two school districts in the State that have not corrected findings relating to this indicator as identified in FFY 2008.  One of these districts has continuing noncompliance with one finding.  In the other school district, which is one of NYS’ largest school districts, there are 8 findings uncorrected.

The State provided electronic notification at three-month intervals to school districts as a reminder of the noncompliance that needs to be corrected and the next steps that would be taken should timely correction not occur.  For each school district that did not correct its noncompliance within 30 days of its nine-month notice, the State required the district to develop a corrective action plan that includes:

  • the reasons for the school district’s failure to provide each student with an appropriate 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 monitored the districts’ implementation of the above-referenced corrective action plans and required them to be submitted to the Office of Special Education.  The Office of Special Education monitoring staff conducted on-site reviews in each of the districts with identified noncompliance beyond one year to determine the status of the districts’ correction of noncompliance.  Using this process, the State has verified the correction of 50 of the 52 school districts with findings of noncompliance beyond the one-year timeline.

For the school district with one finding of uncorrected noncompliance from FFY 2008, the State conducted an on-site review and issued a Compliance Assurance Plan (CAP), which included a description of the specific noncompliance, identification of the root cause(s) of the continuing noncompliance, and the activities the district must take to achieve compliance with the requirements of this indicator.  In addition to the New York State Education Department (NYSED) technical assistance, this district received direct technical assistance from the Regional Special Education Technical Assistance Support Centers (RSE-TASC), including embedded professional development on the district’s delivery of specially-designed instruction from an RSE-TASC school improvement specialist and direct technical assistance from the RSE-TASC transition specialist to address the quality of transition planning in the district. 

For the district with eight findings of continuing noncompliance (New York City (NYC)), in addition to the above actions, the State funds three full-time equivalent RSE-TASC transition specialists to provide technical assistance to district staff to improve transition planning.  NYC Department of Education (NYCDOE) created a Transition Services Center to address noncompliance for this indicator.  The Transition Services Center will work in collaboration with the RSE-TASC transition specialists to provide professional development and technical assistance to address the root causes for NYC’s continuing noncompliance.  NYSED directed NYC to develop a tracking system with specific targets throughout the school year for addressing the development of transition plans for students with disabilities.  Data will be provided to the responsible administrators at set intervals throughout the year.  In addition, NYC, with assistance from the State’s RSE-TASC training specialists, is conducting comprehensive city-wide training on a new IEP management system which will require documentation of transition goals and activities on the State’s new IEP form.  This training also addresses quality IEP development and transition planning. 

Verification of Correction of FFY 2008 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.

In the FFY 2008, the State verified timely correction of noncompliance in 75 of the 127 school districts with findings of noncompliance for this indicator.  To verify correction of noncompliance, the State required the school 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 2008-09 school year and for whom the district continues to have CSE responsibility, the CSE has met to develop a new IEP that is in compliance with the transition requirements.  In addition, the school 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.  Upon completion of the individual IEP reviews, and a determination that the district has resolved the reason(s) for the noncompliance, the school superintendent was required to provide a written  assurance verifying accuracy of the district’s report to the State.  All reports to the State are subject to verification.

Based on a regional sampling methodology, the State selected school districts that had submitted a statement of assurance of corrected noncompliance for a State on-site review to verify the accuracy of their report.  If it was identified that the school district continued to have areas of noncompliance, the State issued a CAP to address any instances of individual noncompliance, as well as to resolve any underlying systemic reason(s) for the noncompliance. The State also verifies the correction of noncompliance for NYC by requiring annual monitoring for compliance with this indicator.

Correction of Remaining FFY 2007 Findings of Noncompliance (if applicable):

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.

  1. Number of findings of noncompliance the State made during FFY 2007 (the period from July 1, 2007 through June 30, 2008)
391
(83 school districts)
  1. 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
(48 school districts)
  1. Number of FFY 2007 findings not verified as corrected within one year [(1) minus (2)]
144
(35 school districts)
Correction of FFY 2007 Findings of Noncompliance Not Timely Corrected (corrected more than one year from identification of the noncompliance):
  1. Number of FFY 2007 findings not timely corrected (same as the number from (3) above)
144
(35 school districts)
  1. Number of FFY 2007 findings the State has verified as corrected beyond the one-year timeline (“subsequent correction”) 
135
(33 school districts)
  1. Number of FFY 2007 findings not yet verified as corrected [(4) minus (5)]

 

9
(2 school 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.

In one school district with continuing noncompliance from the FFY 2007, an on-site review was conducted and a CAP issued to address the underlying causes of the two findings of noncompliance specific to this district.  The district received technical assistance from NYSED staff as well as from the RSE-TASC specialists.  The State identified this district as a district in need of intervention, in part related to its compliance issues for this indicator, and has initiated enforcement actions with this district including a redirection of a portion of its IDEA funds to implement a corrective action plan.

The other school district is NYC,  See actions for FFY 2008 above.

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

To verify correction of 2007 noncompliance, the State required the school 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 and for whom the district continues to have CSE responsibility, the CSE has met to develop a new IEP that is in compliance with the transition requirements.  In addition, the school 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.  Upon completion of the individual IEP reviews, and a determination that the district has resolved individual noncompliance and, based on a review of sample IEPs of other students, verification that the district has addressed the reason(s) for the noncompliance, the school superintendent was required to provide a written assurance verifying accuracy of the district’s report to the State.  All reports to the State were subject to verification.   In addition to individual IEP reviews to verify the two-prong correction of noncompliance for NYC, the State also requires annual monitoring for compliance with this indicator. (rev. 4/11)

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.

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 school districts)
  1. 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)
62
(12 school districts)
  1. Number of FFY 2006 findings not verified as corrected within one year [(1) minus (2)]
463
(93 school districts)
Correction of FFY 2006 Findings of Noncompliance Not Timely Corrected (corrected more than one year from identification of the noncompliance):
  1. Number of FFY 2006 findings not timely corrected (same as the number from (3) above) 
463
(92 school districts)
  1. Number of FFY 2006 findings the State has verified as corrected beyond the one-year timeline (“subsequent correction”) 
456
(92 school districts)
  1. Number of FFY 2006 findings not yet verified as corrected [(4) minus (5)]
7
(1 school district)

Ninety-nine percent (99%) of all findings from FFY 2006 have been corrected to date.

The one district is NYC.  See above report on actions to correct noncompliance with the indicator in NYC.

Verification of Correction of FFY 2006 Noncompliance (either timely or subsequent):

See above section on Verification of Correction of FFY 2007 Noncompliance.(rev. 4/11)

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 Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) APR Response Table for this Indicator (if applicable):

Statement from the OSEP Response Table State’s Response
In the FFY 2009 APR, the State must provide a revised baseline using data from 2009-10.  Targets must remain 100%. See State Performance Plan
The State must demonstrate, in the FFY 2009 APR that the remaining 21 uncorrected noncompliance findings identified in FFY 2007 were corrected. When reporting on the correction of noncompliance, the State must report in its FFY 2009 APR, that it has verified that each LEA with the remaining 21 findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2007:  (1) is correctly implementing 34 CFR §300.320(b) (i.e., achieved 100% compliance) based on a review of updated data such as data subsequently collected through on-site monitoring or a State data system; and (2) has corrected each individual case of noncompliance, unless the child is no longer within the jurisdiction of the LEA, consistent with OSEP Memo 09-02.  In the FFY 2009 APR, the State must describe the specific actions that were taken to verify the correction. Last year, the State reported that there were 21 FFY 2007 findings not yet verified as corrected in five school districts.  The State verified the correction of all but seven findings in four of the five school districts.  Upon verification review, the State found that the remaining school district had not met compliance for this indicator, even though it had reported that it had. In the FFY 2007, the State verified 81 of 83 or 97.5 percent of school districts with findings of noncompliance and conducted on-site reviews to address any over 12 month noncompliance.  As a result, 33 of 35 or 94.2 percent of school districts with over 12 month findings of noncompliance are now in compliance with the requirements of this indicator.  As previously explained, to address the two remaining school districts with uncorrected noncompliance, the State has initiated appropriate monitoring actions. See revisions to improvement activities below regarding verification of the correction of noncompliance.

Improvement Activities Completed in 2009-10

  • NYSED 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 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).
  • To improve timely correction of noncompliance, the Office of Special Education continued the use of electronic notices, sent to school districts at three-month intervals, as a reminder of the noncompliance that needs to be corrected and the next steps that will be taken by the Office of Special Education should timely correction not occur.  Special education monitoring staff also received copies of the electronic notices and take appropriate proactive actions, including direct follow-up upon a finding that noncompliance was not corrected within nine months.
  • A three-day training program for CSE chairpersons was developed and delivered.  This training, delivered in multiple sessions in each region of the State, provided extensive information on appropriate IEP development and transition planning.
  • The State issued a State Model IEP form in 2010 with accompanying guidance and provided on-line and regional training on its use.  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.

Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources for FFY 2009 [If applicable]

To ensure both individual and systemic correction of noncompliance for this indicator, the State instituted a new reporting and verification process as follows:

To Report Correction of Noncompliance:

A school district must submit to NYSED a two-part statement of assurance of correction. For each step, documentation must be made available to NYSED upon request that demonstrates that:

  1. A CSE meeting was convened for each identified student whose IEP was found to not be in compliance with all of the transition planning requirements and that the student and, if appropriate, a representative of any participating agency were invited to the meeting.
  2. The IEP was revised as appropriate. 
  3. The revised IEP was reviewed using the Compliance Review Form (Attachment 3) of the Self Review Monitoring Protocol for Indicator 13 available at  http://www.p12.nysed.gov/specialed/spp/13selfreview2010rev.htm
  4. The district has addressed the reasons why students’ IEPs were not appropriately developed to ensure that all current and future students with disabilities have appropriate transition goals and services on their IEPs.

If a district is not able to report the correction of noncompliance:

Within 30 days of the date of this notification, in order to identify and address any issues of continuing noncompliance, the district is directed to develop a corrective action plan (CAP) using the template, found at http://www.p12.nysed.gov/
specialed/formsnotices/noncompliance.htm  and mail the CAP to its  Special Education Quality Assurance (SEQA) Regional Office.  The CAP must include:

  • The names of those students whose IEPs have not been corrected as described above.
  • The reasons for the district's failure to provide each student with an appropriate IEP;
  • The activities the district will take to achieve compliance which must identify the individuals responsible for these activities and the timelines for completing the activities.
  • A timeline that ensures that all issues will be corrected as soon as possible with regular progress monitoring and reporting to NYSED. 
Last Updated: April 20, 2011