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 15:  General supervision system (including monitoring, complaints, hearings, etc.) identifies and corrects noncompliance as soon as possible but in no case later than one year from identification.
(20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(B))

Measurement:

In 2006, the United States Education Department (USED) revised the baseline measurement for this indicator as follows: 

Percent of noncompliance corrected within one year of identification:

  1. # of findings of noncompliance.
  2. # of corrections completed as soon as possible but in no case later than one year from identification.

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

For any noncompliance not corrected within one year of identification, describe what actions, including technical assistance and/or enforcement that the State has taken.

Data Source:

New York State (NYS) uses data taken from State monitoring, complaints, hearings and other general supervision system components.

Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) Measurable and Rigorous Target
FFY 2009
(2009-10 school year)
100% of noncompliance issues identified through the State’s general supervision system (including monitoring, complaints, hearings, etc.) will be corrected within one year from identification.

Actual Target Data for FFY 2009:

75.1 percent of noncompliance issues identified between July 1, 2008 and June 30, 2009 through the State's general supervision system (including monitoring, State complaints, hearings, etc.) were corrected within one year of identification.

Table:  Indicator B15 Worksheet

Indicator/ Indicator Clusters General Supervision System Components # of local educational agencies (LEAs) Issued Findings in FFY 2008 (7/1/08 to 6/30/09) (a) # of Findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2008 (7/1/08 to 6/30/09) (b) # of Findings of noncompliance from (a) for which correction was verified no later than one year from identification (c) # of Findings of noncompliance resolved in greater than 12 months

(d) # of Findings of Noncompliance Pending as of 4/21/11


(rev. 4/11)
1.   Percent of youth with individualized education programs (IEPs) graduating from high school with a regular diploma.
2.   Percent of youth with IEPs dropping out of high school.

14. Percent of youth who had IEPs, are no longer in secondary school and who have been competitively employed, enrolled in some type of post-secondary school, or both, within one year of leaving high school.
Monitoring Activities:  Self-Assessment/ Local APR, Data Review, Desk Audit, On-Site Visits, or Other 7 23 21 2 0
Dispute Resolution: Complaints, Hearings 0 0 0 0 0
3.   Participation and performance of children with disabilities on statewide assessments.
7.   Percent of preschool children with IEPs who demonstrated improved outcomes.
Monitoring Activities:  Self-Assessment/ Local APR, Data Review, Desk Audit, On-Site Visits, or Other 1 1 0 0 1
Dispute Resolution: Complaints, Hearings 1 1 1 0 0
4A.  Percent of districts identified as having a significant discrepancy in the rates of suspensions and expulsions of children with disabilities for greater than 10 days in a school year.
4B.  Percent of districts identified by the State as having a significant discrepancy in the rates of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year of children with disabilities by race and ethnicity.
Monitoring Activities:  Self-Assessment/ Local APR, Data Review, Desk Audit, On-Site Visits, or Other 109 373 269 61 43
Dispute Resolution: Complaints, Hearings 20 37 36 1 0
5.   Percent of children with IEPs aged 6 through 21 - educational placements.
6.   Percent of preschool children aged 3 through 5 – early childhood placement.
Monitoring Activities:  Self-Assessment/ Local APR, Data Review, Desk Audit, On-Site Visits, or Other 144 457 359 51 47
Dispute Resolution: Complaints, Hearings 58 120 111 6 3
8.   Percent of parents with a child receiving special education services who report that schools facilitated parent involvement as a means of improving services and results for children with disabilities. Monitoring Activities:  Self-Assessment/ Local APR, Data Review, Desk Audit, On-Site Visits, or Other 30 48 44 2 2
Dispute Resolution: Complaints, Hearings 27 47 47 0 0
9.   Percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education that is the result of inappropriate identification.

10. Percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories that is the result of inappropriate identification.
Monitoring Activities:  Self-Assessment/ Local APR, Data Review, Desk Audit, On-Site Visits, or Other 53 86 69 5 12
Dispute Resolution: Complaints, Hearings 5 5 5 0 0
11. Percent of children who were evaluated within NYS’ established timeline to complete the initial evaluation Monitoring Activities:  Self-Assessment/ Local APR, Data Review, Desk Audit, On-Site Visits, or Other 154 246 187 52 7
Dispute Resolution: Complaints, Hearings 11 12 12 0 0
12. 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. Monitoring Activities:  Self-Assessment/ Local APR, Data Review, Desk Audit, On-Site Visits, or Other 17 17 10 6 1
Dispute Resolution: Complaints, Hearings 2 2 2 0 0
13. Percent of youth aged 15 and above with IEPs that include coordinated, measurable, annual IEP goals and transition services that will reasonably enable student to meet the post-secondary goals. Monitoring Activities:  Self-Assessment/ Local APR, Data Review, Desk Audit, On-Site Visits, or Other 194 674 434 229 11
Dispute Resolution: Complaints, Hearings 3 5 5 0 0
Other areas of noncompliance:
Behavior Intervention Plans
Monitoring Activities:  Self-Assessment/ Local APR, Data Review, Desk Audit, On-Site Visits, or Other 68 182 122 25 35
Dispute Resolution: Complaints, Hearings 9 16 15 0 1
Other areas of noncompliance:
Committee on Preschool Special Education (CPSE)/Committee on Special Education (CSE) Membership
Monitoring Activities:  Self-Assessment/ Local APR, Data Review, Desk Audit, On-Site Visits, or Other 0 0 0 0 0
Dispute Resolution: Complaints, Hearings 1 1 1 0 0
Other areas of noncompliance:
Discipline
Monitoring Activities:  Self-Assessment/ Local APR, Data Review, Desk Audit, On-Site Visits, or Other 13 15 11 2 2
Dispute Resolution: Complaints, Hearings 3 6 6 0 0
Other areas of noncompliance:
Educational Facilities
Monitoring Activities:  Self-Assessment/ Local APR, Data Review, Desk Audit, On-Site Visits, or Other 14 18 17 0 1
Dispute Resolution: Complaints, Hearings 4 5 5 0 0
Other areas of noncompliance:
IEP Development/Implementation
Monitoring Activities:  Self-Assessment/ Local APR, Data Review, Desk Audit, On-Site Visits, or Other 77 115 93 8 14
Dispute Resolution: Complaints, Hearings 14 21 21 0 0
Other areas of noncompliance:
Personnel Qualifications
Monitoring Activities:  Self-Assessment/ Local APR, Data Review, Desk Audit, On-Site Visits, or Other 8 12 6 5 1
Dispute Resolution: Complaints, Hearings 0 0 0 0 0
Other areas of noncompliance:
Residential Placement
Monitoring Activities:  Self-Assessment/ Local APR, Data Review, Desk Audit, On-Site Visits, or Other 0 0 0 0 0
Dispute Resolution: Complaints, Hearings 0 0 0 0 0
Other areas of noncompliance:
Situation Unique
Monitoring Activities:  Self-Assessment/ Local APR, Data Review, Desk Audit, On-Site Visits, or Other 50 101 76 11 14
Dispute Resolution: Complaints, Hearings 9 10 10 0 0
Sum of the numbers down Column a and Column b 2664
(rev. 4/11)
1995 452
(rev. 4/11)
217
(rev. 4/11)
Percent of noncompliance corrected within one year of identification = (column (b) sum divided by column (a) sum) times 100.
1995 (b) /2664 (a) = X 100 =75%.
(b) / (a) X 100 =75      

Describe the process for selecting LEAs for monitoring:

The State monitors school districts through data collection, State complaints, self-review monitoring processes, on-site reviews and hearings.

For compliance relating to Indicators 11 (timely evaluations), 12 (Early Intervention to preschool special education) and 13 (transition services), the State monitors a representative sample of one-sixth of the school districts and New York City (NYC) annually. 

Districts are selected for monitoring to review their policies, procedures and practices relating to:

  • development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards whenever a school district's data shows significant discrepancies in their rates of long-term suspension of students with disabilities and/or when their data shows a significant discrepancy by race/ethnicity in high suspension rates;
  • individual evaluations and eligibility determinations by the CSE whenever a school district's data shows significant disproportionality by race/ethnicity in the identification of students with disabilities;
  • individual evaluations of students with disabilities and CSE recommendations whenever a school district's data shows significant disproportionality by race/ethnicity in the identification of students with disabilities in specific disability categories (Emotional Disturbance, Learning Disability, Mental Retardation, Other Health Impairment, Speech or Language Impairment and Autism); and,
  • CSE evaluations, IEP development and placement recommendations whenever the district's data shows significant disproportionality by race/ethnicity in the placement of students with disabilities.

School districts that have unresolved noncompliance beyond 12 months for Indicators 4, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 plus school districts that have been identified for multiple years because of disproportionate data are also selected for additional monitoring reviews.

Districts are also selected for monitoring reviews and/or technical assistance whenever the State’s Annual Determinations process identifies a school district as needing assistance or intervention.  NYS considers each district's performance in relation to the State's targets in the areas of graduation rates, dropout rates, performance on State assessments and compliance issues.  Regional Special Education Quality Assurance (SEQA) monitoring staff, in consultation with the Coordinators of the Regional Special Education Technical Assistance Support Centers (RSE-TASC) and regional school district leaders, determines which school districts should be reviewed and the type of review that should occur to appropriately probe the district’s policies, practices and procedures affecting the performance/compliance in the target area and/or which districts would benefit from intensive technical assistance.

Education programs of Boards of Cooperative Educational Services (BOCES), approved preschool programs, approved private schools, State-supported schools and State-operated schools are selected for monitoring on a rotating schedule, but also in consideration of compliance concerns.  Facilities operated by the NYS Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS) are monitored every four years as required by statute.

In 2009, the State conducted a desk audit of use of physical restraints used in residential schools and this information is used to prioritize monitoring of selected residential schools.  In 2010, the State required each residential school to conduct a self-review using a State developed protocol relating to behavioral assessments, behavioral interventions, use of time out rooms, emergency interventions and procedures for prevention of abuse, maltreatment or neglect of students in residential placements. 

Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that occurred for FFY 2009:

Explanation of Progress or Slippage

The State improved its performance for this indicator by 2.5 percentage points.  In the 2010 APR, the State reported that 72.5 percent of noncompliance issues identified through the State's general supervision system (including monitoring, State complaints, hearings, etc.) were corrected within one year of identification as compared to this year’s APR report of 75 percent. (rev. 4/11) 

The improvement in the correction of noncompliance within 12 months reflects the State’s continuing progress in designing systems and processes to manage implementation of the State Performance Plan (SPP).  NYS has 682 public school districts, including the Big 5 School Districts of NYC, Yonkers, Syracuse, Buffalo and Rochester; 37 BOCES; 403 approved private day and residential programs (preschool and school age); 13 Special Act School Districts; 11 State-supported schools; numerous other State agency operated education programs and two State-operated schools.  The SPP requirements that the State identifies and ensures the timely correction of noncompliance in each school district for every indicator has created significant challenges given the State's available resources.

Correction of FFY 2008 Findings of Noncompliance Timely Corrected (corrected within one year from identification of the noncompliance):

  1. Number of findings of noncompliance the State made during FFY 2008 (the period from July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2009)  (Sum of Column a on the Indicator B15 Worksheet)
2664
  1. Number of findings the State verified as timely corrected (corrected within one year from the date of notification to the LEA of the finding)  (Sum of Column b on the Indicator B15 Worksheet)
1995
  1. Number of findings not verified as corrected within one year [(1) minus (2)]
669
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)
667
  1. Number of findings the State has verified as corrected beyond the one-year timeline (“subsequent correction”)
452
  1. Number of findings not yet verified as corrected [(4) minus (5)]
217

Actions Taken if Noncompliance 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.

Of the 217 FFY 2008 findings of noncompliance that have not yet been verified as corrected by the State (line 6 above), four (4) of the findings resulted from State complaint investigations and 151 were the result of focused monitoring reviews.  Throughout FFY 2009, the State’s monitoring staff followed up with district or agency programs through the provision of technical assistance, ongoing phone contact and on-site visits to assist the programs to achieve compliance.  Notices indicating required enforcement actions were sent to district programs as a matter of practice.(rev. 4/11)

For some of the approved private school or Special Act School district programs with continued lack of compliance, the State met jointly with the school and agency boards of education.  In some instances, the State notified agencies that failure to correct the noncompliance would result in a removal of the school from the State’s list of approved schools.

The remaining 62 FFY 2008 findings of continuing noncompliance in seven school districts resulted from the State’s monitoring of the SPP Indicators - 14 for Indicator 4a, 21 for Indicator 4b, one (1) for Indicator 9, one (1) for Indicator 10, eight (8) for indicator 11,  one (1) for Indicator 12 and nine (9) for indicator 13.  The State instituted a revised process to follow up on all unresolved noncompliance in 2009-10, which included issuance of three and six month notices to districts reminding them of the requirement to resolve the noncompliance within 12 months and if unable to resolve the noncompliance, a nine-month notice was issued directing the district to develop a corrective action plan.  In addition,  the State’s monitoring staff are in contact with these districts to determine the ongoing status of the district’s plan and their correction of noncompliance.  See specific actions taken to follow up on identified noncompliance reported under Indicators 4, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13. (rev. 4/11) 

In FFY 2009, on-site reviews were scheduled in each district that did not submit an assurance that they successfully corrected noncompliance that continued beyond 12 months after identification.  During the on-site review, monitoring staff determined the reasons or root causes that the district has not successfully corrected the noncompliance.  Monitoring staff required specific corrective actions to resolve any remaining instances of noncompliance and follows up with the district until verification of resolution is complete.

In FFY 2009, the State required each school district identified by the State under the Annual Determination process as Needing Assistance or Needing Intervention to obtain technical assistance and directed its State technical assistance providers to work with these districts to address instructional issues impacting performance and/or compliance.  The Office of Special Education conducted regular meetings with the NYC Department of Education (NYCDOE) special education central office administration to monitor NYCDOE's implementation of its school improvement plan relating to special education and its plan to address issues of noncompliance.

In FFY 2009, the State directed any school district identified with continuing noncompliance with Indicators 11, 12 and 13 to resources for technical assistance to address the reasons for the noncompliance.

In FFY 2009, the State provided each school district with data indicating disproportionality by race/ethnicity (Indicators 9 and 10) with technical assistance support from the State's Technical Assistance Center on Disproportionality (TAC-D). 

IDEA discretionary funds were directed in the 2009-10 year to provide funds to approved private schools and Special Act school districts to provide tuition for coursework and test preparation support to paraprofessionals seeking teacher certification.  From the inception in 2006-07 of grant initiatives through the 2009-10 school year, 391 teachers who were awarded grant funds for course work have achieved certification in a teaching discipline, including 95 teachers achieving certification in 2009-10.  The State also used its IDEA discretionary funds to support intensive teacher institutes and to fund personnel preparation projects to address personnel shortages in bilingual areas (such as special education teachers, psychologists and speech and language therapists.)

The State continues to implement Court Order Settlement Agreements (DD, Ray M., Jose P.) for the timely evaluation and placement of preschool children. 

Verification of Correction (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 corrected all instances of noncompliance (including noncompliance identified through the State’s monitoring system, through the data system and by the Department), consistent with OSEP Memorandum 09-02. 

The State process for Verification of Correction of Noncompliance is based on the way the noncompliance is identified.  When the State identifies noncompliance through its monitoring function, a corrective action is prescribed which includes specific actions the institution must take to resolve the noncompliance.  A due date is established for the resolution of the noncompliance and a description of what the monitoring staff must see as evidence of correction of noncompliance is detailed.  For those findings that were determined through the State’s data system, the State requires a written assurance by the school district superintendent and maintenance of documentation of correction of noncompliance which is subject to review by the State. 

For all related findings of noncompliance, verification of correction of noncompliance includes confirmation that there is documentation that the LEA is (1) correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirements; and (2) that it has corrected each individual case of noncompliance, unless the student is no longer within the jurisdiction of the LEA. 

For noncompliance cited in monitoring, State complaints and hearing decisions:

The State verified that the district has corrected the issue for the individual student through such means (as applicable to the specific finding) as a review of written reports, revised notices to parents, revised IEPs, observation in classrooms, etc..  Compliance assurance plans (CAP) identify the specific documentation required for submission to the State to verify the correction of noncompliance.  In addition, as applicable to the specific finding, the State reviews other student records, conducts observations in other classrooms, etc. to ensure that the issue has been corrected for all students.  The size of the verification sample varied based on such factors as the specific compliance  issue, size of the district, and initial extent of the findings of noncompliance. (rev. 4/11) 

Also see specific processes for verification of correction reported under Indicators 4, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13. These processes are described below.

Issues relating to suspension and review of policies, practices and procedures relating to development and implementation of IEPs, the uses of positive behavioral interventions and supports and procedural safeguards for students with disabilties subject to discipline (Indicator 4): (rev. 4/11) 

The State verified correction of noncompliance for Indicator 4 as follows:

  • For noncompliance identified based on self-reviews, when the school district reported correction of noncompliance to the State, the State required an assurance from the school superintendent that each instance of noncompliance was corrected and that the information reported is accurate. 
  • For noncompliance identified based on on-site monitoring, the State’s monitoring staff followed up with each district to assure that the CAP was fully implemented and verified, through review of revised policies and a sample of student records, that the district is correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirements and that individual instances of noncompliance had been corrected. 

Issues relating to disproportionality by race/ethnicity (Indicators 4b, 9 and 10): (rev. 4/11)

For correction of noncompliance identified through self-review monitoring reports, the State required that the school district submit its report of correction of each issue of noncompliance with an assurance by the School Superintendent of its accuracy and each district was required to publicly report on revisions to its policies, procedures and practices. 

In the State’s process to verify the correction of noncompliance identified through on-site monitoring, the State followed up with each district to assure that the CAP was fully implemented.  The State reviewed, as appropriate, all or a sample of student records to ensure that the district is correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirements and that individual instances of noncompliance have been corrected. 

For issues relating to timely evaluations (Indicator 11): (rev. 4/11)

The State required school districts with less than a 100 percent compliance rate for this indicator to submit a statement of assurance from the School Superintendent of correction of the identified noncompliance.  Prior to the school district’s submission that it had corrected the noncompliance, it was required to conduct a review to ensure that each identified student, whose initial evaluation was not completed in compliance with State timelines, and for whom data was not already available in the Student Information Repository System (SIRS), had since had his or her initial evaluation completed. This information was to be documented on a form provided by the State and maintained by the district, subject to review by the State.  The district was also required to monitor and document over a three-month period that all students (or a representative sample for the Big Four districts) had their individual evaluations completed within the required time period.  These results were also required to be documented on a form provided by the State.  NYC’s annual submission of data for this indicator has been used to verify that all children are receiving their individual evaluations within the required timelines.

Based on a regional sampling methodology, selected school districts that have submitted a statement of assurance of corrected noncompliance were selected for verification reviews on the accuracy of their reports.  If it was identified that the school district continued to have areas of noncompliance, a new corrective action plan was issued to address any instances of individual noncompliance, as well as to resolve any underlying systemic reason(s) for the noncompliance.

For noncompliance with the requirement that special education services be provided to preschool children with disabilities by their 3rd birthdays in compliance with State law (Indicator 12): (rev. 4/11)

The State required school districts with less than a 100 percent compliance rate to submit a statement of assurance of correction of the identified noncompliance.  The school superintendent was required to submit an assurance that the information reported to the State is accurate.  Prior to the school district’s submission that it has corrected the noncompliance, it is required to conduct a review to document on a form provided by the State that 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. 

Based on a regional sampling methodology, the State selected school districts that had submitted a statement of assurance of corrected noncompliance for an on-site review to verify the accuracy of the report.  If it was identified that the school district continued to have areas of noncompliance, NYSED issued and closely monitored a CAP to address any instances of individual noncompliance as well as to resolve any underlying systemic reason(s) for the noncompliance.

For issues related to transition planning (Indicator 13):(rev. 4/11)

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 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 were 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 verified the correction of noncompliance for NYC by requiring annual monitoring for compliance with this indicator.

Correction of FFY 2007 Findings of Noncompliance Timely Corrected (corrected within one year from identification of the noncompliance):

  1. Number of findings of noncompliance the State made during FFY 2007 (the period from July 1, 2007 through June 30, 2008)  (Sum of Column a on the Indicator B15 Worksheet contained in APR 2010)
2665
  1. Number of findings the State verified as timely corrected (corrected within one year from the date of notification to the LEA of the finding)  (Sum of Column b on the Indicator B15 Worksheet from APR 2010)
1932
  1. Number of findings not verified as corrected within one year [(1) minus (2)]
 733
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)
733
  1. Number of findings the State has verified as corrected beyond the one-year timeline (“subsequent correction”)
684
  1. Number of findings not yet verified as corrected [(4) minus (5)]
49

Actions Taken if Noncompliance 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.

Of the 148 FFY 2007 findings of noncompliance that had not been verified as corrected in the February 2010 APR, there remain four (4) findings from State complaint investigations and 30 findings from focused monitoring reviews that the State has been unable to verify as corrected.

The State’s monitoring staff followed up with district or agency programs through the provision of technical assistance, ongoing phone contact and on-site visits to assist the programs to achieve compliance.  For example, in NYC, the State’s monitoring staff averaged five phone conferences with school administrators per issue to provide clarity and direction concerning unresolved noncompliance issues; required three to six separate document submissions for continuing noncompliant issues and conducted an average of three on-site visits per school.

Notices indicating required enforcement actions were sent to district programs as a matter of practice.  In one school district, because of the number and nature of the founded complaints, a Focused Review was scheduled for the 2009-10 school year to determine the extent of compliance with special education procedural requirements.  The State closed one private school for failure to correct identified noncompliance.

The State required each school district identified by the State’s Annual Determination process as Needing Assistance or Needing Intervention to obtain technical assistance and directed its State technical assistance providers to work with these districts to determine root causes and address instructional issues impacting performance and/or compliance.

Of the remaining 15 uncorrected findings of noncompliance from the FFY 2007 APR that are the result of the State’s monitoring of the SPP Indicators, 10 are from one district (NYC) – two findings for Indicator 11 (NYC), one finding for Indicator 12 (NYC) and 7 findings for Indicator 13 (NYC).  See specific actions taken to follow up on identified noncompliance reported on pages 114-115 for Indicators 11, 12 and 13. (rev. 4/11)

NYSED monitoring staff held formal meetings with representatives of the NYCDOE that required the attendance of the district superintendent and the building principal to discuss barriers that precluded the school from coming into compliance and the need for providing and/or directing resources to the school to ensure compliance.  For compliance issues where previous efforts did not result in full compliance the NYCDOE was directed to add personnel and redirect the use of its IDEA funds to the particular school to ensure compliance.

There were two districts with 27 findings of continuing noncompliance relating to Indicator 4B.  To address continuing noncompliance, the State provided each school district with data indicating disproportionality by race/ethnicity for suspension with the opportunity for technical assistance support from the State's TAC-D.  TAC-D worked with each district work to determine root causes and provided professional development.

IDEA discretionary funds were used to provide funds to approved private schools and Special Act school districts to provide tuition for coursework and test preparation support to paraprofessionals seeking teacher certification.  The State also used its IDEA discretionary funds to support intensive teacher institutes and for personnel preparation projects to address personnel shortages in bilingual areas (such as special education teachers, psychologists and speech and language therapists.)

The State continues to implement Court Order Settlement Agreements (DD, Ray M., Jose P.) for the timely evaluation and placement of preschool children.

Verification of 2007 Correction (either timely or subsequent) (rev. 4/11)

See Verification process cited above for 2008.

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.

  1. Number of remaining FFY 2006 findings noted in OSEP’s June 1, 2009 FFY 2007 APR response table for this indicator 
46
  1. Number of remaining FFY 2006 findings the State has verified as corrected
31
  1. Number of remaining FFY 2006 findings the State has NOT verified as corrected [(1) minus (2)]
15

Eight (8) findings relate to IEP development and implementation in NYC and seven (7) findings were found for Indicator 13 (transition planning) in NYC (see indicator 13 for actions taken).

The State has developed an IEP form which will be required to be used in the 2011-2012 school year to address many of the continuing IEP deficiencies seen across the State.  Training programs on the use of the IEP form are being offered regionally by the State supported RSE-TASC network.  In addition, the State has posted on the New York State Education Department’s (NYSED) website training presentations, guidance and extensive question and answer documents relating to IEP development and related procedural requirements of meeting notice and prior written notice.

Some of the IEP implementation issues relate to personnel shortages.

  • The State used its IDEA discretionary funds to support intensive teacher institutes and for personnel preparation projects to address personnel shortages in bilingual areas (such as special education teachers, psychologists and speech and language therapists).
  • The State continues to implement Court Order Settlement Agreements (DD, Ray M., Jose P.) for the timely evaluation and placement of preschool children. 

Verification of 2006 Correction of Noncompliance (either timely or subsequent) (rev. 4/11)

See Verification process cited above for 2008.

Correction of Any Remaining Findings of Noncompliance from FFY 2005 or Earlier (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.

  1. Number of remaining FFY 2005 and 2004 findings noted in the Office of Special Education Programs’ (OSEP) June 1, 2009 FFY 2007 APR response table for this indicator 
17
  1. Number of remaining FFY 2005 and 2004 findings the State has verified as corrected
17
  1. Number of remaining FFY 2005 findings the State has NOT verified as corrected [(1) minus (2)]
0

All issues of noncompliance from FFY 2005 or earlier have been resolved.

Verification of 2005 or earlier Correction of Noncompliance (either timely or subsequent) (rev. 4/11)

See Verification process cited above for 2008.

Additional Information Required by the OSEP APR Response Table

Statement from the OSEP Response Table State’s Response
The State must review its improvement activities and revise them, if appropriate, to ensure they will enable the State to provide data in the FFY 2009 APR demonstrating that the State timely corrected noncompliance identified by the State in FFY 2008 in accordance with 20 U.S.C. 1232d(b)(3)(E), 34 CFR §§300.149 and 300.600(e), and OSEP Memo 09-02. NYSED has reviewed, and as appropriate, revised its practices and improvement activities and has determined that the State has the infrastructure to effectively resolve the outstanding noncompliance identified in this APR.
In reporting on correction of noncompliance in the FFY 2009 APR, the State must report that it verified that each LEA with noncompliance identified in FFY 2008: (1) is correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirements (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. The State revised its practices to ensure the State has documentation that the LEA is correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirements and has corrected each individual case of noncompliance.
The State must demonstrate, in the FFY 2009 APR that the remaining 148 findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2007, the remaining 46 findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2006, and the remaining 17 findings of noncompliance identified in FFYs 2005 and 2004 that were not reported as corrected in the FFY 2008 APR were corrected. For FFY 2007, of the 148 remaining findings of noncompliance reported in the FFY 2009 APR, the State has since verified the correction of noncompliance for all but 49 of the findings.  See narrative above on actions the State has taken to address these issues. (rev. 4/11)
Of the 46 remaining findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2006, the State has corrected all but 15 of the findings.  See narrative above on actions the State has taken to address these issues.
Of the remaining 64 issues, most are in NYC and many relate to IEP development and implementation and personnel certification findings.  The State is implementing Court Order Settlement Agreements and action for the timely evaluation and placement of preschool children in New York City, which includes actions relating to personnel shortages (Ray M and DD) and  Jose P. Court case in NYC.(rev. 4/11)
In addition, the State funds numerous IDEA discretionary projects designed to recruit, prepare and retain appropriately certified personnel and uses a significant portion of its discretionary funds to address personnel shortage issues.
In the February 13, 2009 verification letter, the State was required to provide documentation demonstrating that any remaining findings from FFYs 2004, 2005, and 2006 were corrected.  As noted above, the State has not yet provided that documentation.  The State’s failure to correct longstanding noncompliance raises serious questions about the effectiveness of the State’s general supervision system. The State must take the steps necessary to ensure that it can report, in the FFY 2009 APR, that it has corrected this noncompliance. This APR reports no continuing noncompliance  remaining from findings identified in FFYs 2004, 2005 and 2006.
In responding to Indicators 4A, 9, 10, 11, and 12 in the FFY 2009, the State must report on correction of the noncompliance described in this table under those indicators. The correction of noncompliance reported in Indicator 15 includes the correction of noncompliance reported in Indicators 4A, 9, 10, 11 and 12.  The State also reported on the correction of the noncompliance described in this table under those indicators.
In addition, in reporting on Indicator 15 in the FFY 2009 APR, the State must use the Indicator 15 Worksheet. The Indicator B15 Worksheet was used to report FFY 2009 data.

Improvement Activities Completed in 2009-10

  • The State accessed and used federal technical assistance to further inform its activities to improve identification and correction of noncompliance as follows:
    • Office of Special Education managers and staff routinely participated in meetings, teleconferences and Community of Practice (CoP) webinars related to all aspects of the various indicators in an effort to ensure consistency, accuracy and reliability of the data being collected, analyzed and reported.
    • Staff viewed the webinar presentations of the OSEP Leadership Mega Conference, including the presentation, “Update on Identification and Correction of Noncompliance – Part B”, on August 3, 2010.  Information from this session was discussed among special education policy and monitoring staff to review the State’s approach for correcting noncompliance and provide recommendations for how it might be improved.
    • Regular participation in the Northeast Regional Resource Center (NERRC) Legal and Regulatory Workgroup’s twice yearly forums assisted our State teams’ legal counsel, special education policy and other key staff to remain current in legal and policy developments, systems operations issues, and evaluation of short-term and long-term impact of implementation of the IDEA.
    • In refining and implementing its procedures for the identification and resolution of noncompliance, the State relied on several OSEP technical assistance documents for guidance, including “Reporting on Correction of Noncompliance in the Annual Performance Report Required Under Sections 616 and 642 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act” (9/08), “Frequently Asked Questions Regarding Identification and Correction of Noncompliance and Reporting on Correction in the State Performance Plan (SPP) Annual Performance Report” (9/08), and “OSEP Update on the Identification and Correction of Noncompliance – Part B” (2010 OSEP Leadership Conference).
    • After receiving professional development and consultation in 2008-09 from a national expert on complaint investigation, improvements were made relating to the NYS complaint process.  As a result, the State revised its procedures, including developing a public question and answer document describing the NYS complaint procedures and revising the State’s sample form to initiate a State complaint.
  • To improve the State’s performance on Indicator 15, we obtained federal technical assistance from NERRC to access a national expert in complaint investigation and management from the Mountain Plains Regional Resource Center (MPRRC).  She provided consultation in developing written complaint procedures and provided three professional development sessions for our State complaint investigators.
  • The State has made significant changes to its process for the investigation of complaints.  It has established a core group of investigators within each regional office that has responsibility for the investigation of complaints.  This action allows the State to focus its professional development on a cadre of investigators and supervisors to promote quality and consistency in the investigation of State complaints.  The State has also developed and piloted a draft investigation plan format and has built its professional development around the plan.
  • To develop the procedures and the training, Special Education Policy and Quality Assurance staff participated regularly in the Complaint Investigators Work Group convened by MPRRC.  This work group provided opportunities for State complaint investigators to discuss and share ideas for improving skills, improve understanding and clarification of special education law consistent with OSEP interpretations on matters that might be the subject of a complaint.
  • See individual Indicator sections (4, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13) for information for activities completed to address resolution of issues of noncompliance.
  • Annually, each School Superintendent is notified in writing if the district has continuing noncompliance.
  • The Comprehensive Special Education Information System (CSEIS) was enhanced to increase the capacity of the compliance monitoring reports that CSEIS generates to be aggregated in different ways to facilitate strategic interventions.  The newly designed management reports allow, for example, the identification of “hot spots,” where the resolution of noncompliance might be going too slowly, at the geographic or institution level.  CSEIS is used to disseminate periodic electronic notices to LEAs with identified noncompliance, 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.  The State’s monitoring staff also receives copies of the electronic notices and take appropriate follow-up actions.
  • During 2008-09, the Office of Special Education comprehensively redesigned its technical assistance system to expand its technical assistance resources statewide and to create teams of specialists within each region of NYS which include special education school improvement specialists, regional special education trainers, secondary transition specialists, bilingual special education specialists, behavior specialists and individuals directly targeted to provide training and school improvement technical assistance to nondistrict programs such as school-age approved private schools.  This redesign resulted in ten RSE-TASC.  For further information on this new technical assistance network, see http://www.p12.nysed.gov/specialed/techassist/rsetasc/.
  • Through a regional planning process, the State’s technical assistance providers are directed to work with identified districts to apply research-based instructional practices and to provide, as appropriate, training and technical assistance support to address compliance issues.
  • IDEA discretionary funds were directed in the 2009-10 year to provide funds to approved private schools and Special Act school districts to provide tuition for coursework and test preparation support to paraprofessionals seeking teacher certification.  The State also uses its IDEA discretionary funds to support intensive teacher institutes and for personnel preparation projects to address personnel shortages in bilingual areas (such as special education teachers, psychologists, and speech and language therapists).
    • From July 2009 to June 2010, 115 recipients of tuition assistance (79 in preschools) completed coursework leading to a bilingual extension to their certification in special education, speech, counseling, social work, or school psychology, and 15 special education teachers completed coursework leading to certification in Teaching English to Speakers of other Languages.  NYC Public Schools were able to add 553 English-speaking special education teachers, 5 bilingual special education teachers, 3 bilingual speech therapists and 13 bilingual school psychologists.
    • Since July 2007, 26 new programs which lead to bilingual or ESL certification for special education personnel, and which are linked to sources of tuition assistance, have been registered.  The Board of Regents granted Western Kentucky University (WKU) limited permission to operate its master’s program in speech-language pathology (SLP) in NYS in order to address shortages of monolingual and bilingual speech providers.  Students enrolled in WKU’s SLP program sign a service commitment to work in NYC Public Schools.

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

  • In 2010 the State began requiring school districts to develop corrective action plans and to obtain technical assistance whenever the district fails to correct noncompliance within nine months for SPP Indicators 11, 12, and 13.
  • See revisions to improvement activities identified under Indicators 4, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13.
Last Updated: April 20, 2011