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 20: State reported data (section 618, State Performance Plan (SPP) and APR) are timely and accurate.
(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B))

Measurement:

State reported data, including section 618 data, SPP, and APRs, are:

  1. Submitted on or before due dates (February 1 for child count, including race and ethnicity, placement; November 1 for exiting, discipline, personnel and dispute resolution; and February 1 for APRs and assessment); and
  2. Accurate, including covering the correct year and following the correct measurement.

States are required to use the “Indicator 20 Scoring Rubric” for reporting data for this indicator (see tables below).

Data Source:

New York State (NYS) will use State selected data sources, including data from State data system and SPP/APR.

 

Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) Measurable and Rigorous Target
FFY 2009
(2009-10 school year)		 100 percent of State reported data, including 618 data and annual performance reports, are submitted on or before due dates and are accurate.

Actual Target Data for FFY 2009:

State reported data (618, SPP and APR) were 100 percent timely and accurate.

SPP/APR Data – Indicator  20
APR Indicator Valid and Reliable Correct Calculation Total
1 1   1
2 1   1
3A 1 1 2
3B 1 1 2
3C 1 1 2
4A 1 1 2
5 1 1 2
7 1 1 2
8 1 1 2
9 1 1 2
10 1 1 2
11 1 1 2
12 1 1 2
13 1 1 2
14 1 1 2
15 1 1 2
16 1 1 2
17 1 1 2
18 1 1 2
19 1 1 2
Subtotal 40
APR Score Calculation Timely Submission Points – If the FFY 2009 APR was submitted on-time, place the number 5 in the cell on the right. 5
Grand Total = (Sum of subtotal and Timely Submission Points) 45

 

618 Data – Indicator 20
Table Timely Complete Data Passed Edit Check Responded to Date Note Requests Total
Table 1 – Child Count
Due Date: 2/1/2010		 1 1 1 1 4
Table 2 – Personnel
Due Date: 11/1/2010		 1 1 1 N/A 3
Table 3 – Ed. Environments
Due Date: 2/1/2010		 1 1 1 1 4
Table 4 – Exiting
Due Date: 11/1/2010		 1 1 1 N/A 3
Table 5 – Discipline
Due Date: 11/1/2010		 1 1 1 N/A 3
Table 6 – State Assessment
Due Date: 2/1/2011		 1 N/A N/A N/A 1
Table 7 – Dispute Resolution
Due Date: 11/1/2010		 1 1 1 N/A 3
  Subtotal 21
618 Score Calculation Grand Total (Subtotal X 2.143) 45

 

Indicator #20 Calculation
A. APR Grand Total 45
B. 618 Grand Total 45
C. APR Grand Total (A) = 618 Grand Total (B) = 90
Total N/A in APR 0
Total N/A in 618 0
Base 90
D. Subtotal (C divided by Base*) = 1.0
E. Indicator Score(Subtotal D*100 100

 

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

Explanation of Progress or Slippage

NYS’ compliance rate on this indicator is 100 percent, which is the same as in the previous year and meets the State’s target .

Improvement Activities Completed in 2009-10

  • The Strategic Evaluation Data Collection Analysis and Reporting (SEDCAR) unit routinely accessed information through the federal Data Accountability Center (DAC) at http://www.ideadata.orgexternal link and the Regional Resource Center (RRC) program portal at http://www.rrfcnetwork.org/external link to help answer questions related to indicator measurements, calculations and other information to assist with data analysis and management.  DAC provided data from individual states and nationally aggregated data that was used in interpretation of NYS data.  Staff attended the annual data managers meeting hosted by DAC to stay current with changing practices and reporting expectations.  The Office of Special Education Data Manager participated with the data managers’ listserv to benchmark practices with other states and ask questions to clarify the data system implications of new practices or policies, posing questions to other Data Managers as needed between meetings.
  • The State continued its participation in the annual data managers meeting hosted by DAC.
  • The State added a special education team member to EdFacts meetings to enable the accurate and timely submission of all special education EdFacts files to United States Education Department (USED).
  • The State improved linkages between the two separate systems, the PD data system, which contains data for most of the SPP indicators with the Comprehensive Special Education Information System (CSEIS), which contains information regarding correction of noncompliance. This linkage of systems has been tremendously beneficial to ensure timely correction of all noncompliance when the noncompliance is first identified by data collection for Indicators 4, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13. The special education monitoring staff has immediate access to noncompliance data reported by school districts and can track its correction on an on-going basis. NYS continues to make necessary improvements in these linkages to ensure thorough and timely follow-up.
  • The SEDCAR unit, which is responsible for the collection of special education data was administratively merged with the larger Information Reporting Services office, which is an office in the Office of P-12 (Prekindergarten through Grade 12 Education). This merger is a step in the right direction to ensure all special education data collection policies, practices, procedures are consistent and integrated with those used to collect all other education data.

Annual activities to ensure NYS’ section 618 data are accurate, valid and reliable include but are not limited to the following:

  • Implement numerous edit checks at Level 0 of our State’s data warehouse.  These edit checks are reviewed and revised continuously to ensure data are reasonable.
  • Implement additional edit checks at Level 1 of our State’s data warehouse. Require school districts to resolve any identified issues related to incomplete or inaccurate data identified at this level before the data are moved to the State’s Level 2 environment.
  • Implement additional edit checks at Level 2 of the State’s data warehouse (much fewer checks compared to those implemented at L0 and L1). As an example, these edit checks allow the State to determine duplications in reporting the same student by two school districts and to resolve these types of issues before State data files are finalized.
  • Implement additional edit checks and reasonability checks when school district’s individual student data are displayed in the various special education reports. These aggregated reports (with links to individual students’ data) assist school districts to compare some totals against previous year’s totals, and to review results of calculations to ensure individual students’ data are included accurately in the various calculations and aggregates.
  • Provide technical assistance regarding data collection requirements and procedures continuously throughout the year. Technical assistance is also provided annually throughout the State in group format as requested by various regions and large cities of the State.
  • Prepare written communications and documentation annually and throughout the year to provide data reporting instructions, guidelines and timelines.
  • The State’s special education monitoring personnel assist school districts to accurately report compliance data by providing them technical assistance on regulatory requirements related to the compliance indicators.

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 reporting on Indicator 20 in the FFY 2009 APR, the State must use the Indicator 20 Data Rubric. NYS reported its data for Indicator 20 using the required Indicator 20 Data Rubric.

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

None

Last Updated: February 28, 2011