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

  1. 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.
  2. Participation rate for children with IEPs.
  3. Proficiency rate for children with IEPs against grade level, modified and alternate academic achievement standards.
    (20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A))

Measurement:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  • http://www.p12.nysed.gov/sedcar/state.htm#assessments - Report of the Participation of Students with Disabilities on Assessment:  Report of the Participation of Students with Disabilities on Mathematics Assessment)" and "Report of the Participation of Students with Disabilities on Reading/Language Arts Assessment". (rev. 4/11)

Data Source:

The Student Information Repository System (SIRS) is used to collect State assessment data for all students.  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 2009*
(2009-10 school year results)
(rev. 1/10)*
AYP: 61 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 of students with disabilities in grades 3-8 and high school will participate in State ELA and math assessments.
Performance*: The State will achieve the effective annual measurable objective (AMO) or the safe-harbor target for the students with disabilities subgroup in Grades 3-8 ELA, Grades 3-8 Math, High School ELA and in High School Math.  The effective AMOs for the 2009-10 school year were as follows:
  • Grades 3-8 ELA: 154 on the Performance Index
  • Grades 3-8 Math: 134 on the Performance Index
  • High School ELA: 176 on the Performance Index
  • High School Math: 172 on the Performance Index

The safe harbor targets for the 2009-10 school year for the students with disabilities subgroup were as follows:
  • Grades 3-8 ELA: 140 on the Performance Index
  • Grades 3-8 Math: Must achieve Effective AMO (134)
  • High School ELA: 131 on the Performance Index
  • High School Math: 135 on the Performance Index
*Note:  Consistent with federal guidance, performance targets were revised in January 2010 to be consistent with the State’s ESEA criteria.

Actual Target Data for FFY 2009:

AYP

In the 2009-10 school year, 30.8 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. 

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)
2009
(2009-10)
672
(35 Charter Schools)
30.8% (n = 207)

 

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 2009-10
Number of School Districts Required to Make AYP* Percent of School Districts that made AYP in all Required Subjects Number of School Districts Required to Make AYP* Percent of School Districts that made AYP in all Required Subjects Number of School Districts Required to Make AYP* Percent of School Districts that made AYP in all Required Subjects
New York City 32 6.3% 32 9.4% 32 0%
Large Four Cities 4 0.0% 4 0.0% 4 0%
Urban-Suburban High Need Districts 43 48.8% 43 48.8% 43 11.6%
Rural High Need Districts 123 69.1% 121 91.7% 120 20.8%
Average Need Districts 316 74.7% 321 86.0% 319 24.8%
Low Need Districts 118 88.1% 119 95.8% 119 64.7%
Charter Schools 19 100.0% 25 100.0% 35 60.0%
*Note: For AYP, a school district must have a minimum of 40 students for the participation criterion and 30 students for the performance criterion.

Participation Rate

The participation rate of students with disabilities in the 2009-10 school year by grade and subject is as follows: 

  • Grades 3-8 ELA:  98 percent
  • Grades 3-8 Math:  98 percent
  • High School ELA:  96 percent
  • High School Math:  97 percent

 

Participation Rates for Students with Disabilities Subgroup
Assessment 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10
Enrollment Participation
Rate
Number Tested/* Enrollment Participation
Rate
Number Tested/ Enrollment Participation
Rate
Grade 3-8 ELA 211,495 96.8% 204,652/
208,435
98% 205,471/
208,722
98%
Grade 3-8 Math 211,104 96.9% 204,519/
208,210
98% 205,517/
208,672
98%
High School ELA (seniors) 19,080 92.7% 18,686/
19,659
95% 20,683/
26,800
96%
High School Math (seniors) 19,080 94.0% 18,875/
19,659
96% 20,693/
26,800
97%

Performance

The chart below provides the numbers of students with disabilities and their performance level in grades 3-8 and high school ELA and math that resulted in the Performance Index calculations that are displayed below the chart. Each calculation is the percentage of students performing at Level 2 and above plus the percentage of students performing at Level 3 and above.

Data Used for Computing Performance Levels for 2009-10
Assessment Continuously Enrolled Students with Disabilities in Grades 3-8 and in 2006 Accountability Cohort in High School (HS) Number by Performance Level on State Assessments
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
Grade 3-8 ELA 205,471 10,664 (5.2%) 116,586 (56.7%) 67,306 (32.8%) 10,915 (5.3%)
Grade 3-8 Math 205,517 19,357 (9.4%) 59,995 (29.2%) 107,881 (52.5%) 18,284 (8.9%
HS ELA 2005
Accountability Cohort
26,800 6,329 (23.6%) 5,541 (20.7%) 12,516 (46.7%) 2,414 (9.0%)
HS Math 2005
Accountability Cohort
26,800 4,957 (18.5%) 7,312 (27.3%) 12,199 (45.5%) 2,332 (8.7%)

In the 2009-10 school year, the Statewide average performance for the students with disabilities subgroup on these indices was as follows:

  • Grades 3-8 ELA: 133 (missed the target by 7 points)
  • Grades 3-8 Math: 152 (exceeded the target by 18 points)
  • High School ELA: 132 (exceeded the target by 1 point)
  • High School Math: 136 (exceeded the target by 1 point)

 

Performance Index for the Students with Disabilities Subgroup
Assessment Continuously Enrolled Students with Disabilities in Grades 3-8 and in 2006 Accountability Cohort in High School (HS) NYS PI Effective AMO* Safe- Harbor Target Met Third Indicator for Safe Harbor** Students with Disabilities Made AYP in 2009-10 2010-11 AMO or
Safe- Harbor Target
Grades 3-8 ELA   133 154 140 Yes No 101
Grades 3-8 Math   152 134 (AMO 134) Yes Yes 151
HS ELA 2005 accountability cohort   132 176 131 No No 139
HS Math 2005 accountability cohort   136 172 135 No No 142
*Annual measurable objective (AMO)
** The students with disabilities as a subgroup did not make AYP in high school ELA and high school math even though they achieved the safe-harbor target in these grades and subjects. This is because they did not make the progress target for the third accountability measure in high school, which is the graduation rate. For the first time, the graduation targets for the 2009-10 school year were made more rigorous.

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 2009:

AYP:

The State did not meet its target of 61 percent of school districts for this indicator.  Actual target data represents a 51.9 percentage point decline from the 2008-09 school year, when 82.7 percent of school districts (including Charter Schools) met AYP in every grade and subject for the subgroup of students with disabilities.

The precipitous drop is due to the following factors:

  • NYS raised the rigor of its ELA and math State assessments in 2009-10 and established new higher cut scores to define proficiency in Grades 3-8 ELA and math.
  • The “34-point rule” for determination of AYP for the students with disabilities subgroup expired and was not available for accountability decisions based on 2009-10 school year results.
  • The graduation rate targets were made more rigorous for the 2009-10 school year to be consistent with the requirements under ESEA, making it more difficult for school districts to meet the new progress targets for the students with disabilities subgroup. Graduation rate is the third indicator of success in high school.  Without making the progress target on the third indicator, school districts cannot use safe-harbor to make AYP in high school ELA or Math.

In order to not hold school districts accountable retroactively to higher standards, test results were statistically adjusted to mitigate the differences in cut scores that define proficiency in 2009-10 and 2008-09 for accountability purposes. Also, in FFY 2009 results of former students with disabilities were included in the students with disabilities subgroup when calculating AYP for the students with disabilities subgroup.  In spite of these adjustments, many more school districts were not able to achieve AYP for the students with disabilities subgroup.

Because of the factors identified above, NYS is proposing to use FFY 2009 AYP data as its new baseline data and is proposing new targets for the 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 school years. See the State Performance Plan (SPP) for the revised baseline, targets and improvement activities. NYS is also revising our measure for AYP to include making progress targets on the third accountability measure for elementary and middle school, which is performance in Science, and in high school, which is the graduation rate.

Participation:

The State exceeded the participation rate target of 95 percent in all the required subjects and grades.  In grades 3-8 ELA and math, the State’s rate was 98 percent, same as in the previous school year. In high school ELA, the rate was 96 percent compared to 95 percent last year and in high school math it was 97 percent compared to 96 percent in the previous year.

Performance:

The State revised its performance target in the FFY 2008 APR to be consistent with ESEA.  The State’s target was to achieve its effective AMO score or achieve safe-harbor in ELA and math in Grades 3-8 and in high school.  To be completely consistent with the ESEA, for the remaining years of the SPP, the State will also add targets for the third indicator of success in elementary and middle school, which is performance in Science, and in high school, which is the graduation rate.

Improvement Activities Completed during 2009-10

  • The State Education Department (SED) 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 improvement activities for this indicator.
  • During the 2009-10 school year, the Special Education Quality Assurance (SEQA) offices conducted 22 focused reviews and provided on-site technical assistance in identified districts that targeted policies, practices and procedures in key areas, such as individual evaluations and eligibility determinations; IEP development and implementation; appropriate instruction from qualified staff; access, participation and progress in the general education curriculum; instruction in literacy; behavioral support; and parental involvement. 
  • SEQA monitoring staff conducted six monitoring reviews of the Boards of Cooperative Education Services (BOCES).  BOCES serves students with disabilities who require a highly structured setting or who participate in career and technical education programs.  The reviews targeted specific compliance areas that impact priority student outcomes.
  • The State considered a district’s performance of students with disabilities on ELA assessments in its determinations of meets requirements, needs assistance, needs intervention and needs substantial intervention.  As a result, the State directed its Regional Special Education Technical Assistance Support Centers (RSE-TASC) school improvement specialists to school districts needing assistance or intervention, and provided professional development on research-based literacy instructional programs for students with disabilities.
  • The Office of Special Education funded a State technical assistance center on RtI and provided grants to 14 schools throughout NYS to develop high quality RtI programs.
  • Specialists from the RSE-TASC delivered multiple regional training sessions for school districts including, but not limited to training on:  Committee on Special Education Process; Accessible Instructional Materials; Testing Accommodations; and IEP Development.
  • The State published a model IEP form and issued State guidance on the use of the form and Guidance on Quality IEP Development.  The IEP form will be mandatory for use by all NYS local educational agencies (LEAs) beginning with the 2011-12 school year.

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

NYS raised the rigor of its ELA and math State assessments in 2009-10 and established new higher cut scores to define proficiency in grades 3-8 ELA and math.  The “34-point rule” for determination of AYP for the students with disabilities subgroup expired and was not available for accountability decisions based on 2009-10 school year results. Also, more rigorous targets were implemented for the graduation rate, which is the third indicator of success in high school.

In order to not hold school districts accountable retroactively to higher standards, test results were statistically adjusted to mitigate the differences in cut scores that define proficiency in 2009-10 and 2008-09 for accountability purposes. Also, in FFY 2009 results of former students with disabilities were included in the students with disabilities subgroup when calculating AYP for the students with disabilities subgroup. 

Because of the factors identified above, NYS is proposing to use FFY 2009 AYP data as its new baseline data and is proposing new targets for the 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 school years. See the SPP for the revised baseline, targets and improvement activities.  Also, to be completely consistent with the ESEA, the State will add targets for the third indicator of success in elementary and middle school, which is performance in Science, and in high school, which is the graduation rate.

Last Updated: April 20, 2011