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 1: Percent of youth with individualized education programs (IEPs) graduating from high school with a regular diploma.
(20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A))

Measurement:

Measurement for youth with IEPs is the same measurement as for all youth.  The calculation is explained below.

New York State’s (NYS) Measurement:

Percent of “total cohort” of students with disabilities who graduate with a high school diploma (Regents or local diploma) as of August after four years of first entering 9th grade or, for ungraded students with disabilities, after four years of becoming 17 years of age.

Note: The above measurement is the same as was used in the federal fiscal year (FFY) 2008 (2008-09) APR, but represents a change from the data provided in the FFY 2007, FFY 2006, and FFY 2005 APRs.  In these earlier documents, the State reported results of the total cohort after four years as of June (or for ungraded students with disabilities, after four years from becoming 17 years of age). Based on a change in federal requirements for FFY 2008, which required the State to use the same data as are used under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), the change has been made to report results of the total cohort, four years later, as of August (or for ungraded students with disabilities, after four years from becoming 17 years of age).

Graduation rate data for students with disabilities is calculated the same as for all students.  For current year graduation requirements, see
http://www.p12.nysed.gov/ciai/EducationLawandRegulations.html

NYS uses the same graduation rate calculation and timeline established by the United States Education Department for accountability reporting under Title I of ESEA.  At the beginning of the State Performance Plan in 2004-05, this was the percent of “graduation-rate cohort” of students with disabilities who graduated with a high school diploma (Regents or local diploma) as of August 31 of the fourth year after first entering 9th grade or for ungraded students with disabilities, after four years of becoming 17 years of age.  In order to maintain consistency with ESEA in defining this measure, the definition for the graduation percent changed during school year 2005-06 to reference the “Total Cohort,” as described below.

Data Source:

Student Information Repository System (SIRS) for collecting graduation data for all students.

NYS’ Calculation for the 2009-10 School Year:

The denominator is the Total Cohort.  See below for the definition of the 2005 total district cohort.

The 2005 district total cohort consists of all students, regardless of their current grade level, who met one of the following conditions:

  • First entered grade 9 at any time during the 2005-06 school year (July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006); or, in the case of ungraded students with disabilities, reached their 17th birthday during the 2005-06 school year. 
  • Ungraded students are included in the 2005 cohort if their birth date is between July 1, 1988 and June 30, 1989 (inclusive).

Students who have spent at least five months in district schools or out-of-district placements during year 1, 2, 3, or 4 of high school are included in the district total cohort unless they transferred to another diploma-granting program outside the district.  (This five-month enrollment rule does not apply to the statewide aggregated total cohort data displayed in this APR.)  For the 2005 Total Cohort, years 1, 2, 3, and 4 are the 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, and 2008-09 school years, respectively.

A student will be included in the district total cohort if the student’s enrollment record in the district shows that the student was enrolled for:

  • at least five continuous (not including July and August) months and the reason for ending enrollment in the district was not one of the following:  transferred to a school in another district, a nonpublic school, or a school outside New York; died; transferred by court order; or left the US; or
  • less than five months and has an ending reason indicating that the student dropped out or transferred to an Alternative High School Equivalency Preparation Program (AHSEPP) or High School Equivalency Preparation Program (HSEPP) and the student’s previous enrollment record in that district (assuming one exists) indicates that the student:
    1. was enrolled in the district for at least five months (not including July and August); and
    2. dropped out or transferred to an AHSEPP or HSEPP program.

The numerator for the calculation of graduation rate is the number of students with disabilities in the Total Cohort who graduated with a high school diploma (Regents or local diploma) as of August 2009 after four years of first entering 9th grade or, for ungraded students with disabilities, after four years of becoming 17 years of age.

 

Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) Measurable and Rigorous Target
FFY 2010
(2009-10 school year results) (2005 total cohort, as of August, four years later)
The percent of youth with IEPs graduating from high school with a regular high school diploma within four years as of August will be 52 percent.
*Note:  In FFY 2008, the language in this target chart was adjusted to be consistent with March 2009 federal requirements for the lag in reporting year for this indicator using ESEA definitions and timelines. 

Actual Target Data for FFY 2010:

44.4 percent of youth with IEPs graduated from high school with a regular high school diploma within four years, as of August 2009.

Total Cohort, As of August, Four Years Later
Cohort Year All Students Students with Disabilities
# in Cohort Graduation Rate Number & Rate # in Cohort Graduation Number & Rate
2004 223,726 n=164,744
73.6%
31,252 n=13,611
43.6%
2005 225,219 n = 167,894
74.5%
32,058 n = 14,248
44.4%

 

Need/Resource Capacity Category 2004 TotalCohort of SWD Four Years Later
as of August
2005 Total Cohort of SWD Four Years Later as of August
# in Cohort Grad Rate # in Cohort Grad Rate
New York City 10,117 25.0% 10,945 26.8%
Large Four Cities 1,612 27.5% 1,647 26.4%
Urban/Suburban
High Need Districts
2,633 37.6% 2,668 41.0%
Rural High Need Districts 2,382 38.2% 2,489 40.3%
Average Need Districts 10,216 53.8% 10,218 55.7%
Low Need Districts 4,165 76.7% 3,985 76.3%
Charter Schools 127 39.4% 106 44.3%
Total State 31,252 43.6% 32,058 44.4%

 

Group of
School Districts
2004 Total Cohort of
SWD Four Years Later
as of August
2005 Total Cohort of
SWD Four Years Later
as of August
# in Cohort Grad Rate # in Cohort Grad Rate
Big Five Cities 11,729 25.3% 12,592 26.7%
Rest of State 19,523 54.5% 19,466 55.9%
Total State 31,252 43.6% 32,058 44.4%

Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that occurred for FFY 2010:

In the 2009-10 school year, the State did not meet its target of 52 percent for this indicator.  The 2009-10 graduation rate, however, demonstrates an improvement of 0.8 percentage points higher than 2008-09 actual graduation rate of 43.6 percent. 

  • The range of graduation rates for the 2005 total cohort by need/resource category of school districts was between 26.4 percent in the large four cities and 76.3 percent in low need school districts.  There were improvements in the graduation rates  in almost all need/resource categories:
    • NYC from 25.0 to 26.8 percent;
    • Large four cities from 27.5 to 26.4 percent (slippage);
    • Urban/suburban high need districts from 37.6 to 41.0 percent;
    • Rural high need districts from 38.2 to 40.3 percent;
    • Average need districts from 53.8 to 55.7 percent;
    • Low need districts from 76.7 to 76.3 percent (slippage); and
    • Charter schools from 39.4 to 44.3 percent.

Improvement Activities Completed during 2010-11

  • In 2010-11, representatives from institutions of higher education assisted with the validation process to identify approximately 50 Effective Practices Schools as part of the State’s Personnel Development Grant (SPDG). 
  • New York State's local educational agency (LEA) determinations for the 2010-11 school year were made in consideration of the State's targets and the LEA’s performance on the following:  graduation rates for students with disabilities; dropout rates for students with disabilities; results for the subgroup of students with disabilities on the grades 3-8 English language arts State assessments; and compliance and correction of noncompliance.  Fifty-six (56) districts identified based on low graduation rates received direct technical assistance and embedded professional development by the State’s Special Education Improvement Specialists to improve results for their students with disabilities.
  • During the 2010-11 school year, Special Education Quality Assurance (SEQA) monitoring staff conducted 28 focused reviews in 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.
  • In four of the five largest school districts in NYS, SEQA monitoring staff provided on-site technical assistance and support to assist districts in noncompliance resolution and to address systemic change at the building and district levels to ensure that students with disabilities have access to general education and receive programs that are reasonably calculated to result in educational benefit and improved outcomes.
  • SEQA staff conducted ­­seven monitoring reviews of Boards of Cooperative Educational Services (BOCES).  BOCES serve 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.

Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources for FFY 2009:

The criteria for the identification of districts beginning with the 2011-12 school year was revised to align more closely with the State’s No Child Left Behind differentiated accountability system, for both identification and support to be provided to school districts.  See http://www.p12.nysed.gov/specialed/spp/2011annualcriteria.htm.  Upon release of the list of school districts identified under IDEA as “Needs Assistance” or “Needs Intervention,” the Coordinators from the Regional Special Education Technical Assistance Support Centers (RSE-TASC) will engage in regional planning with the respective SEQA Offices and District Superintendents to determine how best to allocate its Special Education School Improvement Specialists (SESIS), other regional specialists and SEQA Regional Associates in each region of the State to assist the identified school districts.  To the extent resources are available, a SESIS will participate as the Subgroup Specialist for the students with disabilities subgroup for each intervention that the school/district is required to undertake as a result of its Differentiated Accountability designation (i.e., School Quality Review, External School Curriculum Audit and Joint Intervention Team (JIT)) and the SEQA Regional Associates will team with liaisons from the Office of School Accountability as members of the JIT review teams.

Last Updated: January 24, 2012