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))

* While federal regulations require transition planning to begin with the first IEP to be in effect at age 16, New York State (NYS) law requires transition planning 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 2010
(2010-11 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 2010:

79 percent of youth, ages 15 and above, had IEPs that included 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.

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 2009 (baseline) 3,321 2,232 67.2%
FFY 2010 3,437 2,714 79.0%

Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that occurred for FFY 2010:
NYS showed significant progress in meeting the State's target for this indicator.  In 2010, 79.0 percent of youth aged 15 and above had IEPs that included coordinated, measurable, annual IEP goals and transition services that would reasonably enable the student to meet the post-secondary goals, compared to 67.2 percent in 2009.
The FFY 2010 data was based on the monitoring review of IEPs from a representative sample of 107 school districts, including NYC.  Districts used a State-developed self-review monitoring protocol to review a sample of IEPs of students with disabilities aged 15 and above to determine if each IEP is in compliance with all transition planning requirements. The self-review monitoring protocol is posted at http://www.p12.nysed.gov/specialed/spp/13selfreview-2011.pdf.  The total number of students with IEPs, ages 15-21, enrolled in the school districts sampled during 2010-11 was 52,907.  The total number of IEPs reviewed from these representative school districts was 3,437.  Of the IEPs reviewed, 2,714 were found to have been in compliance with all IEP transition requirements; and 723 had one or more transition planning requirement that was not appropriately addressed in the students’ IEPs.

The following data shows improvement in the percent of IEPs within each district that met full compliance with the transition planning requirements.  Of the 107 school districts:

  • 8 school districts (7.5 percent of the 107 school districts) reported that 0 percent of their students’ IEPs that were reviewed were in compliance with the IEP transition requirements.  This is an improvement of 50 percent from the prior year report of 16 school districts in this category.
  • 12 school districts (11.2 percent of the 107 school districts) reported between 1 and 49 percent of the students' IEPs that were reviewed met the transition requirements, an improvement from the 15 school districts reported last year in this category.
  • 18 school districts (16.8 percent of the 107 school districts) reported between 50 and 79 percent of their IEPs that were reviewed met the transition requirements. This again is an improvement from the 15 school districts reported in this category last year.
  • 12 school districts (11.2 percent of the 107 school districts) reported between 80 and 99 percent of IEPs that were reviewed met the transition requirements.  This number was 22 for FFY 2009.
  • 57 school districts (53.3 percent of the 107 school districts) reported 100 percent of IEPs that were reviewed were in compliance with all transition planning requirements, compared with 39 (36.4 percent) in FFY 2009.

Regional variations are noted in the following chart.  The regional trends are similar to baseline data, indicating in part the need for regionally-designed targeted interventions, training and technical assistance.

Indicator 13 - Transition IEP FFY 2010 Data
RSE-TASC* Region Total # of School Districts Reviewed in FFY 2010 Number of Reviewed School Districts with IEPs found in Compliance
0% of IEPs in compliance 1-49% of IEPs in compliance 50-79% of IEPs in compliance 80-99% of IEPs in compliance 100% of IEPs in compliance
Capital District/ North Country 24 1 2 7 2 12
Central 9 0 2 3 1 3
Long Island 14 3 1 1 5 4
Lower Hudson 8 1 2 3 1 1
Mid-Hudson 10 1 3 1 0 5
Mid-South 10 0 0 0 1 9
Mid-State 7 1 2 1 0 3
Mid-West 13 0 0 1 0 12
New York City 1 0 0 0 1 0
West 11 1 0 1 1 8
Totals 107 8 12 18 12 57

*Regional Special Education Technical Assistance Support Centers (See map of regions at http://www.p12.nysed.gov/specialed/techassist/rsetasc/regionmap.htm)

Correction of Noncompliance
Correction of FFY 2009 Findings of Noncompliance:
Level of compliance (actual target data) State reported for FFY 2009 for this indicator: 67.2%

  1. Number of findings of noncompliance the State made during FFY 2009 (the period from July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2010)
425 findings
(108 school districts)
  1. Number of FFY 2009 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)
398 findings
(100 school districts)
  1. Number of FFY 2009 findings not verified as corrected within one year [(1) minus (2)]
27 findings
(8 school districts)
Correction of FFY 2009 Findings of Noncompliance Not Timely Corrected (corrected more than one year from identification of the noncompliance):
  1. Number of FFY 2009 findings not timely corrected (same as the number from (3) above)
27 findings
(8  school districts)
  1. Number of FFY 2009 findings the State has verified as corrected beyond the one-year timeline (“subsequent correction”) 
22 findings
(6 school districts)
  1. Number of FFY 2009 findings not yet verified as corrected [(4) minus (5)]
5 findings
(2 school districts)

Actions Taken if Noncompliance Found in FFY 2009 Is Not Corrected:

Two districts have continuing noncompliance.  One of the districts is the same district with noncompliance identified in FFY 2007, identified from a resubmission of a new self-review in FFY 2009 that they were required to submit based on their low percentage of students with IEPs with appropriate transition plans.  This same district is also reported on under FFY 2007 (see below).  Staff from the State’s monitoring office conducted on- site reviews to identify root causes, provided technical assistance to the district and required the district to develop an Action Plan.  The transition specialist from the RSE-TASC provided embedded professional development with the district.  The district has not yet been able to demonstrate to the State’s monitoring office that the noncompliance has been resolved, due, in part, to a computer error at the time the district converted to a new IEP software contractor wherein data was lost during the conversion.

The other district is New York City (NYC).  Based upon a verification review, the State found they had not corrected all issues of noncompliance for individual students.  The State required the NYC Department of Education (NYCDOE) to develop a compliance assurance plan (CAP) with targeted action steps, timelines and expected outcomes.  The CAP is routinely addressed at monthly meetings with the Deputy Chancellor and her Executive Officers.  The State also took the following actions to address this compliance issue with NYC:

  • Data analysis for SPP 13 was reviewed at monthly Cluster Meetings convened by the State’s NYC Regional Associates with Cluster Leaders, Network Leaders and Administrators of Special Education and other pertinent personnel to identify root causes for noncompliance at the network/school level, discuss strategies to resolve the noncompliance and improve outcomes.  These monthly cluster meetings are designed to hold accountable the appropriate individuals who are responsible for improving compliance in the schools as well as improving student outcomes.
  • The State provided training on SPP Indicator 13 to NYCDOE Cluster 5 and Network Leaders and Administrators of Special Education, NYCDOE Division of Students with Disabilities and English Language Learners, Community School District 75 Citywide Programs, all six Clusters and the NYCDOE Office of Special Education Performance Initiatives.
  • NYC Regional Office (RO) Supervisors provided peer review opportunities with the NYCDOE central staff in spring and fall of 2011 utilizing the New York State Education Department (NYSED)-reviewed IEPs where noncompliance was identified from both the 2008-09 and 2009-10 school years to illustrate areas of continued noncompliance and identify strategies and future professional development needs to address systemic noncompliance.
  • NYCRO Associates met monthly with Cluster and Network Leaders and NYCDOE central staff to discuss steps the Cluster/Network has taken to ensure the quality of transition plans and transition planning in their respective schools.
  • NYCRO Associates provided school-level training with Cluster and Network staff on SPP Indictor 13 with the schools identified for this intervention that struggled with compliant IEP development and provision of appropriate transition services.
  • NYCDOE District 75 Citywide Programs provides special education service and programs to students across the NYCDOE who are severely behaviorally and cognitively challenged, and who cannot be effectively served in their local community-based schools.  District 75 has a dedicated Transition Coordinator and staff whose responsibility is to provide professional development to schools to assist with development of appropriate transition plans and identifying appropriate transition services. District 75’s Deputy Superintendent has responsibility for ensuring the resources of that department are available to the four Networks that comprise District 75.  District 75’s corrected IEPs for the 2009-10 sample year indicate a significant improvement in compliance from previous sample years.

Verification of Correction of FFY 2009 Noncompliance (either timely or subsequent):

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.  To verify correction, staff reviewed individual IEPs that were identified out of compliance and then conducted a review of a representative sample of other IEPs.

Correction of Remaining FFY 2008 Findings of Noncompliance (if applicable):

  1. Number of FFY 2008 findings noted in the Office of Special Education Program’s (OSEP) June 2011 FFY 2009 APR response table for indicator. 
9 findings
(2 school districts)
  1. Number of remaining FFY 2008 findings the State has verified as corrected
4 findings
(2 school districts)
  1. Number of FFY 2008 findings not verified as corrected within one year [(1) minus (2)]
5 findings
(1 school district)

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

See actions identified above for NYCDOE FFY 2009 noncompliance.

Verification of Correction of FFY 2008 Noncompliance (either timely or subsequent):

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.  To verify correction, staff reviewed individual IEPs that were identified out of compliance and then conducted a review of a representative sample of other IEPs.  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):

  1. Number of remaining FFY 2007 findings noted in OSEP’s June 2011 FFY 2009 APR response table for this indicator
9 findings
(2 school districts)
  1. Number of remaining FFY 2007 findings the State has verified as corrected 
7 findings
(1 school district)
  1. Number of remaining FFY 2007 findings the State has not verified as corrected [(1) minus (2)]
2 findings
(1 school district)

Actions Taken if Noncompliance Found in FFY 2007 is Not Corrected:
For one district, staff from the State’s monitoring office conducted on-site reviews to identify root causes, provided technical assistance to the district, and required the district to develop an Action Plan. The transition specialist from the RSE-TASC provided embedded professional development with the district.  The district has not yet been able to demonstrate to the State’s monitoring office that the noncompliance has been resolved, due, in part, to a computer error at the time the district converted to a new IEP software contractor wherein data was lost during the conversion.

Verification of Correction of Remaining FFY 2007 Findings:

Upon review, all individual students identified with noncompliant IEPs identified in FFY 2007 in NYC have since graduated or aged out.  In addition to individual IEP reviews to verify the two-prong correction of noncompliance for NYC, the State also requires annual monitoring for compliance in NYC for this indicator and issues a new finding in the year reviewed if 100 percent of the IEPs are not in compliance.

Correction of Remaining FFY 2006 Findings of Noncompliance (if applicable):

  1. Number of remaining FFY 2006 findings noted in OSEP’s June 2011 FFY 2009 APR response table for this indicator
7 findings
(1 school district)
  1. Number of remaining FFY 2006 findings the State has verified as corrected
7 findings
(1 school district)
  1. Number of remaining FFY 2006 findings the State has not  verified as corrected [(1) minus (2)]
0 findings
(0 school district)

All findings from FFY 2006 have been corrected to date.

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

Upon review, all individual students identified with noncompliant IEPs identified in FFY 2006 have since graduated or aged out.  The State requires annual monitoring in NYC for compliance with this indicator to ensure correction for all students.

Additional Information Required by the OSEP APR Response Table for this Indicator (if applicable):

Statement from the OSEP Response Table State’s Response
Although OSEP did not consider data for Indicator 13 in its determinations for FFY 2009, OSEP is concerned about the State’s very low FFY 2009 data (below 75 percent) for this indicator.  In 2012, OSEP will consider the State’s FFY 2010 data for Indicator 13 in determinations. The State’s performance for this indicator for FFY 2010 was 79 percent, above the 75 percent threshold, and an indication of significant progress over its baseline data report for FFY 2009 of 67.2 percent.
The State must demonstrate, in the FFY 2010 APR, due February 1, 2012, that the State is in compliance with the secondary transition requirements in 34 CFR §§300.320(b) and 300.321(b). While the State reported less than 100 percent compliance in the FFY 2010 APR, it is showing steady and substantial progress toward full compliance.  The State’s progress is significant because each year the report reflects compliance from a different representative sample of districts.
Because the State reported less than 100 percent compliance for FFY 2009, the State must report on the status of correction of noncompliance reflected in the data the State reported for this indicator. The State reported above on the status of correction of noncompliance identified in FFY 2008 and 2009.
The State must demonstrate, in FFY 2010 APR,  that the remaining nine uncorrected noncompliance findings identified in FFY 2007 were corrected. The State reported above on the status of correction of noncompliance identified in FFY 2007 and earlier.
When reporting on the correction of noncompliance, the State must report in its FFY 2010 APR, that it has verified that each LEA with noncompliance reflected in the FFY 2009 data and each LEA with the remaining noncompliance identified in FFY 2007 the State reported for this indicator:  (1) is correctly implementing 34 CFR §§300.320(b) and 300.321(b) (i.e., achieved 100 percent 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 2010 APR, the State must describe the specific actions that were taken to verify the correction.

The State reported above on its process to verify the correction of noncompliance.  The State’s process for verification is based on (1) a review of updated data subsequently collected through on-site monitoring and review of data collected through a self-review process; and (2) a review of each individual case of noncompliance, unless the child is no longer within the jurisdiction of the school district.

To ensure both individual and systemic correction of noncompliance for this indicator for every district, 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 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 the State does not report 100 percent compliance in the FFY 2010 APR, the State must review its improvement activities and revise them, if necessary.

The State also must demonstrate in the FFY 2010 APR that the remaining seven uncorrected noncompliance findings identified in FFY 2006, were corrected.

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 2010 APR that it has corrected this noncompliance.

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 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.

Improvement Activities Completed in 2010-11

  • 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.
  • The RSE-TASC Regional Special Education Training Specialists delivered a total of 46 three-day trainings for CSE chairpersons across the State.  These trainings provided extensive information on appropriate IEP development and transition planning.
  • The RSE-TASC Transition Specialists provided locally developed training sessions within their regions on the following topics:  Transition in the IEP, Transition Assessment, the Student Exit Summary, Agency Collaboration, Transition for Families, Self-Advocacy, and Post-School Outcomes.
  • The State issued a State Model IEP form in 2010.  This form is 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.  A total of 466 training sessions on IEP development were conducted throughout the State.

Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources for FFY 2010 [If applicable]

  • NYSED is working with an interagency task force to address aging out transition planning requirements for students with disabilities.  (2011-2012)
  • The Offices of Special Education and Adult Career and Continuing Education Services (ACCES) are collaborating with other State agencies and the University of Rochester on a new federal grant to improve transition planning and results for students with developmental disabilities.  Work of the grant will include the development of a job training curriculum, a resource guide for families and schools, and community groups focused on improving transition outcomes for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities.  (2011 – 2016) 
Last Updated: April 11, 2012