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:

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 2010
(2010-11 school year)
100 percent 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 2010:

87 percent of noncompliance issues identified between July 1, 2009 and June 30, 2010 through the State's general supervision system (including monitoring, State complaints, hearings, etc.) were corrected within one year of identification.

Actual number 86.9 percent

Table:  Indicator B15 Worksheet

Indicator/ Indicator Clusters General Supervision System Components # of local educational agencies (LEAs) Issued Findings in FFY 2009 (7/1/09 to 6/30/10) (a) # of Findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2009 (7/1/09 to 6/30/10) (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 1/2012
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 5 5 2 3 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 7 8 6 1 1
Dispute Resolution: Complaints, Hearings 3 4 4 0 0
4A. 7Percent 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 100 704 589 84 31
Dispute Resolution: Complaints, Hearings 22 31 30 0 1
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 117 258 223 27 8
Dispute Resolution: Complaints, Hearings 74 140 135 1 4
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 25 46 44 1 1
Dispute Resolution: Complaints, Hearings 16 19 19 0 0
9. 8  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 39 55 51 4 0
Dispute Resolution: Complaints, Hearings 12 17 17 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 291 480 421 53 6
Dispute Resolution: Complaints, Hearings 12 15 14 0 1
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 20 20 20 0 0
Dispute Resolution: Complaints, Hearings 0 0 0 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 133 539 492 45 2
Dispute Resolution: Complaints, Hearings 4 4 4 0 0
Other areas of noncompliance:
Behavior Intervention Plans
Monitoring Activities:  Self-Assessment/ Local APR, Data Review, Desk Audit, On-Site Visits, or Other 91 222 150 68 4
Dispute Resolution: Complaints, Hearings 10 12 10 1 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 5 7 7 0 0
Dispute Resolution: Complaints, Hearings 4 4 4 0 0
Other areas of noncompliance:
Discipline
Monitoring Activities:  Self-Assessment/ Local APR, Data Review, Desk Audit, On-Site Visits, or Other 36 42 40 1 1
Dispute Resolution: Complaints, Hearings 4 4 4 0 0
Other areas of noncompliance:
Educational Facilities
Monitoring Activities:  Self-Assessment/ Local APR, Data Review, Desk Audit, On-Site Visits, or Other 11 13 12 1 0
Dispute Resolution: Complaints, Hearings 0 0 0 0 0
Other areas of noncompliance:
IEP Development/Implementation
Monitoring Activities:  Self-Assessment/ Local APR, Data Review, Desk Audit, On-Site Visits, or Other 82 128 113 9 6
Dispute Resolution: Complaints, Hearings 34 47 44 0 3
Other areas of noncompliance:
Personnel Qualifications
Monitoring Activities:  Self-Assessment/ Local APR, Data Review, Desk Audit, On-Site Visits, or Other 11 15 8 5 2
Dispute Resolution: Complaints, Hearings 1 1 1 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 34 96 82 13 1
Dispute Resolution: Complaints, Hearings 27 45 45 0 0
Sum of the numbers down Column a and Column b 2981
2591 317
73
Percent of noncompliance corrected within one year of identification = (column (b) sum divided by column (a) sum) times 100.
2591 (b) /2981 (a) = X 100 =86.9%.
(b) / (a) X 100 =86.9%      

Describe the process for selecting LEAs for monitoring:

NYS has general supervisory responsibility for 698 public school districts, including the Big 5 School Districts of New York City (NYC), Yonkers, Syracuse, Buffalo and Rochester; 37 Boards of Cooperative Educational Services (BOCES); 406 approved private day and residential programs (preschool and school age); 10 Special Act school districts; 11 State-supported schools; numerous other State agency-operated education programs, two State-operated schools and 184 Charter Schools.  The State’s system identifies noncompliance through data collection, State complaints, self-review monitoring processes, on-site reviews and impartial 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 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 show 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 show 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 show significant discrepancies and/or disproportionality by race/ethnicity in the identification of students with disabilities in specific disability categories (Emotional Disturbance, Learning Disability, Intellectual Disabilities, Other Health Impairment, Speech or Language Impairment and Autism); and,
  • CSE evaluations, IEP development and placement recommendations whenever the district's data show significant discrepancies and/or 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 in consideration of the State’s Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Annual Determination process, which identifies school districts that need assistance, intervention or substantial intervention.

Education programs of 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.

The State uses desk audits to monitor certain approved private schools in the area of 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 2010:

Explanation of Progress or Slippage

The State significantly improved its percentage of timely correction of noncompliance.  In the 2011 APR, the State reported that 75 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 87 percent. 

The improvement in the percentage of findings timely corrected and verified as corrected demonstrates the effectiveness of the State’s targeted efforts to design and implement effective monitoring and technical assistance systems and processes. 

Timely Correction of FFY 2009 Findings of Noncompliance (corrected within one year from identification of the noncompliance):

  1. Number of findings of noncompliance the State identified in FFY 2009 (the period from July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2010)  (Sum of Column a on the Indicator B15 Worksheet)
2981
  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)
2591
  1. Number of findings not verified as corrected within one year [(1) minus (2)]
390

FFY 2009 Findings of Noncompliance Not Timely Corrected (corrected more than one year from identification of the noncompliance and/or Not Corrected):

  1. Number of FFY 2009 findings not timely corrected (same as the number from (3) above)
390
  1. Number of FFY 2009 findings the State has verified as corrected beyond the one-year timeline (“subsequent correction”)
317
  1. Number of FFY 2009 findings not yet verified as corrected [(4) minus (5)]
73

Verification of Correction for findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2009 (either timely or subsequent):

The State verified the correction of 307 findings of noncompliance.  The State’s 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 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 verifies correction for the individual student through such means 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.

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 disabilities subject to discipline (Indicator 4):

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

  • For noncompliance identified based on self-reviews, the State required the district to submit an assurance from the School Superintendent that each instance of noncompliance was corrected and that the information reported is accurate and to maintain documentation subject to review by the New York State Education Department (NYSED).
  • For noncompliance identified based on on-site monitoring, the State’s monitoring staff reviewed revised policies and a sample of student records to verify 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):

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.  For issues of disproportionality by race/ethnicity, the State required the district 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 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):

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 CAP 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):

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 his or her preschool special education services by his or her 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):

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 in 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.

Actions Taken if Noncompliance Not Corrected:
Seventy-three findings of noncompliance in nine school districts and four approved private schools/Special Act school districts that were identified in FFY 2009 remain uncorrected.

Of the 73 findings, 10 of the findings resulted from State complaint investigations (2 schools) and 18 were the result of focused monitoring reviews (7 schools).

  • One of the school districts that has unresolved noncompliance as a result of a State complaint investigation is currently under enforcement action by the State because of its inability to correct previously identified overdue noncompliance identified through SPP monitoring and other monitoring efforts.
  • Throughout FFY 2010, the State’s monitoring staff provided targeted technical assistance to each district or agency programs to clarify actions these programs need to take to correct noncompliance.  Such technical assistance included ongoing phone contact and on-site visits to assist the programs.
  • 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 45 FFY 2009 findings of continuing noncompliance in five school districts resulted from the State’s monitoring of the SPP Indicators.

  • 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, monitoring staff contacted each district to determine the ongoing status of the district’s plan and correction of noncompliance.
  • In two of these districts, the State issued CAPs with specific actions that the districts must take to demonstrate correction of noncompliance, and in three of these districts, the State has moved to an enforcement action.  See specific actions taken to follow up on identified noncompliance reported under Indicators 4, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13.
  • On-site reviews were scheduled in each district that did not submit an assurance that it 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 followed up with the district until verification of resolution was complete.
  • 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.
    • 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 and provided each school district with data indicating significant discrepancies and/or disproportionality by race/ethnicity (Indicators 9 and 10) with the opportunity to benefit from technical assistance support from the State's Technical Assistance Center on Disproportionality (TACD).
    Correction of Remaining FFY 2008 Findings of Noncompliance (if applicable):
    1. Number of remaining FFY 2008 findings noted in Office of Special Education’s (OSEP) FFY 2009 APR response table for this indicator.
    217
    1. Number of remaining FFY 2008 findings the State has verified as corrected
    114
    1. Number of remaining FFY 2008 findings the State has not verified as corrected [(1) minus (2)]
    103

    Verification of Correction for findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2008 (either timely or subsequent):

    In 2010-11, the State verified the correction of 114 findings of noncompliance that were first identified in FFY 2008.  The process the State used for the verification of noncompliance is the same process as identified above for FFY 2009 findings.

    Actions Taken if Noncompliance Not Corrected:

    One hundred three FFY 2008 findings of noncompliance have not yet been verified as corrected by the State.  Actions taken included the following:

    • 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.  Monitoring staff attended NYC Cluster level meetings and met with the NYC Chancellor’s staff.  The Associate Commissioner met directly with the NYCDOE Deputy Chancellor to address compliance issues.
    • The State withdrew its approval for one private school for failure to correct identified noncompliance.
    • NYSED’s Special Education Statewide Coordinator and monitoring staff met with the administration of one out-of-State approved school on its outstanding noncompliance.  The program has since hired an outside consultant to assist it to achieve compliance.

    Actions taken for noncompliance identified with the SPP indicators are described under each indicator.  These actions included requiring the districts to develop action plans to correct the overdue noncompliance.  In addition:

    • In one instance, the State required the district to redirect its use of its IDEA funds to address the unresolved noncompliance.
    • Monitoring staff met with the Superintendent and board of education in one district to clarify the district's responsibility to resolve its noncompliance.
    • These districts have also been notified that failure to correct noncompliance will result in further enforcement actions, which could include redirection of IDEA funds. 
    • Additional site visits were made, technical assistance was offered, and, in some districts, monitoring staff met regularly with the School Superintendents/ administrative staff to provide technical assistance
    • The State continues to provide each school district with the opportunity for technical assistance support from the State's network of technical assistance providers.  TACD provides districts with the opportunity to address their disproportionate suspension of students with disabilities to determine root causes driving that data and the professional development to change its policies, practices and procedures.  
    • The State requires each school district identified by the State’s Annual Determination process as Needing Assistance or Needing Intervention to obtain technical assistance and has directed its State technical assistance providers to work with these districts to determine root causes and address instructional issues impacting performance and/or compliance.

    Correction of Remaining FFY 2007 Findings of Noncompliance (if applicable):

    1. Number of remaining FFY 2007 findings noted in OSEP’s FFY 2009 APR response table for this indicator
    49
    1. Number of remaining FFY 2008 findings the State has verified as corrected
    25
    1. Number of remaining FFY 2008 findings the State has not verified as corrected [(1) minus (2)]
    24

    Actions Taken if Noncompliance Not Corrected:

    The State required one district to submit an Action Plan to correct noncompliance, and monitoring staff are meeting with the district’s leadership on a monthly basis to monitor the implementation of the plan and the district’s progress in resolving the noncompliance.  This district was directed to obtain professional development from one of the State’s technical assistance providers.

    Several of 2007 findings not verified as corrected come from the NYC (public and private) schools and relate to personnel shortage issues.  For these issues, while they remain uncorrected, the Court has accepted the actions of the NYCDOE to achieve compliance (Jose P.), and the State continues to monitor implementation of those actions.

    The State required one district to redirect its IDEA funds to hire an outside expert to assist it in the development of the Action Plan and to assist in its implementation.   Monitoring staff meet monthly with district leadership to monitor the implementation of the plan and the district’s progress in resolving the noncompliance.  This district has also been receiving professional development from one of the State’s technical assistance providers.

    Two districts have uncorrected findings relating to Indicators 4 and 13.  Descriptions of the actions taken with these districts are provided under those Indicators.

    Verification of 2007 Correction (either timely or subsequent):

    See Verification process cited above for 2008.

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

    1. Number of remaining FFY 2006 findings noted in OSEP’s FFY 2009 APR response table for this indicator 
    15
    1. Number of remaining FFY 2006 findings the State has verified as corrected
    7
    1. Number of remaining FFY 2006 findings the State has not verified as corrected [(1) minus (2)]
    8

    Actions Taken if Noncompliance Not Corrected:

    All of the FFY 2006 findings not verified as corrected come from the NYC (public and private) schools and relate to personnel shortage issues.  For these issues, while they remain uncorrected, the Court has accepted the actions of the NYCDOE to achieve compliance (Jose P.), and the State continues to monitor implementation of those actions.

    Verification of Correction of Remaining 2006 findings:

    See Verification process described above for 2009.

    Additional Information Required by the OSEP APR Response Table

    Statement from the OSEP Response Table State’s Response
    The State must demonstrate, in the FFY 2010 APR, due February 1, 2012, that the remaining 217 findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2008, the remaining 49 findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2007, and the remaining 15 findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2006 that were not reported as corrected in the FFY 2009 APR were corrected.

    114 of the 217 findings identified in FFY 2008 have been corrected.

    25 of the 49 findings identified in FFY 2007 have been corrected.

    7 of the 15 findings identified in FFY 2006 have been corrected.  All findings relate to personnel shortages in the NYC area, for which the Court has approved the district’s actions to achieve compliance. (Jose P)

    More than 50 percent of prior year noncompliance issues have been corrected.  The steps the State has taken to increase its enforcement actions to ensure correction are identified above.  The majority of these remaining findings relate to personnel shortage issues in the NYC region, for which the Court has accepted actions the district must take to address compliance.  The State monitors the district’s implementation of these actions.
    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 2010 APR demonstrating that the State timely corrected noncompliance identified by the State in FFY 2009 in accordance with 20 U.S.C. 1232d(b)(3)(E), 34 CFR §§300.149 and 300.600(e), and OSEP Memo 09-02. The State reviewed and revised its improvement activities.  As a result, the State’s FFY 2010 percentage of noncompliance timely corrected (87 percent) improved by 12 percentage points over the prior year.
    In reporting on correction of findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2009 in the FFY 2010 APR, the State must report that it verified that each LEA with noncompliance identified in FFY 2009: (1) is correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirements (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.  In addition, in reporting on Indicator 15 in the FFY 2010 APR, the State must use the Indicator 15 Worksheet. The State’s process for the verification of correction of noncompliance is identified in detail above.
    In responding to Indicators 4a, 4b, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 in the FFY 2010 APR due February 1, 2012, the State must report on correction of the noncompliance described in this table under those indicators. The State reported on correction of the noncompliance described in the “Table: Indicator B15 Worksheet” for Indicators 4a, 4b, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 under those indicators.  The State also included those noncompliance findings and related findings in the Indicator 15 report of noncompliance.
    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. The State has a rigorous system of monitoring to ensure procedural compliance with IDEA.  In FFY 2010, the State ensured the timely correction of 87 percent of 2,981 identified findings and verified the correction of more than 50 percent of noncompliance identified in prior years. While challenged with personnel resources, the State has taken progressive enforcement actions and has provided extensive technical assistance to its schools/ districts to ensure systemic changes in practices.  The longstanding noncompliance that remains uncorrected is limited to very few approved private schools (including out-of-state schools) and four public school districts.

    Improvement Activities Completed in 2010-11

    • IDEA discretionary funds were directed again in the 2010-11 school year to provide funds to approved private schools and Special Act school districts to provide tuition for coursework and test preparation support to uncertified teachers seeking teacher certification.  From the inception in 2006-07 of grant initiatives through the 2010-11 school year, 447 teachers who were awarded grant funds for course work have achieved certification in a teaching discipline, including 55 teachers achieving certification in 2010-11.  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.
    • 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 attended the 2011 OSEP Leadership Conference.
      • Regular participation in the Northeast Regional Resource Center 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.
    • See individual Indicator sections (4, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13) for information on activities completed to address resolution of issues of noncompliance.
    • The State revised its procedures for the resolution of noncompliance to require the program to correct its noncompliance within a shorter time frame and establish more stringent enforcement actions even if the program is within its first 12 months of identification of noncompliance.
    • The State revised its criteria for its annual IDEA determination to add a consideration of the length of time that a district has been out of compliance in determining if the district needs assistance, intervention or substantial intervention.

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

    • See revisions to improvement activities identified under Indicators 4, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13.
      • A newly designed module will be added to the State’s Comprehensive Special Education Information System to alert monitoring staff to districts within their region that are required to submit data, the result of that submission, status of correction of noncompliance, last notifications/reminder sent to the district, and need to schedule follow-up, focused, or comprehensive reviews.  This will allow Special Education Quality Assurance staff to intervene sooner, prior to 12 months from identification of noncompliance, to help district resolve noncompliance earlier.  Timeline: by December 31, 2012

      7 When the same compliance issue is identified for a school district both for Indicator 4 and 4B, it is reported only once in Indicator 15.

      8 When the same compliance issue is identified for a school district both for Indicator 9 and 10, it is reported only once in Indicator 15.

Last Updated: September 6, 2012