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 https://reportcards.nysed.gov/.
  • 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."

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 Targets
FFY 2010
(2010-11 school year)
Districts Meeting AYP for Disability Subgroup (3A) Participation for Students with Disabilities (3B) Proficiency* for Students with Disabilities (3C)
Reading Math Reading Math
3-8 HS 3-8 HS 3-8 HS 3-8 HS
Targets 31% 95% 95% 95% 95% PI
99
PI
139
PI
116
PI
142
Actual Target Data for FFY 2010 17.2% 98% 98% 97% 97% PI
89
PI
135
PI
110
PI
137

* The State’s proficiency performance target, consistent with No Child Left Behind (NCLB), is based on a performance index (PI) to achieve its effective annual measurable objective (AMO) score or achieve safe harbor in English language arts (ELA) and math in grades 3-8 and in high school.  Assessment performance is defined at four levels:  Level 1 = Basic; Level 2 = Basic Proficiency; Level 3 = Proficient; Level 4 = Advanced Proficiency.  A PI is a value from 0 to 200 that is assigned to an accountability group, indicating how that group performed on a required State test (or approved alternative) in ELA, mathematics, or science.  PIs are determined using the following equations:  For elementary and middle level assessments, the PI = [(number of continuously enrolled tested students scoring at Levels 2, 3, and 4 + the number scoring at Levels 3 and 4) ÷ number of continuously enrolled tested students] X 100.

Actual Target Data for FFY 2010:

AYP

In FFY 2009, the State established a new baseline for this indicator of 30.8 percent.  In the 2010-11 school year, 17.2 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
2009 (2009-10) 672 (includes 35 Charter Schools) 30.8% (n = 207)
2010 (2010-11) 677 (includes 46 Charter Schools) 17.2% (n = 116)

Participation Rate

The participation rate of students with disabilities in the 2010-11 school year by grade and subject is as follows: 

Participation Rates for Students with Disabilities Subgroup
Assessment 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
Enrollment Participation
Rate
Number Tested/ Enrollment Participation
Rate
Number Tested/ Enrollment Participation
Rate
Grade 3-8 ELA 204,652/
208,435
98% 204,287/
208,722
98% 203,051/
207,129
98%
Grade 3-8 Math 204,519/
208,210
98% 204,515/
208,672
98% 202,902/
207,128
98%
High School ELA (seniors) 18,686/
19,659
95% 19,906/
20,693
96% 20,580/
21,318
97%
High School Math (seniors) 18,875/
19,659
96% 20,049/
20,693
97% 20,685/
21,318
97%

Report of the Participation of Students with Disabilities on Reading/Language Arts Assessment:  The State’s report on the numbers of students with disabilities who participated in the reading and math assessments, both with and without testing accommodations can be found at: http://www.p12.nysed.gov/sedcar/state.htm#assessments. This link also includes a report of the numbers of students with disabilities who participated in the reading and math assessments, both with and without testing accommodations, at the local educational agency and school levels.

Public Reporting of Assessment Information:  Public reports of assessment results are available at https://reportcards.nysed.gov/.

Performance

The two charts below show the 2010-11 NYS performance outcomes by proficiency levels and related PIs for the students with disabilities subgroup.  Students who score at Levels 3 or 4 are considered proficient.  As described above, a PI is a value from 0 to 200 that is assigned to an accountability group, indicating how that group performed on a required State test (or approved alternative) in ELA, mathematics, or science.  The PI is calculated based upon the percentage of full-year tested students who score at Level 2 and above and the percentage scoring at Level 3 and above on the grades 3-8 ELA and mathematics assessments.

Proficiency Levels for Students with Disabilities 2010-11
Assessment Continuously Enrolled Students with Disabilities in Grades 3-8 and in 2006 Accountability Cohort in High School (HS) Number by Proficiency Level on State Assessments
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
Grade 3-8 ELA 204,892 65,612 (32%) 96,478
(47%)
33,762
(16%)
9,040
(4%)
Grade 3-8 Math 204,629 47,194 (23%) 90,138 (44%) 49,619 (24%) 17,678
(9%)
HS ELA 2005
Accountability Cohort
27,376 6,189
(23%)
5,374
(20%)
13,034
(48%)
2,779
(10%)
HS Math 2005
Accountability Cohort
27,376 4,815
(18%)
7,489
(27%)
13,269
(48%)
1,803
(7%)

 

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 AMOSafe- Harbor Target Met Third Indicator for Safe Harbor* Students with Disabilities Made AYP in 2009-10 2011-12 AMO or
Safe- Harbor Target
Grades 3-8 ELA 204,892 89 121 99 Yes No 100
Grades 3-8 Math 204,629 110 136 116 Yes No 119
HS ELA 2006 accountability cohort 27,376 135 182 139 No No 142
HS Math 2006 accountability cohort 27,376 137 179 142 No No 143
* The third indicator for grades 3-8 is science; for high school it is graduation rate.

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

Explanation of Progress or Slippage

AYP:

17.2 percent of school districts (including Charter Schools) met AYP in every grade and subject for the subgroup of students with disabilities.  The State did not meet its target that 31 percent of school districts make AYP for the subgroup of students with disabilities.  While more school districts did not make AYP than in the FFY 2009 baseline year, these results are due in great part to the more rigorous standards established by the State and other factors as described below:

  • sunset of the modified assessment statistical adjustment that had permitted many schools, districts and charter schools to make AYP with the students with disabilities group;
  • changes in test equating practices;
  • introduction of higher proficiency standards in grades 3-8 ELA and mathematics; and
  • establishment of more rigorous high school graduation rate goal and targets.

Participation:

The State exceeded its targets in all areas.  The grade 3-8 ELA and math targets were exceeded by 3 percent (98 percent actual compared to 95 percent target) and the high school ELA and math targets were exceeded by 2 percent (97 percent actual compared to 95 percent target).  All targets were also exceeded in the prior year at the same rate with the exception of high school ELA, where improvement was made.  The high school ELA actual target data was 96 percent for FFY 2009 and increased to 97 percent for FFY 2010.

Performance:

Proficiency results, based on the State’s target to achieve its effective AMO score or achieve safe harbor in ELA and math in grades 3-8 ELA and high school showed that the State did not meet its PI targets for both ELA and math.  The changes in test equating practices in combination with the introduction of higher proficiency standards in grades 3-8 ELA and mathematics impacted on these results.

Improvement Activities Completed during 2010-11

    • NYS’ 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 ELA State assessments; and compliance and correction of noncompliance.  All districts identified based on student with disabilities’ performance on State assessments received direct technical assistance and embedded professional development through a comprehensive Quality Improvement Process by the State’s Special Education School 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 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 monitoring 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.
    • Specialists from the Regional Special Education Technical Assistance Support Centers (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 provided training on the use of the State-required form and guidance on Quality IEP Development. 
    • Twenty eight schools with effective instructional practices for students with disabilities were identified by the State.  Seventeen selected effective practice schools received grants to assist 17 low performing schools to adopt these effective practices.  See www.S3TAIRproject.comexternal link.

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

    The criteria for the identification of districts beginning with the 2011-12 school year was revised to align more closely with the State’s NCLB differentiated accountability system, both for identification and support to be provided to school districts.  See http://www.p12.nysed.gov/specialed/spp/2011annualcriteria.htm.

Last Updated: April 17, 2012