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 4:  Rates of suspension and expulsion:

  1. Percent of districts that have a significant discrepancy in the rate of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year for children with individualized education programs (IEPs); and
  2. Percent of districts that have (a) a significant discrepancy, by race or ethnicity, in the rate of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year for children with IEPs; and (b) policies, procedures or practices that contribute to the significant discrepancy and do not comply with requirements relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards.
    (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A); 1412(a)(22))

Measurement 4A:

A.  Percent = [(# of districts that have a significant discrepancy in the rates of suspensions and expulsions for greater than 10 days in a school year of children with IEPs) divided by the (# of districts in the State)] times 100.

New York State’s (NYS) Definition of Significant Discrepancy and Methodology:

In NYS, the rates of suspensions and expulsions of students with disabilities out of  school for more than 10 days in a school year are compared among the school districts in the State. 

For the baseline year 2004-05 through 2006-07, significant discrepancy was defined as a suspension rate of greater than three times the baseline statewide average (i.e., a rate of 4.0 percent or higher).

Beginning in 2007-08 through 2010-11, significant discrepancy is defined as a suspension rate of greater than two times the baseline statewide average, (i.e., a rate of more than 2.7 percent or higher).

The 2004-05 baseline statewide average suspension rate was 1.34 percent. School districts with at least 75 school-age students with disabilities that had a suspension rate of 4.0 percent or higher were identified as having significant discrepancy in their rate among school districts.  A minimum number of 75 students with disabilities was used since small numbers of students with disabilities may distort percentages.

The State uses a minimum of 75 students with disabilities “n” size requirement in its formula to compute significant discrepancy. However, it does not exclude school districts from the denominator when calculating results for this indicator.

Data Source:

NYS collects data on the number of students with disabilities suspended or expelled out of school for more than 10 days in a school year on the PD-8 report. See http://www.p12.nysed.gov/sedcar/forms/pdforms/1112/pdf/pd8_1112.pdf.  Data for this report are collected through the PD Data System, which is a web-based application used by school districts to provide aggregate data.  The State verifies the reliability and accuracy of the State’s data through automated edit checks and verification procedures.

Section 618 data are used to analyze for discrepancy in the rates of out-of-school suspensions of students with disabilities for greater than 10 days in a school year among school districts.  Suspension rates were calculated for all school districts.  From 2004-05 through 2007-08, the rates were computed by dividing the number of students with disabilities suspended out of school for more than 10 days, by the December 1 count of school-age students with disabilities and the result expressed as a percent.  From 2008-09 onward, the date for determining the count for school-age students changed from December 1 to the first Wednesday in October.

For Indicator 4A, NYS uses data collected for Table 5 of Information Collection 1820-0621 (Report of Children with Disabilities Unilaterally Removed or Suspended/Expelled for More than 10 Days) and reported to the United States Education Department (USED) annually in the 618 report. These data are also provided to USED in the corresponding EDFacts files.

Actual Target Data for FFY 2009

Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) Measurable and Rigorous Target
FFY 2010
Using 2009-10 school year data
4A.  No more than 2 percent of school districts in the State will suspend students with disabilities for more than 10 days at a rate of 2.7 percent or higher. (This rate is two times the baseline average.)

Actual Target Data for FFY 2010 (using 2009-10 data)

In the 2009-10 school year, 41 school districts (6.0 percent of all school districts) had an out-of-district suspension rate for more than 10 days at a rate of 2.7 percent or higher.

NYS evaluated suspension data from 574 school districts with a minimum enrollment of 75 students with disabilities (enrollment as of October 7, 2009).  This means that 108 school districts were excluded in the calculation for this indicator because of the State’s minimum size criteria.

Indicator 4A. Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) with Significant Discrepancies in Rates for Suspension and Expulsion of Students with Disabilities
Year Total Number of LEAs Number of LEAs that have Significant Discrepancies Percent
FFY 2008 (using 2007-08 data) 683 64 9.4%
FFY 2009 (using 2008-09 data) 682 40 5.9%
FFY 2010 (using 2009-10 data) 682 41 6.0%

Review of Policies, Procedures and Practices (completed in FFY 2010 using 2009-10 data)

For each school district identified by its data as having a significant discrepancy in the rate of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year of students with disabilities, the State ensures that a review is conducted of the district’s policies, procedures and practices relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the uses of positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS), and procedural safeguards among students with disabilities subject to discipline.  The State provides for the review of policies, procedures and practices each year a school district’s data shows a significant discrepancy in its suspension rates for students with disabilities as follows:

  • The first year a district’s data indicates a significant discrepancy, the State requires the district to complete a State-developed self-review monitoring protocol, which requires the review of specific policies, practices and procedures related to discipline of students with disabilities, including requirements relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, use of PBIS and procedural safeguards. The monitoring protocol for this review is available at http://www.p12.nysed.gov/specialed/spp/indicators/4.htm.  A report of the results of this review is submitted by the district to the State.  At the time of submission, school districts that identify issues of noncompliance are immediately notified that they must correct all issues of noncompliance as soon as possible, but not later than 12 months.  The results from this review are reported to the State for follow-up and corrective actions if compliance issues are identified.  Twenty one (21) of the 41 school districts identified had their review of policies, procedures and practices conducted in this manner.
  • For subsequent years in which a school district’s data indicates significant discrepancies, the State conducts the monitoring review of the district’s policies, procedures and practices as identified above.  Twenty (20) of the 41 school districts identified had their review of policies, procedures and practices conducted in this manner.

It was determined that 35 of the 41 school districts had one or more inappropriate policies, procedures and/or practices relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral supports and interventions, and/or procedural safeguards. These school districts were notified that they must correct their policies, practices and procedures within one year from being notified of noncompliance.

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

Explanation of Progress or Slippage

FFY 2010 represents the third year of implementing the State’s more rigorous definition of significant discrepancy of 2.7 percent or higher.  The rates for the past two years (FFY 2009 and FFY 2010) have decreased from FFY 2008.  The slippage from FFY 2009 to FFY 2010 was minimal in both percentage and the number of districts (0.1 percentage point representing one school district).

While the State has not met its target for this indicator, an analysis of the number of school districts with a suspension rate of 4.0 percent or higher decreased from 16 districts in 2006-07 to 15 school districts in 2010-11, and ten (10) school districts that were identified with high suspension rates in 2008-09 decreased their rates of long-term suspensions in 2009-10 to below the State’s target.

NYS completed its review of policies, practices and procedures relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the uses of PBIS, and procedural safeguards for students with disabilities subject to discipline in the 41 school districts identified.  Based on the reviews discussed in the section above, the State determined that 35 of the 41 school districts identified had policies, procedures and practices that were not in compliance.  Each of these districts was notified that the correction of noncompliance must be made as soon as possible and within one year of notification

Correction of FFY 2009 Findings of Noncompliance

Beginning with the FFY 2008 (APR 2010) submission, NYS began reporting on the correction of noncompliance according to the school year in which the finding of noncompliance was issued.  This method of reporting is consistent with guidance and format provided by USED.  In earlier years, under this indicator, the State only reported on the number of school districts with noncompliance according to the data year (used for identification) and the notification year (the year in which districts were notified to complete a self-review of their practices, policies and procedures).  Please note that the number of districts reported in the tables below as having corrected findings within one year or after one year shows that some school districts corrected some of their findings within one year and other findings after one year. For this reason, some of the same school districts are reported in one or more of lines 1-6 depending on how many of the findings they corrected within one year or after one year.

  1. Number of findings of noncompliance the State made during FFY 2009 (the period from July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2010) using 2008-09 data
727 findings
(56 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 LEA of the finding)
615 findings
(47 school districts)
  1. Number of FFY 2009 findings not verified as corrected within one year [(1) minus (2)]
112 findings
(9 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)
112 findings
(9 school districts)
  1. Number of FFY 2009 findings the State has verified as corrected beyond the one-year timeline (“subsequent correction”) 
112 findings
(9 school districts)
  1. Number of FFY 2009 findings not yet verified as corrected [(4) minus (5)]
0 findings
(0 school district)

Actions Taken if Noncompliance Not Corrected:
All 2009 findings were verified as corrected.

Verification of Correction of Findings (either timely or subsequent):
For the nine districts verified as corrected beyond the one-year timeline, staff provided technical assistance to the district to identify and address the root causes.  For two of the districts, staff also conducted an on-site review to identify root causes, issued a CAP and conducted regular follow-up activities to assess the district’s progress in completing the corrective actions.  The State verified correction of noncompliance for Indicator 4 as follows:

  • For noncompliance identified based on self-reviews, when the school district reported correction of noncompliance to the State, the State required an assurance from the school superintendent that each instance of noncompliance was corrected and that the information reported is accurate.
    • For noncompliance identified based on on-site monitoring, the State’s monitoring staff followed up with each district to assure that the CAP was fully implemented and verified by a review of revised policies and a sample of student records, that the district is correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirements and that individual instances of noncompliance had been corrected.

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

    1. Number of remaining FFY 2008 findings (identified in July 1, 2008 – June 30, 2009 using 2007-08 data), noted in Office of Special Education Program’s (OSEP) June 1, 2011 FFY 2009 APR response table for this indicator
    7 findings
    (1 school districts)
    1. Number of remaining FFY 2008 findings the State has verified as corrected
    7 findings
    (1 school districts)
    1. Number of remaining FFY 2008 findings the State not verified as corrected [(1) minus (2)]
    0 findings
    (0 school districts)

    Verification of Correction (either timely or subsequent):

    Staff provided technical assistance to the district to identify and address the root causes, conducted an on-site review to identify root causes, issued a CAP and conducted regular follow-up activities to assess the district’s progress in completing the corrective actions.  Through this process, the State verified correction of noncompliance for Indicator 4 as follows:

    • For noncompliance identified based on self-reviews, when the school district reported correction of noncompliance to the State, the State required an assurance from the school superintendent that each instance of noncompliance was corrected and that the information reported is accurate.
      • For noncompliance identified based on on-site monitoring, the State’s monitoring staff followed up with each district to assure that the CAP was fully implemented and verified, by review of revised policies and a sample of student records, that the district is correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirements and that individual instances of noncompliance had been corrected.

      Additional Information Required by the OSEP APR Response Table for this Indicator:

      Statement from the OSEP Response Table State’s Response
      The State must report, in its FFY 2010 APR, on the correction of noncompliance that the State identified in FFY 2009 based on FFY 2008 data as a result of the review it conducted pursuant to 34 CFR §300.170(b).  When reporting on the correction of this noncompliance, the State must report that it has verified that each local educational agency (LEA) with noncompliance identified by the State (1) is correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirements(s) (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 district, consistent with OSEP Memorandum 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 the correction of all noncompliance identified in 2009 based on FFY 2008 data. 

      The State reported above how it verified the correction of noncompliance in the districts.
      The State reported that noncompliance identified in FFY 2008 based on FFY 2007 data as a result of the review it conducted pursuant to 34 CFR §300.170(b) was partially corrected. When reporting on the correction of noncompliance, the State must demonstrate, in the FFY 2010 APR, that it has verified that each district with remaining noncompliance identified based on FFY 2007 data is correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirements.  If the State is unable to demonstrate compliance with those requirements in the FFY 2010 APR, the State must review its improvement activities and revise them, if necessary, to ensure compliance. All findings on noncompliance identified in FFY 2008 have been corrected and verified by the State as corrected.

      Improvement Activities Completed in 2010-11

      • Electronic notices were sent to 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 State should timely correction not occur.
      • Through a regional planning process, behavior specialists from the State’s Regional Special Education Technical Assistance Support Center (RSE-TASC) were assigned to provide technical assistance and training on implementation of PBIS and policies, procedures and practices relating to development and implementation of IEPs, the uses of PBIS, and procedural safeguards for students with disabilities subject to discipline.
      • The State provided a three-day training program for chairpersons of Committees on Special Education (CSEs) and Committees on Preschool Special Education (CPSEs), which includes training on IEP development and PBIS.  Forty-six (46) regional training sessions were conducted throughout the year.
      • The State Technical Assistance Center (TAC) on PBIS delivered nine days of training and ongoing technical assistance to the RSE-TASC behavioral specialists and other State technical assistance providers who, in turn, provided training and technical assistance to identified districts in the development of positive behavior principles and practices.  NYS PBIS TAC developed a web-based resource library to provide timely access to research-based information on PBIS statewide and developed research-based curriculum on PBIS to be used by the State behavioral specialists in their work with school districts.
      • The Office of Special Education accessed technical assistance to further inform its activities to address suspension rates of students with disabilities and to promote positive behavioral supports and interventions in NYS' public and private schools from the National Center for PBIS.  The regional behavior specialists received direct on-site professional development and technical assistance from national PBIS center staff, and the State supported attendance of the entire team of regional behavior specialists and the NYS PBIS TAC staff at the National PBIS Leadership Forum in October 2011.
      • The State provided statewide regional training on its IEP form (to be mandated for use by all NYS school districts beginning in the 2011-12 school year).  The form ensures that CSEs document in the IEP the results of its consideration of a student’s need for positive behavioral supports and other strategies.  Updated guidance and training on use of the form and IEP development were also posted at http://www.p12.nysed.gov/specialed/formsnotices/IEP/home.html.
      • The State provided training to approved private schools on functional behavioral assessments and intervention plans, use of time out and emergency interventions.  
      • Specialists from RSE-TASC provided technical assistance and professional development to selected approved private schools.
      • The RSE-TASC Regional Special Education Training Specialists and Behavior Specialists jointly developed training on functional behavioral assessments and intervention plans, to be delivered regionally throughout the State for all interested districts.  RSE-TASC behavior specialists provided intensive two-day training on functional behavioral assessments and intervention plans to identified districts in each region of the State.

      Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources for FFY 2011 [If applicable]

      None


      4B: Significant Discrepancies by Race/Ethnicity in High Suspension Rates

      Measurement 4B:

      B.   Percent = [(# of districts that have: (a) a significant discrepancy, by race or ethnicity, in the rate of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year for children with IEPs; and (b) policies, procedures or practices that contribute to the significant discrepancy and do not comply with requirements relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards) divided by the (# of districts in the State)] times 100. 

      Definition of significant discrepancy:

      NYS compares the number of students suspended in each race/ethnicity category with the statewide number suspended of all students with disabilities and computes a standard deviation to determine if there is significant discrepancy in suspensions.  The State uses the following definition of “significant discrepancy”:

      • At least 75 students with disabilities enrolled on 10/1/10;
      • At least 10 students with disabilities of the particular race/ethnicity were suspended;
      • The suspension rate of the particular race/ethnicity was greater than two standard deviations above the mean.

      For the school district calculations, the minimum numbers of students with disabilities is used because of the potential for small numbers of students with disabilities to distort percentages.  New York State includes the total number of LEAs in the State in the denominator.  The Statewide calculation does not exclude school districts from the denominator calculation as a result of this minimum “n” size.

      Reports include significant discrepancies of children in the “two or more races” category for Indicator 4B.

      For each school district identified by its data as having a significant discrepancy in the rate of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year of students with disabilities, the State ensures that a review is conducted of the district’s policies, procedures and practices relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the uses of PBIS, and procedural safeguards among students with disabilities subject to discipline.  The State provides for the review of policies, procedures and practices each year a school district’s data shows a significant discrepancy in its suspension rates for students with disabilities as follows:

        • The first year a district’s data indicates a significant discrepancy, the State requires the district to complete a State-developed self-review monitoring protocol, which requires the review of specific policies, practices and procedures related to discipline of students with disabilities, including requirements relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, use of PBIS and procedural safeguards.  The monitoring protocol for this review is available at http://www.p12.nysed.gov/specialed/spp/indicators/4.htm.  A report of the results of this review is submitted by the district to the State.  At the time of submission, school districts that identify issues of noncompliance are immediately notified that they must correct all issues of noncompliance as soon as possible, but not later than 12 months.  The results from this review are reported to the State for follow-up and corrective actions if compliance issues are identified.  Districts that are identified with inappropriate policies, procedures and/or practices are identified for purposes of reporting in the APR for indicator 4B.
        • For subsequent years in which a school district’s data indicates significant discrepancies, the State conducts the monitoring review of the district’s policies, procedures and practices in the areas as identified above.

        Data Source:

        For 4B, NYS uses data collected for Table 5 of Information Collection 1820-0621 (Report of Children with Disabilities Unilaterally Removed or Suspended/Expelled for More than 10 Days) and reported in the annual 618 report to USED.  For 4B, NYS also includes data from reviews of policies, practices and procedures as defined in the above Measurement for this indicator.

        Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) Measurable and Rigorous Target
        FFY 2010 (using 2009-10 data) 4B. 0 percent of school districts will be 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 that is the result of inappropriate policies, procedures and/or practices.

        Actual Target Data for FFY 2010 (using 2009-2010 data)

        The State included 574 school districts in the calculation of this indicator because they had a sufficient minimum enrollment of at least 75 students with disabilities. A total of 108 school districts were excluded because of the State’s minimum size criteria.

        In FFY 2010, 12 districts had data showing significant discrepancy in the rates of suspension and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year by race and ethnicity; nine (9) of these school districts (1.3 percent of all school districts) had 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 that were the result of inappropriate policies, procedures and/or practices.

        Indicator 4B(a). LEAs with Significant Discrepancy, by Race or Ethnicity in Rates of Suspension and Expulsion
        Year Total Number of LEAs Number of LEAs that have Significant Discrepancies by Race or Ethnicity Percent
        FFY 2010
        (using 2009-10 data)
        682 12 1.8
        Indicator 4B(b). LEAs with Significant Discrepancy, by Race or Ethnicity, in Rates of Suspensions and Expulsions; and policies, procedures or practices that contribute to the significant discrepancy and do not comply with requirements relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of PBIS, and procedural safeguards
        Year Total Number of LEAs Number of LEAs that have Significant Discrepancies by, Race or Ethnicity, and Policies, Procedures or Practices that Contribute to the Significant Discrepancy Percent
        FFY 2010
        (using 2009-10 data)
        682 9 1.3%

        Review of Policies, Procedures and Practices (completed in FFY 2010 using 2009-10 data):

        During FFY 2010, 12 school districts were identified by the State as having data showing significant discrepancy based on race/ethnicity in the percent of students with disabilities suspended out of school for more than 10 days based on their 2009-10 school year data.  Four (4) of these school districts were sent notifications with directions to use a State-developed self-review monitoring protocol to review their policies, practices and procedures.  Eight (8) school districts received focused or comprehensive reviews by the special education monitoring office to review their policies, procedures and practices because these school districts had two or more consecutive years of data with significant discrepancies.

        It was determined that nine (9) of the 12 school districts (1.3 percent) of all school districts in the State had one or more inappropriate policies, procedures and/or practices that contributed to the significant discrepancy and did not comply with requirements relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of PBIS, and/or procedural safeguards.  These school districts have been notified that they must correct their policies, practices and procedures within one year from being notified of noncompliance.

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

        Explanation of Progress or Slippage

        In FFY 2010, the State showed significant improvement, decreasing the percentage of districts that have Significant Discrepancies by Race or Ethnicity, and Policies, Procedures or Practices that Contribute to the Significant Discrepancy by .9 percentage points from the previous year.  While there were 15 districts identified in FFY 2009, only nine school districts were identified in FFY 2010.

        Correction of FFY 2009 Findings of Noncompliance

        1. Number of findings of noncompliance the State made during FFY 2009 (the period from July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2010) using 2008-09 data
        199 findings
        (11 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 LEA of the finding)
        141 findings
        (6 school districts)
        1. Number of FFY 2009 findings not verified as corrected within one year [(1) minus (2)]
        58 findings
        (5 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)
        58 findings
        (5 school districts)
        1. Number of FFY 2009 findings the State has verified as corrected beyond the one-year timeline (“subsequent correction”) 
        22 findings
        (3 school districts)
        1. Number of FFY 2009 findings not yet verified as corrected [(4) minus (5)]
        36 findings
        (2 school districts)

        Actions Taken if Noncompliance Not Corrected:

        For the two school districts, staff provided technical assistance to district staff to address noncompliance after each three-month electronic reminder notice was sent; conducted an on-site review to identify root causes and issued a CAP.  Staff is conducting regular follow-up activities to assess the district’s progress in completing the corrective actions specified in the CAP.  For both districts, Enforcement Letters have been issued that required completion of an action plan template for review, approval, and monitoring by the State Education Department. Additionally, one district was directed to utilize a sufficient portion of its 2011-12 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) funds to ensure the effective implementation of the action plan and warned that failure to resolve the outstanding areas of noncompliance by January 3, 2012 would result in further enforcement actions which may include requiring the district to revise the action plan, obtain targeted technical assistance that addresses the specific areas of deficiency, and/or redirection of federal dollars from the district’s 611 allocation.

        Both districts were offered no-cost technical assistance through the State’s Technical Assistance Center on Disproportionality (TACD).  One district accepted and is receiving embedded professional development from TACD to address issues leading to disproportionality data.  The other large city district declined TACD in district support, but indicated they would send representatives to TACD regional trainings to inform the district’s improvement activities.

        Verification of Correction (either timely or subsequent)

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

        • For noncompliance identified based on self-reviews, when the school district reported correction of noncompliance to the State, the State required an assurance from the school superintendent that each instance of noncompliance was corrected and that the information reported is accurate.
          • For noncompliance identified based on on-site monitoring, the State’s monitoring staff followed up with each district to assure that the CAP was fully implemented and verified, by review of revised policies and a sample of student records, that the district is correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirements and that individual instances of noncompliance had been corrected.

          Additional Information Required by the OSEP APR Response Table for this Indicator:

          Statement from the OSEP Response Table State’s Response
          Because the State reported less than 100 percent compliance for FFY 2009 (greater than 0 percent actual target data for this indicator), the State must report on the status of correction of noncompliance reflected in the data the State reported for this indicator.  The State must demonstrate, in the FFY 2010 APR, due February 1, 2012, that the districts identified with noncompliance based on FFY 2008 data have corrected the noncompliance, including that the State verified that each district with noncompliance: (1) is correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirement(s) (i.e., achieved 100% 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 district, 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.  If the State is unable to demonstrate compliance with those requirements in the FFY 2010 APR, the State must review its improvement activities and revise them, if necessary, to ensure compliance.

          The State reported on the status of correction of noncompliance.  One of the three districts with continuing noncompliance beyond one year identified in FFY 2009 has corrected all outstanding findings of noncompliance.  The State reported above on how it verified the correction of noncompliance in this district.

          There are only two school districts (in a State with 682 districts) with outstanding noncompliance.  The State has provided technical assistance and has taken progressive enforcement actions, as appropriate, with the identified districts.

          Improvement Activities Completed in 2010-11

          • See Indicator 4 improvement activities.
            • During the 2010-11 school year, the TACD at New York University (NYU) worked with 16 school districts, including the New York City Department of Education, to address the policy, practices and procedures that contribute to the disproportionate suspension of students with disabilities based upon race or ethnicity.  In addition, TACD provided 30 regional trainings across NYS (five sessions each in six regions). 

            Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources for FFY 2009  [If applicable] - None

Last Updated: August 7, 2012