Special Education

Overview of the Annual Performance Report Development:

See Overview of the Development of the Annual Performance Report (APR) in the Introduction section, page 1.

Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE

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

Measurement:

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

New York State’s (NYS) Measurement:

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

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

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

Data Source:

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

NYS’ Calculation for the 2009-10 School Year:

The denominator is the Total Cohort.  See below for the definition of the 2006 total district cohort.

The 2006 district total cohort consists of all students, regardless of their current grade level, who met one of the following conditions:

  • First entered 9th grade at any time during the 2006-07 school year (July 1, 2006 through June 30, 2007); or, in the case of ungraded students with disabilities, reached their 17th birthday during the 2006-07 school year. 
  • Ungraded students are included in the 2006 cohort if their birth date is between July 1, 1989 and June 30, 1990 (inclusive).

Students who have spent at least five months in district schools or out-of-district placements during year 1, 2, 3, or 4 of high school are included in the district total cohort unless they transferred to another diploma-granting program outside the district.  (This five-month enrollment rule does not apply to the statewide aggregated total cohort data displayed in this APR.)  For the 2006 Total Cohort, years 1, 2, 3, and 4 are the 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 school years, respectively.

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

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

    The numerator for the calculation of graduation rate is the number of students with disabilities in the Total Cohort who graduated with a high school diploma (Regents or local diploma) as of August 2010 after four years of first entering 9th grade or, for ungraded students with disabilities, after four years of becoming 17 years of age.

    Graduation Requirements: Graduation rate data for students with disabilities is calculated the same as for all students.  In NYS, students with disabilities must earn a Regents or Local diploma to be included in the counts of graduating students.  Students with disabilities who earn an IEP diploma are not considered high school graduates.  Detailed information on graduation requirements can be found at http://www.p12.nysed.gov/ciai/gradreq/revisedgradreq3column.pdfPDF document.
    For graduation requirements for students who first entered 9th grade in 2006, see
    http://www.p12.nysed.gov/ciai/gradreq/2006GradReqDetails.html.

    Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) Measurable and Rigorous Target
    FFY 2011
    (2010-11 school year results) (2006 total cohort, as of August, four years later)
    The percent of youth with IEPs graduating from high school with a regular high school diploma within four years as of August will be 53 percent.

    Actual Target Data for FFY 2011:

    46.4 percent of youth with IEPs graduated from high school with a regular high school diploma within four years, as of August 2010.

    Total Cohort, As of August, Four Years Later
    Cohort Year All Students Students with Disabilities
    # in Cohort Graduation Rate Number & Rate # in Cohort Graduation Number & Rate
    2005 225,219 n = 167,894
    74.5%
    32,058 n = 14,248
    44.4%
    2006 224,744 n=170,909
    76.1%
    32,696 n=15,178
    46.4%

     

    Need/Resource Capacity Category 2005 TotalCohort of SWD Four Years Later
    as of August
    2006 Total Cohort of SWD Four Years Later as of August
    # in Cohort Grad Rate1 # in Cohort Grad Rate2
    New York City 10,753 26.6% 11,367 30.7%
    Large Four Cities 1,660 25.5% 1,906 27.0%
    Urban/Suburban
    High Need Districts
    2,698 39.8% 2,698 42.1%
    Rural High Need Districts 2,486 39.8% 2,413 41.8%
    Average Need Districts 10,277 54.9% 10,052 58.1%
    Low Need Districts 4,086 75.5% 4,098 76.6%
    Charter Schools 98 41.8% 162 33.3%
    Total State 32,058 44.0% 32,696 46.4%

     

    Group of
    School Districts
    2005 Total Cohort of
    SWD Four Years Later
    as of August
    2006 Total Cohort of
    SWD Four Years Later
    as of August
    # in Cohort Grad Rate # in Cohort Grad Rate
    Big Five Cities 3 12,413 26.5% 13,273 30.2%
    Rest of State 19,645 55.1% 19,423 57.5%
    Total State 32,058 44.0% 32,696 46.4%

    Discussion of Improvement Activities and Explanation of Progress or Slippage, if the State did not meet its target, that occurred for FFY 2011:

    In the 2010-11 school year, the State did not meet its target of 53 percent for this indicator.  The 2010-11 graduation rate, however, demonstrates an improvement of 2.0 percentage points higher than the 2009-10 graduation rate of 44.4 percent.  In addition, as the charts above indicate, there were improvements in the graduation rates in all need/resource categories except Charter Schools.

    Graduation rates for the 2006 total cohort by need/resource category of school districts ranged from a low of 27.0 percent in the large four cities to a high of 76.6 percent in low need school districts.

    Additional Information Required by the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) APR Response Table

    Statement from the OSEP Response Table State’s Response
    In reporting data for this indicator in the FFY 2011 APR, States must use the same data they used for reporting to the Department under Title I of the ESEA, using the adjusted cohort graduation rate required under the ESEA. The State used the same data as used for reporting to the Department under Title I of the ESEA, using the adjusted cohort graduation rate required under the ESEA

     

    Improvement Activities Completed during 2011-12

    • In 2011, NYSED’s P-12 Education’s Offices of Special Education and Accountability aligned their respective accountability systems (NCLB and IDEA) when identification of a school and/or district was a result of poor performance of the subgroup of students with disabilities in order to provide greater continuity of the assessment of needs of these schools/districts and the resulting school improvement plans and activities.  To accomplish this, the State’s Office of Special Education revised its performance criteria for determination of school districts under IDEA as “Needs Assistance” or “Needs Intervention” to be based primarily on whether a school district has one or more schools not making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for the subgroup of students with disabilities.  As a result, the State’s Office of Special Education directed its technical assistance resources to the same lowest performing schools/districts identified for the subgroup of students with disabilities as are identified under the State’s Differentiated Accountability system in order to provide these schools and districts with technical assistance to improve results for the subgroup of students with disabilities.  See http://www.p12.nysed.gov/specialed/spp/aligningaccountability-july2011.htm.
    • To the extent resources permitted, the State assigned a Special Education School Improvement Specialist (SESIS) from its State-funded Regional Special Education Technical Assistance Support Centers (RSE-TASC) to each IDEA identified district to participate in a School Quality Review process or Joint Intervention Team (JIT) review to determine the root cause of the results for the students with disabilities subgroup, informing the district’s development of a district Comprehensive Improvement Plan.  Based on the findings from these reviews:
      • In 2011-12, the SESIS worked with 209 school districts (counting NYC as one district).  This included direct technical assistance provided to 31 schools in the Big 4 school districts (Yonkers, Syracuse, Rochester, and Buffalo), 180 schools in NYC and 16 approved private schools serving students with disabilities.  The SESIS provided embedded professional development, in accordance with a quality improvement process, to improve literacy instruction, including adolescent literacy, specially designed instruction and/or behavioral supports and interventions to improve results for students with disabilities.
      • Staff from the State’s regional Special Education Quality Assurance (SEQA) offices participated in 24 JIT reviews in school districts identified as needs assistance or intervention.  These reviews resulted in comprehensive improvement plans to identify root causes and address such areas as curriculum, teaching and learning, school leadership, infrastructure for student success, data collection analysis and utilization, and professional development.
    • During the 2011-12 school year, SEQA monitoring staff conducted focused reviews in 27 school 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.
    • SEQA staff conducted 12 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.
    • Senior management from the Office of Special Education met quarterly with the directors of special education of each of the Big 4 districts as a forum to problem solve key issues to improve outcomes for students with disabilities, sharing best practices.  In addition, the State facilitated meetings with special education administrators from the nine small cities in the central region of the State to provide targeted technical assistance and support regarding NYSED initiatives to improve student outcomes.  Some of the key issues discussed in these meetings included behavior support strategies, improving the IEP development process, transition planning and implementation of integrated co-teaching services in general education classes.
    • The State’s Office of Special Education provided a webinar to charter schools on special education requirements.  NYSED’s Charter School Office and Office of Special Education collaborated in the delivery of this webinar to provide information and resources so that Charter School personnel have a better understanding of their responsibilities to provide special education services to students with disabilities.  See http://www.p12.nysed.gov/psc/SpecialEducationServicesinCharterSchoolsWebinar.html.
    • In 2012, in collaboration with the NYS Council of School Superintendent’s Leadership for Educational Achievement Foundation (LEAF), NYSED’s Office of Special Education and representatives from RSE-TASC presented a webinar on the role of school principals in special education.  This webinar focused on the administrators’ roles in ensuring appropriate specially-designed instruction is provided to students with disabilities.

    Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources for FFY 2012:

    • NYSED’s Race to the Top and School Reform Initiatives target improvements in educational performance to result in increased graduation rates for all.  Because of the comprehensive nature of these Department-wide initiatives, a link to the Department’s “Engage NY” website is provided.  See: http://engageny.org/.
      • Effective July 1, 2013, the IEP diploma will no longer be available.  Effective July 1, 2013, schools will award Skills and Achievement Commencement Credentials to students with severe disabilities and a (proposed) work readiness certificate for other students with disabilities.  These certificates provide documentation of student learning toward the State’s Career Development and Occupational Studies learning standards.

      1 2005 Cohort Number of Graduates: 2,864 in NYC; 423 in Large Four Cities; 1,073 in High Need Urban/Suburban; 990 in High Need Rural; 5,643 in Average; 3,084 in Low Need; 41 in Charter Schools

      2 2006 Cohort Number of Graduates: 3,490 in NYC; 514 in Large Four Cities; 1,137 in High Need Urban/Suburban; 1,008 in High Need Rural; 5,836 in Average; 3,139 in Low Need; 54 in Charter Schools

      3 Big Five Cities are NYC plus Large Four Cities

Last Updated: February 3, 2014