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 12:  Percent of children referred by Part C prior to age 3, who are found eligible for Part B, and who have an individualized education program (IEP) developed and implemented by their third birthdays.
(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B))

Measurement*:

  1. # of children who have been served in Part C and referred to Part B for eligibility determination. Students whose third birthday occurs after August 31 following the full school year for which data are reported are excluded from this number.
  2. # of those referred determined to be NOT eligible and whose eligibility was determined prior to their third birthdays.
  3. # of those found eligible who have an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthday.
  4. # of children for whom parent(s) refusal to provide consent caused delays in evaluation or initial services or to whom exceptions under 34 CFR §300.301(d) applied.
  5. # of children determined to be eligible for early intervention services under Part C less than 90 days before their third birthdays.*
  6. # of children whose parent(s) chose to continue their child in Early Intervention (EI) Program.** 1
  7. # of children who moved, # of children who died,  # of children who started receiving services on the recommended program’s beginning date even though it was after the child’s third birthday.**

*Note: In March 2009, the United States Education Department (USED) added category (e) to the Measurement.
**Note: In 2008-09, New York State (NYS) added f and g to the measurement to be consistent with NYS requirements.

Account for children included in a, but not included in b, c, d, e, f or g.  Indicate the range of days beyond the third birthday when eligibility was determined and the IEP developed and the reasons for the delays.

Percent = [(c) divided by (a – b – d – e - f - g)] times 100.

Data Source:

NYS collects data for this indicator via the Student Information Repository System (SIRS) and verifies these data by displaying them in a VR12 report, which was developed in the PD Data System.  SIRS is NYS' individual student data reporting system.

Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) Measurable and Rigorous Target
FFY 2011
(2011-12 school year)
100 percent of children referred by Part C prior to age 3, who are found eligible for Part B, will have an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthday or in compliance with timelines established in State law.

Actual Target Data for FFY 2011:

In FFY 2011, 87.5 percent of children referred from Part C had their eligibility for Part B determined and an IEP implemented by their third birthday or in compliance with timelines established in State law.

NYS’ Method Used to Collect Data

Beginning with the 2007-08 year, NYS collects data for this indicator via SIRS and verifies these data by displaying them in a VR12 report, which was developed in the PD Data System.  SIRS is NYS’ individual student data reporting system.  School districts report the date of referral, date of written parent consent for an initial evaluation, date of the CPSE meeting to determine eligibility and date the IEP is implemented.  Reasons for delays are collected for children whose eligibility determination is not made or whose IEPs are not implemented by their third birthday.  Some reasons are considered to be in compliance with State requirements and other reasons are not in compliance.  Each school district’s compliance rate is calculated.

The State verifies that each school district whose compliance rate is less than 100 percent completes any remaining eligibility determinations and implements any remaining IEPs.  The State also requires documentation that the school district complies with the timelines associated with this indicator.

Children referred from Part C who had their eligibility for Part B determined or IEP implemented by their 3rd birthday
  FFY 2010 FFY 2011
a.  Number of children who have been served in Part C and referred to Part B for Part B eligibility determination (Students whose 3rd birthday is after August 31 after the full school year for whom data are reported are excluded from this number.) 2,470 2,603
b.  Number of those referred determined to be NOT eligible and whose eligibility was determined prior to third birthday 141 130
c.  Number of those found eligible who have an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthdays 436 461
d.  Number for whom parent refusals to provide consent caused delays in evaluation or initial services 451 440
e.  Number of children who were determined to be eligible for Part C less than 90 days before their third birthdays 4 4
f.   Number of children whose parents chose to continue their child in Early Intervention Program 1,156 1,412
g.  Number of children who either moved (10), # of children who died (0), # of children who started receiving services on the recommended program’s beginning date, even though it was after the child’s third birthday (98) 98 90
Number in a but not in b, c, d, e, f or g. 184 66
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
Percent = [(c) / (a-b-d-e-f-g)] * 100
70.3% 87.5%

Account for Children Included in a, but not in b, c, d, e, f or g in the above table:

In FFY 2011, there were 66 students for whom there were delays in implementing the IEP or determining eligibility for Part B services for reasons that are not in compliance with State requirements.  The chart below provides reasons for the delays and the extent of delays.

Reasons for Delays Number of Children by Number of Days of Delay in Developing an IEP by Third Birthday or Determining Eligibility for Preschool Special Education in FFY 2011 Unknown Total Percent
Of
Total
1-10 11-20 21-30 Over 30
An approved evaluator was not available to provide an evaluation. 0 1 0 2   3 4.5%
Additional evaluations were requested outside of the required timeline. 0 0 0 1   1 1.5%
There were evaluator delays in completing the evaluation. 1 0 2 13   16 24.2%
Delays in scheduling the CPSE meetings 3 4 2 17   26 39.4%
The recommended Part B services were not available when child turned three years of age. 2 0 0 7   9 13.6%
Inaccurate or incomplete data         11 11 16.7%
Total 6 5 4 40 11 66 100%
Percent of Total 9.1% 7.6% 6.1% 60.6% 16.7%

Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that occurred for FFY 2011:

Explanation of Progress or Slippage:

NYS’ compliance rate significantly improved from 70.3 percent in FFY 2010-11 to 87.5 percent in 2011-12.  This improvement is also noteworthy in that NYS’ data are collected from a different sample of school districts that is representative of the State each year.  The only school district included in each year’s sample is New York City (NYC).  NYC’s rate of compliance improved by 22.3 percentage points. 

  • One major root cause for delays is personnel shortages, particularly in NYC and the other Big Four cities.  The State and NYC are implementing court settlement actions under the Jose P. court case relating to availability of professionals in personnel shortage areas (e.g., speech and language and bilingual evaluators).
    • There was a decrease in the percent of delays resulting from a lack of approved evaluators available to provide timely evaluations, decreasing from 13.6 percent in FFY 2010 to 4.5 percent in FFY 2011.

    Correction of FFY 2010 Findings of Noncompliance (if State reported less than 100 percent compliance in its FFY 2010 APR)
    Level of compliance (actual target data) State reported for FFY 2010 for this indicator:  70.3%

    1. Number of findings of noncompliance the State made during FFY 2010 (the period from July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011)  
    10
    1. Number of FFY 2010 findings the State verified as timely corrected (corrected within one year from the date of notification to the local educational agency (LEA) of the finding)  
    9
    1. Number of FFY 2010 findings not verified as corrected within one year [(1) minus (2)]
    1
    Correction of FFY 2010 Findings of Noncompliance Not Timely Corrected (corrected more than one year from identification of the noncompliance):
    1. Number of FFY 2010 findings not timely corrected (same as the number from (3) above) 
    1
    1. Number of FFY 2010 findings the State has verified as corrected beyond the one-year timeline (“subsequent correction”)
    0
    1. Number of FFY 2010 findings not yet verified as corrected [(4) minus (5)]
     1

    Actions Taken if Noncompliance Found Is Not Corrected:
    Contributing factors as to why the noncompliance has persisted were determined, in part, to be due to administrative structure and availability of resources.  The district was required to revise its practices relating to Committee on Preschool Special Education (CPSE) meetings and to direct resources to hire additional special education administrators and clerical staff to improve their capacity to meet timelines, the State Education Department (SED) provided technical assistance to the district on other administrative structural revisions to ensure timely placements for students.  SED staff will conduct monthly meetings with the district to review data, discuss real and potential barriers and to problem solve in order to ensure timely correction of nonco

    Verification of Correction (either timely or subsequent):
    For all noncompliance identified in FFY 2010 that has been corrected, NYS has verified that each LEA with noncompliance identified for this indicator:  (1) is correctly implementing 34 CFR §300.124(b) (i.e., achieved 100 percent compliance) based on a review of updated data such as data subsequently collected through on-site monitoring or a State data system; and (2) has developed and implemented the IEP, although late, for any child for whom implementation of the IEP was not timely, unless the child was no longer within the jurisdiction of the LEA, consistent with OSEP Memo 09-02.

    Describe the specific actions that the State took to verify the correction of findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2010:

    The State verified the correction of noncompliance by requiring submission of the specific date that the student’s IEP was implemented, although late, for each individual student whose IEP implementation was not timely.  To verify the correction of noncompliance for all students through the review of subsequent data demonstrating compliance, the districts were required to report to the State the percent of students who had a timely evaluation over specified period of time. See http://www.p12.nysed.gov/sedcar/forms/vr/1112/html/verif11.htm

    Correction of Remaining FFY 2009 and FFY 2008 Findings of Noncompliance (if applicable):

    NYS does not have any uncorrected noncompliance related to this indicator from FFY 2009 or FFY 2008.

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

    1. Number of remaining FFY 2007 findings noted in the Office of Special Education Program's (OSEP) September 2012 FFY 2010 APR response table for this indicator 
    1
    1. Number of remaining FFY 2007 findings the State has verified as corrected
    1
    1. Number of remaining FFY 2007 findings the State has not verified as corrected [(1) minus (2)]
    0

    Verification of Correction of Remaining FFY 2007 findings:

    For all noncompliance identified in FFY 2007 that has been corrected, NYS has verified that each LEA with noncompliance identified for this indicator:  (1) is correctly implementing 34 CFR §300.124(b) (i.e., achieved 100 percent compliance) based on a review of updated data such as data subsequently collected through on-site monitoring or a State data system; and (2) has developed and implemented the IEP, although late, for any child for whom implementation of the IEP was not timely, unless the child was no longer within the jurisdiction of the LEA, consistent with OSEP Memo 09-02.

    Describe the specific actions that the State took to verify the correction of findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2007:

    The State verified that the identified individual students have since had their IEPs implemented, although late.  This district reports to the State annually for this Indicator based on a representative sample of students.  For this indicator, if the district’s annually reported data does not show 100 percent compliance, it is reported as a new finding for the year reported.

    Additional Information Required by the OSEP APR Response Table (if applicable)

    Statement from the OSEP Response Table State’s Response
    Because the State reported less than 100 percent compliance for FFY 2010, the State must report on the status of correction of noncompliance identified in FFY 2010 for this indicator. The State reported on the correction of noncompliance identified in FFY 2010.

    The State must demonstrate, in the FFY 2011 APR, that the one remaining uncorrected noncompliance finding identified in FFY 2007 is corrected.

    The one remaining issue identified in FFY 2007 has been verified as corrected.

    When reporting on the correction of noncompliance, the State must report, in its FFY 2011 APR, that it has verified that each LEA with noncompliance identified in FFY 2010 and FFY 2007 for this indicator:  (1) is correctly implementing 34 CFR §300.124(b) (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 developed and implemented the IEP, although late, for any child for whom implementation of the IEP was not timely, unless the child is no longer within the jurisdiction of the LEA, consistent with OSEP Memo 09-02.  In the FFY 2011 APR, the State must describe the specific actions that were taken to verify the correction.

    See above

    If the State does not report 100 percent compliance in the FFY 2011 APR, the State must review its improvement activities and revise them, if necessary, to ensure compliance.

    See indicator 11

    Improvement Activities Completed in 2011-12

    • The Office of Special Education accessed technical assistance from the National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center (NECTAC) to further inform its activities to improve transition from Part C EI programs to Part B preschool special education programs.
    • Links to federal and State technical assistance resources were also included in the notifications to district personnel for noncompliance findings.  The link for NECTAC (http://www.nectac.org/) was among the resources listed.
    • Office of Special Education staff participated in Communities of Practice (CoP), hosted by various federal technical assistance centers, in an effort to keep updated on the latest policy information and new resources that SED could use directly or share with stakeholder groups.  Included in the monthly CoP calls were those sponsored by NECTAC relating to Indicator 12.
    • To improve timely correction of noncompliance, the Office of Special Education continued the use of electronic notices, sent to school districts at three-month intervals, as a reminder of the noncompliance that needs to be corrected and the next steps that will be taken by the Office of Special Education should timely correction not occur.  Monitoring staff receive copies of the electronic notices and take appropriate proactive actions, including direct follow-up upon a finding that noncompliance was not corrected within nine months.
    • The State continued to provide a three-day training program for chairpersons of CPSEs, which includes specific training on the timelines and process for evaluations, eligibility and IEP development.  In 2011-12, 47 three-day sessions were provided throughout NYS.
    • Monitoring staff provided targeted technical assistance to administrators and all CPSE chairpersons in the Buffalo and Syracuse City Public Schools regarding compliance areas and effective practices to improve the overall operations of the CPSE process in the district and foster timely practices under Indicator 12.
    • Monitoring staff in the Central Regional Office and regional partners provided a one-day technical assistance session to mid-State preschool providers and chairpersons in the areas of prior written notice, monitoring of progress of annual goals, annual reviews and transition from CPSE to Committee on Special Education services.
    • The State’s funded Early Childhood Direction Centers and NYS Special Education Quality Assurance (SEQA) staff facilitated regional meetings with preschool evaluators and school districts to identify and address the reasons that preschool students were not receiving their evaluations within the required timelines.
    • Staff from the Office of Special Education represent the Commissioner of Education in meetings of the State Early Intervention Coordinating Council (EICC).  The EICC advises the Part C agency (the NYS Department of Health (DOH)) on required early intervention activities, including the transition of children from Part C to Part B.
    • The Part B and Part C agencies continue to review the Memorandum of Understanding that focuses on activities that result in a smooth transition of children from Part C to Part B, including monitoring programs that are approved by both DOH, the Part C agency, and SED, the Part B agency.
    • State law was amended to address corporate practice law limitations that were affecting the State’s ability to approve new evaluators.

    Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources for FFY 2012 [If applicable]

    See indicator 11.


    1 New York State Public Health Law, section 2541(8)(a) provides that a child’s eligibility for EI services ends as of his or her third birthday, unless the child has been referred to the Committee on Preschool Special Education (CPSE) and found eligible for preschool special education services before his or her third birthday. Under these provisions, parents may elect to either transition the child to preschool special education or continue their child in early intervention programming beyond the third birthday until either September or January, according to the following rules: (1) If the child turns three years of age on or before the thirty-first day of August, the child shall, if requested by the parent, be eligible to receive early intervention services contained in an Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP) until the first day of September of that calendar year; or, (2) If the child turns three years of age on or after the first day of September, the child shall, if requested by the parent and if already receiving EI services, be eligible to continue receiving such services until the second day of January of the following calendar year.  When the parent elects to continue in EI under these provisions, the CPSE would write the IEP and indicate the starting date for special education services as of September or January, respectively. In no cases may the child receive EI and preschool special education services simultaneously.

Last Updated: September 16, 2013