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 13:  Percent of youth with IEPs aged 15 and above with an individualized education program (IEP) that includes appropriate measurable post-secondary goals that are annually updated and based upon an age-appropriate transition assessment, transition services, including courses of study, that will reasonably enable the student to meet those post-secondary goals, and annual IEP goals related to the student’s transition services needs.  There also must be evidence that the student was invited to the IEP Team meeting where transition services are to be discussed and evidence that, if appropriate, a representative of any participating agency was invited to the IEP Team meeting with the prior consent of the parent or student who has reached the age of majority.   (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B))

* While federal regulations require transition planning to begin with the first IEP to be in effect at age 16, New York State (NYS) law requires transition planning on a student’s IEP beginning with the IEP in effect when the student turns age 15.  In NYS, the IEP Team is the Committee on Special Education (CSE).

Measurement used through school year 2008-09:
Percent = (# of youth with disabilities aged 15 and above with an IEP that includes coordinated, measurable, annual IEP goals and transition services that will reasonably enable the student to meet the post-secondary goals) divided by the (# of youth with an IEP age 15 and above) times 100.

Measurement used as of school year 2009-10:
Percent = [(# of youth with IEPs aged 15 and above with an IEP that includes appropriate measurable post-secondary goals that are annually updated and based upon an age-appropriate transition assessment, transition services, including courses of study, that will reasonably enable the student to meet those post-secondary goals, and annual IEP goals related to the student’s transition services needs.  There also must be evidence that the student was invited to the CSE meeting where transition services are to be discussed and evidence that, if appropriate, a representative of any participating agency was invited to the CSE meeting with the prior consent of the parent or student who has reached the age of majority) divided by the (# of youth with an IEP age 15 and above)] times 100.

Data Source:
NYS used data taken from State monitoring of a statewide representative sample of school districts. Because New York City has a total enrollment of 50,000 or more students, it was represented in the sample of school districts.

Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) Measurable and Rigorous Target
FFY 2011
(2011-12 school year)
100 percent of youth* aged 15 and above will have IEPs that include appropriate measurable post-secondary goals that are annually updated and based upon an age-appropriate transition assessment, transition services, including courses of study, that will reasonably enable the student to meet those post-secondary goals, and annual IEP goals related to the student’s transition services needs, with evidence that the student was invited to the CSE meeting where transition services are to be discussed and evidence that, if appropriate, a representative of any participating agency was invited to the CSE meeting with the prior consent of the parent or student who has reached the age of majority.

*i.e., percent of youth with IEPs reviewed.

Actual Target Data for FFY 2011:

89.4 percent of youth, ages 15 and above, had IEPs that included appropriate measurable post-secondary goals that are annually updated and based upon an age-appropriate transition assessment; transition services, including courses of study, that will reasonably enable the student to meet those post-secondary goals; and annual IEP goals related to the student’s transition services needs.

Year Number of Youth Age 15 and Above Whose Transition IEPs were Reviewed Number of IEPs in Full Compliance with all Transition Requirements Percent of IEPs in Full Compliance with all Transition Requirements
FFY 2009 (baseline) 3,321 2,232 67.2%
FFY 2010 3,437 2,714 79.0%
FFY 2011 3,096 2,769 89.4%

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

NYS showed significant progress in meeting the State's target for this indicator.  In FFY 2011, 89.4 percent of youth aged 15 and above had IEPs that included appropriate measurable post-secondary goals based on age-appropriate transition assessments, coordinated, measurable, annual IEP goals and transition services, including courses of study, that would reasonably enable the student to meet the post-secondary goals, compared to 79 percent in FFY 2010.

The FFY 2011 data was based on the monitoring review of IEPs from a representative sample of 107 school districts, including New York City (NYC).  Districts used a State-developed self-review monitoring protocol to review a sample of IEPs of students with disabilities aged 15 and above to determine if each IEP is in compliance with all transition planning requirements.  The self-review monitoring protocol is posted at http://www.p12.nysed.gov/specialed/spp/13selfreview-Oct2012.pdfPDF document.  The total number of students with IEPs, ages 15-21, enrolled in the school districts sampled during 2011-12 was 50,081.  The total number of IEPs reviewed from these representative school districts was 3,096.  Of the IEPs reviewed, 2,769 were found to have been in compliance with all IEP transition requirements; and 327 had one or more transition planning requirement that were not appropriately addressed in the students’ IEPs.

The following data shows improvement in the percent of IEPs within each district that met full compliance with the transition planning requirements.  Of the 107 school districts:

  • 1 school district (0.9 percent) reported that 0 percent of their students’ IEPs that were reviewed were in compliance with the IEP transition requirements.  This is a significant improvement from the prior year report of 8 school districts in this category.
  • 6 school districts (5.6 percent) reported between 1 and 49 percent of the students' IEPs that were reviewed met the transition requirements, an improvement from the 12 school districts reported last year in this category.
  • 11 school districts (10.3 percent) reported between 50 and 79 percent of their IEPs that were reviewed met the transition requirements.  This again is an improvement from the 18 school districts reported in this category last year.
  • 17 school districts (15.9 percent) reported between 80 and 99 percent of IEPs that were reviewed met the transition requirements.  This number was 12 for FFY 2010.
  • 72 school districts (67.3 percent) reported 100 percent of IEPs that were reviewed were in compliance with all transition planning requirements, compared with 57 (53.3 percent) in FFY 2010.

Regional variations are noted in the following chart.  The regional trends are similar to baseline data, indicating in part the need for regionally-designed targeted interventions, training and technical assistance.

Indicator 13 - Transition IEP FFY 2011 Data
RSE-TASC* Region Total # of School Districts Reviewed in FFY 2011 Number of Reviewed School Districts with IEPs found in Compliance
0% of IEPs in compliance 1-49% of IEPs in compliance 50-79% of IEPs in compliance 80-99% of IEPs in compliance 100% of IEPs in compliance
Capital District/ North Country 18 0 0 1 6 11
Central 7 1 0 2 2 2
Long Island 23 0 3 4 1 15
Lower Hudson 6 0 1 0 4 1
Mid-Hudson 10 0 1 2 2 5
Mid-South 12 0 0 0 1 11
Mid-State 4 0 1 1 0 2
Mid-West 13 0 0 1 0 12
New York City 1 0 0 0 1 0
West 13 0 0 0 0 13
Totals 107 1 6 11 17 72

*Regional Special Education Technical Assistance Support Centers (See map of regions at http://www.p12.nysed.gov/specialed/techassist/rsetasc/regionmap.htm)

Correction of FFY 2010 Findings of Noncompliance:
Level of compliance (actual target data) State reported for FFY 2010 for this indicator: 79.0 percent

  1. Number of findings of noncompliance the State made during FFY 2010 (the period from July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011)
99 findings
(72 school districts)
  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)
 95 findings
(68 school districts)
  1. Number of FFY 2010 findings not verified as corrected within one year [(1) minus (2)]
4 findings
(4 school districts)
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)
4 findings
(4 school districts)
  1. Number of FFY 2010 findings the State has verified as corrected beyond the one-year timeline (“subsequent correction”) 
 4 findings
(4 school districts)
  1. Number of FFY 2010 findings not yet verified as corrected [(4) minus (5)]
0 findings
(0 school districts)

Actions Taken if Noncompliance Found in FFY 2010 Is Not Corrected:

All findings from FFY 2010 have been corrected to date.

Verification of Correction of FFY 2010 Noncompliance (either timely or subsequent):

The State verified that each LEA with noncompliance identified in FFY 2010 for this indicator: (1) is correctly implementing 34 CFR §§300.320(b) and 300.321(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 corrected each individual case of noncompliance, unless the child is no longer within the jurisdiction of the LEA, consistent with OSEP Memo 09-02.

Specifically, the State verified correction of noncompliance by reviewing individual student records, including records of individual students whose IEPs were identified as noncompliant, The State also verified the correction of noncompliance for NYC by requiring annual monitoring for compliance with this indicator.

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.

Correction of Remaining FFY 2009 Findings of Noncompliance (if applicaable):

  1. Number of FFY 2009 findings noted in the Office of Special Education Program’s (OSEP) September 2012 FFY 2010 APR response table for indicator
5 findings
(2 school districts)
  1. Number of remaining FFY 2009 findings the State has verified as corrected 
5 findings
(2 school districts)
  1. Number of FFY 2009 findings not yet verified as corrected [(1) minus (2)]
0 findings
(0 school districts)

Verification of Correction of Remaining FFY 2009 findings:

All findings from FFY 2009 have been corrected to date.

Describe the specific actions that the State took to verify the correction of findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2009:

The State verified that each LEA with noncompliance identified in FFY 2009 for this indicator: (1) is correctly implementing 34 CFR §§300.320(b) and 300.321(b) (i.e., achieved 100 percent compliance) based on a review of individual student records through on-site monitoring; 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.

Specifically, the State verified correction of noncompliance by reviewing individual student records, including records of individual students whose IEPs were identified as noncompliant, The State also verified the correction of noncompliance for NYC by requiring annual monitoring for compliance with this indicator.

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

  1. Number of remaining FFY 2008 findings noted in the OSEP September 2012 FFY 2010 APR response table for this indicator.   
5 findings
(1 school district)
  1. Number of remaining FFY 2008 findings the State has verified as corrected
5 findings
(1 school district)
  1. Number of remaining FFY 2008 findings the State has not yet verified as corrected [(1) minus (2)]
0 findings
(0 school district)

Verification of Correction of Remaining FFY 2008 findings:

All findings from FFY 2008 have been corrected to date.

Describe the specific actions that the State took to verify the correction of findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2008:

The State verified that each LEA with noncompliance identified in FFY 2009 for this indicator: (1) is correctly implementing 34 CFR §§300.320(b) and 300.321(b) (i.e., achieved 100 percent compliance) based on a review of individual student records through on-site monitoring; 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. 

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

  1. Number of remaining FFY 2007 findings noted in OSEP’s September 2012 FFY 2010 APR response table for this indicator
2 findings
(1 school district)
  1. Number of remaining FFY 2007 findings the State has verified as corrected
2 findings
(1 school district)
  1. Number of remaining FFY 2007 findings the State has not verified as corrected [(1) minus (2)]
2 findings
(1 school district)

Verification of Correction of Remaining FFY 2007 Findings:

All findings from FFY 2007 have been corrected to date.

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

The State verified that each LEA with noncompliance identified in FFY 2009 for this indicator: (1) is correctly implementing 34 CFR §§300.320(b) and 300.321(b) (i.e., achieved 100 percent compliance) based on a review of individual student records through on-site monitoring; 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. 

Additional Information Required by the OSEP APR Response Table for this Indicator (if applicable):

Statement from the OSEP Response Table State’s Response
The State must demonstrate, in the FFY 2011 APR, that the State is in compliance with the secondary transition requirements in 34 CFR §§300.320(b) and 300.321(b). The State’s report of compliance for FFY 2011 is 89.4 percent, demonstrating significant improvement from FFY 2010 compliance.
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. All findings from FFY 2010 have been verified as corrected.
The State must demonstrate, in the FFY 2011 APR, that the five remaining findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2008, and the two remaining findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2007 are corrected.

All findings from FFY 2008 and FFY 2007 have been verified as corrected to date.

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, FFY 2008, and FFY 2007 for this indicator:  (1) is  correctly implementing 34 CFR §§300.320(b) and 300.321(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 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 2011 APR, the State must describe the specific actions that were taken to verify the correction. See narrative 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.

The State reviewed its improvement activities and determined, in consideration of the rate of progress the State is making on this Indicator, that no revisions are needed.

OSEP is concerned about the State’s failure to correct longstanding noncompliance from FFY 2008 and FFY 2007.  The State must take the steps necessary to ensure that it can report, in the FFY 2011 APR, that it has corrected the remaining five findings identified in FFY 2008 and the remaining two findings identified in FFY 2007.  If the State cannot report in the FFY 2011 APR that this noncompliance has been corrected, the State must report in the FFY 2011 APR:  (1) the specific nature of the noncompliance; (2) the State’s explanation as to why the noncompliance has persisted; (3) the steps that the State has taken to ensure the correction of each finding of the remaining findings of noncompliance, and any new or different actions the State has taken, since the submission of its FFY 2010 APR, to ensure such correction; and (4) any new or different actions the State will take to ensure such correction.

All findings from FFY 2008 and FFY 2007 have been corrected to date.

Improvement Activities Completed in 2011-12

  • The State funded Transition Services Professional Development Support Center (PDSC) utilizes information from the National Secondary Transition Technical Assistance Support Center (NSTTAC) throughout the year to bring information back to the State’s transition specialists.  The PDSC has adapted national information into usable tools for us to employ.  In particular, NYS has benefited from NSTTAC information on transition assessment to develop our own training package, and the transition specialists consistently include the listed NSTTAC evidence-based practices in all of their trainings.  NYS has also developed informational brochures from the evidence-based practices to get people interested in the process a transition specialist would use to provide technical assistance and/or regional trainings. 
  • Staff reviewed information and resources, including but not limited to information available through the following OSEP technical assistance centers:  National Post-School Outcome Center, National Dropout Prevention Center for Students with Disabilities, and NSTTAC.
  • 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.  Special education monitoring staff also received copies of the electronic notices and took appropriate proactive measures, including direct follow-up upon a finding that noncompliance was not corrected within nine months.
  • The RSE-TASC Regional Special Education Training Specialists delivered a total of 47 three-day trainings for CSE chairpersons across the State.  These trainings provided extensive information on appropriate IEP development and transition planning.
  • The RSE-TASC Transition Specialists provided locally developed training sessions within their regions on the following topics:  Transition in the IEP, Transition Assessment, the Student Exit Summary, Agency Collaboration, Transition for Families, Self-Advocacy, Post-School Outcomes, Best Practices for Including Transition Processes in School, and Work-Based Learning.
  • The Offices of Special Education and Adult Career and Continuing Education Services (ACCES) continue to collaborate with other State agencies and the University of Rochester on a federal grant to improve transition planning and results for students with developmental disabilities.  Work of the grant includes the development of a job-training curriculum, a resource guide for families and schools, and community groups focused on improving transition outcomes for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities.
  • The RSE-TASC Transition Specialists held 160 interagency meetings across the State.  These meetings were established to assist local partners with communication and understanding between and across the different systems.  Attendees of the interagency meetings typically include ACCES-Vocational Rehabilitation, Office for People With Developmental Disabilities, Independent Living Council, school/district representatives, workforce development, parent agencies, post-secondary agencies, parents, and local community agencies, such as community counseling centers.
  • The RSE-TASC Transition Specialists and Special Education Parent Centers collaborated throughout the year.  They held 62 joint training and/or information sessions for parents across the State.
  • In 2011-12, the RSE-TASC Transition Specialists reached 533 of the 747 NYS school districts/NYC clusters through some form of training or a combination of events.  A total of 528 districts participated in regional training events, 147 were provided with direct technical assistance, and 185 participated in interagency meetings.
  • The Office of Special Education added two full-time transition specialists to the NYC RSE-TASC. 
  • SED developed and disseminated a statewide transition planning policy guidance document.

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

None

Last Updated: March 7, 2013