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 15:  General supervision system (including monitoring, complaints, hearings, etc.) identifies and corrects noncompliance as soon as possible but in no case later than one year from identification.
(20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(B))

Measurement:

Percent of noncompliance corrected within one year of identification:

  1. # of findings of noncompliance.
  2. # of corrections completed as soon as possible but in no case later than one year from identification.

Percent = [(b) divided by (a)] times 100.

For any noncompliance not corrected within one year of identification, describe what actions, including technical assistance and/or enforcement that the State has taken.

Data Source:

New York State (NYS) uses data taken from State monitoring, complaints, hearings and other general supervision system components.

Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) Measurable and Rigorous Target
FFY 2011
(2011-12 school year)
100 percent of noncompliance issues identified through the State’s general supervision system (including monitoring, complaints, hearings, etc.) will be corrected within one year from identification.

Actual Target Data for FFY 2011:

93.5 percent of noncompliance issues identified between July 1, 2011 and June 30, 2012 through the State's general supervision system (including monitoring, State complaints, hearings, etc.) were corrected within one year of identification.

Table:  Indicator B15 Worksheet

Indicator/ Indicator Clusters General Supervision System Components # of local educational agencies (LEAs) Issued Findings in FFY 2010 (7/1/10 to 6/30/11) (a) # of Findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2010 (7/1/10 to 6/30/11) (b) # of Findings of noncompliance from (a) for which correction was verified no later than one year from identification (c) # of Findings of noncompliance resolved in greater than 12 months (d) # of Findings of Noncompliance pending as of 1/2013
1. Percent of youth with individualized education programs (IEPs) graduating from high school with a regular diploma.
2. Percent of youth with IEPs dropping out of high school.

14. Percent of youth who had IEPs, are no longer in secondary school and who have been competitively employed, enrolled in some type of post-secondary school, or both, within one year of leaving high school.
Monitoring Activities:  Self-Assessment/ Local APR, Data Review, Desk Audit, On-Site Visits, or Other 2 2 2 0 0
Dispute Resolution: Complaints, Hearings 0 0 0 0 0

3. Participation and performance of children with disabilities on statewide assessments.


7. Percent of preschool children with IEPs who demonstrated improved outcomes.

Monitoring Activities:  Self-Assessment/ Local APR, Data Review, Desk Audit, On-Site Visits, or Other 5 5 4 0 1
Dispute Resolution: Complaints, Hearings 2 2 2 0 0
4A. 1 Percent of districts identified as having a significant discrepancy in the rates of suspensions and expulsions of children with disabilities for greater than 10 days in a school year.
4B.  Percent of districts 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.
Monitoring Activities:  Self-Assessment/ Local APR, Data Review, Desk Audit, On-Site Visits, or Other 58 646 626 20 0
Dispute Resolution: Complaints, Hearings 14 21 19 0 2
5.Percent of children with IEPs aged 6 through 21 - educational placements.
6.Percent of preschool children aged 3 through 5 – early childhood placement.
Monitoring Activities:  Self-Assessment/ Local APR, Data Review, Desk Audit, On-Site Visits, or Other 58 138 133 5 0
Dispute Resolution: Complaints, Hearings 65 138 130 6 2
8.   Percent of parents with a child receiving special education services who report that schools facilitated parent involvement as a means of improving services and results for children with disabilities. Monitoring Activities:  Self-Assessment/ Local APR, Data Review, Desk Audit, On-Site Visits, or Other 20 25 25 0 0
Dispute Resolution: Complaints, Hearings 20 42 41 0 1
9. 2  Percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education that is the result of inappropriate identification.

10. Percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories that is the result of inappropriate identification.
Monitoring Activities:  Self-Assessment/ Local APR, Data Review, Desk Audit, On-Site Visits, or Other 14 41 38 0 3
Dispute Resolution: Complaints, Hearings 13 16 13 2 1
11. Percent of children who were evaluated within NYS’ established timeline to complete the initial evaluation Monitoring Activities:  Self-Assessment/ Local APR, Data Review, Desk Audit, On-Site Visits, or Other 75 104 102 2 0
Dispute Resolution: Complaints, Hearings 8 8 8 0 0
12. 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. Monitoring Activities:  Self-Assessment/ Local APR, Data Review, Desk Audit, On-Site Visits, or Other 10 10 9 0 1
Dispute Resolution: Complaints, Hearings 0 0 0 0 0
13. Percent of youth aged 15 and above with IEPs that include coordinated, measurable, annual IEP goals and transition services that will reasonably enable student to meet the post-secondary goals. Monitoring Activities:  Self-Assessment/ Local APR, Data Review, Desk Audit, On-Site Visits, or Other 72 115 107 8 0
Dispute Resolution: Complaints, Hearings 3 3 2 1 0
Other areas of noncompliance:
Behavior Intervention Plans
Monitoring Activities:  Self-Assessment/ Local APR, Data Review, Desk Audit, On-Site Visits, or Other 33 125 95 30 0
Dispute Resolution: Complaints, Hearings 10 23 20 1 2
Other areas of noncompliance:
Committee on Preschool Special Education (CPSE)/Committee on Special Education (CSE) Membership
Monitoring Activities:  Self-Assessment/ Local APR, Data Review, Desk Audit, On-Site Visits, or Other 7 12 11 0 1
Dispute Resolution: Complaints, Hearings 4 4 4 0 0
Other areas of noncompliance:
Discipline
Monitoring Activities:  Self-Assessment/ Local APR, Data Review, Desk Audit, On-Site Visits, or Other 5 7 6 1 0
Dispute Resolution: Complaints, Hearings 9 9 7 1 1
Other areas of noncompliance:
Educational Facilities
Monitoring Activities:  Self-Assessment/ Local APR, Data Review, Desk Audit, On-Site Visits, or Other 3 3 3 0 0
Dispute Resolution: Complaints, Hearings 0 0 0 0 0
Other areas of noncompliance:
IEP Development/Implementation
Monitoring Activities:  Self-Assessment/ Local APR, Data Review, Desk Audit, On-Site Visits, or Other 40 103 95 1 7
Dispute Resolution: Complaints, Hearings 31 49 48 1 0
Other areas of noncompliance:
Personnel Qualifications
Monitoring Activities:  Self-Assessment/ Local APR, Data Review, Desk Audit, On-Site Visits, or Other 1 2 2 0 0
Dispute Resolution: Complaints, Hearings 0 0 0 0 0
Other areas of noncompliance:
Residential Placement
Monitoring Activities:  Self-Assessment/ Local APR, Data Review, Desk Audit, On-Site Visits, or Other 5 18 12 6 0
Dispute Resolution: Complaints, Hearings 0 0 0 0 0
Other areas of noncompliance:
Situation Unique
Monitoring Activities:  Self-Assessment/ Local APR, Data Review, Desk Audit, On-Site Visits, or Other 21 38 32 3 3
Dispute Resolution: Complaints, Hearings 32 52 50 1 1
Sum of the numbers down Column a and Column b 1761
1646 89
26
Percent of noncompliance corrected within one year of identification = (column (b) sum divided by column (a) sum) times 100.
1645 (b) /1760 (a) = X 100 =93.5%.
(b) / (a) X 100 =93.5%      

Describe the process for selecting LEAs for monitoring:

NYS has general supervisory responsibility for 698 public school districts, including the Big 5 School Districts of New York City (NYC), Yonkers, Syracuse, Buffalo and Rochester; 37 Boards of Cooperative Educational Services (BOCES); 539 approved private day and residential programs (preschool and school age); 10 Special Act school districts; 11 State-supported schools; numerous other State agency-operated education programs, two State-operated schools and 184 Charter Schools.  The State’s system identifies noncompliance through data collection, State complaints, self-review monitoring processes, on-site reviews and impartial hearings.

For compliance relating to Indicators 11 (timely evaluations), 12 (Early Intervention to preschool special education) and 13 (transition services), the State monitors a representative sample of one-sixth of the school districts and NYC annually. 

In addition, districts are selected for targeted monitoring to review their policies, procedures and practices relating to:

  • development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards whenever a school district's data show significant discrepancies in their rates of long-term suspension of students with disabilities and/or when their data shows a significant discrepancy by race/ethnicity in high suspension rates;
  • individual evaluations and eligibility determinations by the CSE whenever a school district's data show significant disproportionality by race/ethnicity in the identification of students with disabilities;
  • individual evaluations of students with disabilities and CSE recommendations whenever a school district's data show significant discrepancies and/or disproportionality by race/ethnicity in the identification of students with disabilities in specific disability categories (Emotional Disturbance, Learning Disability, Intellectual Disabilities, Other Health Impairment, Speech or Language Impairment and Autism); and
  • CSE evaluations, IEP development and placement recommendations whenever the district's data show significant discrepancies and/or disproportionality by race/ethnicity in the placement of students with disabilities.

School districts that have unresolved noncompliance beyond 12 months for Indicators 4, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 plus school districts that have been identified for multiple years because of disproportionate data are also selected for additional monitoring reviews.

Districts are also selected for monitoring reviews and/or technical assistance in consideration of the State’s Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Annual Determination process, which identifies school districts that need assistance, intervention or substantial intervention.  Focused review protocols include reviews relating to Evaluation/Reevaluation, Special Education Program and Services Focused Review, Annual Review Process, Behavioral Interventions and Secondary Transition.  Selection of the monitoring protocol is based on data, nature of technical assistance calls, concerns raised by parents and input from the District Superintendent from the BOCES and the State’s technical assistance providers. 

Education programs of BOCES, approved preschool programs, approved private schools, Special Act School Districts, State-supported schools and State-operated schools are selected for monitoring on a rotating schedule, but also in consideration of compliance concerns.  Facilities operated by the NYS Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS) are monitored every four years as required by statute.

In 2011-12, all school-age approved private residential schools and Special Act school districts received focused monitoring reviews in the areas of behavioral interventions, use of time out rooms, emergency interventions and, as appropriate, procedures for prevention of abuse, maltreatment or neglect of students in residential placements.

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

Explanation of Progress or Slippage

The State significantly improved its percentage of timely correction of noncompliance.  In the 2012 APR submission (for FFY 2010), the State reported that 87 percent of noncompliance issues identified through the State's general supervision system (including monitoring, State complaints, hearings, etc.) were corrected within one year of identification as compared to this year’s APR submission of 93.5 percent.  The improvement in the percentage of findings timely corrected and verified as corrected demonstrates the effectiveness of the State’s targeted efforts to design and implement effective monitoring and technical assistance systems and processes.

Timely Correction of FFY 2010 Findings of Noncompliance (corrected within one year from identification of the noncompliance):

  1. Number of findings of noncompliance the State identified in FFY 2010 (the period from July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011)  (Sum of Column a on the Indicator B15 Worksheet)
1760
  1. Number of findings the State verified as timely corrected (corrected within one year from the date of notification to the LEA of the finding)  (Sum of Column b on the Indicator B15 Worksheet)
1645
  1. Number of findings not verified as corrected within one year [(1) minus (2)]
115

FFY 2010 Findings of Noncompliance Not Timely Corrected (corrected more than one year from identification of the noncompliance and/or Not Corrected):

  1. Number of FFY 2010 findings not timely corrected (same as the number from (3) above)
115
  1. Number of FFY 2010 findings the State has verified as corrected beyond the one-year timeline (“subsequent correction”)
89
  1. Number of FFY 2010 findings not yet verified as corrected [(4) minus (5)]
26

Verification of Correction for findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2010 (either timely or subsequent):

For all FFY 2010 noncompliance verified as corrected, NYS verified that each LEA with noncompliance:  (1) was correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirements (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 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 (including any revisions to general supervision procedures, technical assistance provided and/or any enforcement actions that were taken):

The State verified the correction of 1,734 out of 1,760 findings of noncompliance.

For noncompliance cited in monitoring, State complaints and hearing decisions:

The State verified correction of noncompliance for the individual student through such means as a review of written reports, revised notices to parents, revised IEPs, observation in classrooms, etc.  Compliance assurance plans (CAP) identify the specific documentation required for submission to the State to verify the correction of noncompliance.  In addition, as applicable to the specific finding, the State reviewed subsequent data from other student records, conducted observations in other classrooms, etc., to ensure that the issue has been corrected for all students (i.e., subsequent data show 100 percent compliance with regulatory requirements).  The size of the subsequent verification sample varied based on such factors as the specific compliance issue, size of the district, and initial extent of the findings of noncompliance.

Also see specific processes for verification of correction reported under Indicators 4, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13.  These processes are described below:

Issues relating to suspension and review of policies, practices and procedures relating to development and implementation of IEPs, the uses of positive behavioral interventions and supports and procedural safeguards for students with disabilities subject to discipline (Indicator 4):

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

  • For noncompliance identified based on self-reviews, the State required the district to submit an assurance from the School Superintendent that each instance of noncompliance was corrected, that the information reported is accurate, and the district will maintain documentation subject to review by the State Education Department (SED).
  • When data identifies a district below target levels for consecutive years, the State’s monitoring staff conducted a review of the district’s policies, procedures and practices through on-site monitoring.
  • For noncompliance identified based on on-site monitoring, the State’s monitoring staff reviewed revised policies and a sample of student records to verify that the district is correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirements and that individual instances of noncompliance had been corrected.

Issues relating to disproportionality by race/ethnicity (Indicators 4B, 9 and 10):

For correction of noncompliance identified through self-review monitoring reports, the State required that the school district submit its report of correction of each issue of noncompliance with an assurance by the School Superintendent of its accuracy and that each instance, in addition to any systemic issues, has been corrected.  For issues of disproportionality by race/ethnicity, the State required the district to publicly report on revisions to its policies, procedures and practices.

When data identifies a district below target levels for consecutive years, monitoring staff either go into districts to verify data, both for individuals and systems, or initiate a full review.  In the State’s process to verify the correction of noncompliance identified through on-site monitoring, the State reviewed, as appropriate, all or a sample of student records to ensure that the district is correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirements and that individual instances of noncompliance have been corrected.

For issues relating to timely evaluations (Indicator 11):

The State required school districts with less than a 100 percent compliance rate for this indicator to submit a statement of assurance from the School Superintendent of correction of the identified noncompliance.  Prior to the school district’s submission that it had corrected the noncompliance, it was required to conduct a review to ensure that each identified student, whose initial evaluation was not completed in compliance with State timelines, and for whom data was not already available in the Student Information Repository System (SIRS), had since had his or her initial evaluation completed.  This information was to be documented on a form provided by the State and maintained by the district, subject to review by the State.  The district was also required to monitor and document over a three-month period that all students (or a representative sample for the Big Four districts) had their individual evaluations completed within the required time period.  These results were also required to be documented on a form provided by the State.  NYC’s annual submission of data for this indicator has been used to verify that all children are receiving their individual evaluations within the required timelines.

Based on a regional sampling methodology, selected school districts that have submitted a statement of assurance of corrected noncompliance were selected for verification reviews on the accuracy of their reports.  If it was identified that the school district continued to have areas of noncompliance, a CAP was issued by the State to address any instances of individual noncompliance, as well as to resolve any underlying systemic reason(s) for the noncompliance.

For noncompliance with the requirement that special education services be provided to preschool children with disabilities by their 3rd birthdays in compliance with State law (Indicator 12):

The State required school districts with less than a 100 percent compliance rate to submit a statement of assurance of correction of the identified noncompliance.  The School Superintendent was required to submit an assurance that the information reported to the State is accurate.  Prior to the school district’s submission that it has corrected the noncompliance, it is required to conduct a review to document, on a form provided by the State, that each identified student who did not receive his or her preschool special education services by his or her 3rd birthday or within the timeline required by State regulations and for whom data was not already available in SIRS, has since had his or her IEP developed and implemented or, if not, there is a reason that is in compliance with State requirements.

Based on a regional sampling methodology, the State selected school districts that had submitted a statement of assurance of corrected noncompliance for an on-site review to verify the accuracy of the report.  If it was identified that the school district continued to have areas of noncompliance, SED issued and closely monitored a CAP to address any instances of individual noncompliance as well as to resolve any underlying systemic reason(s) for the noncompliance.

For issues related to transition planning (Indicator 13):

To verify correction of noncompliance, the State required the school district to document on a State-developed Individual Student Record Review Form that, for each student whose IEP did not include appropriate transition goals and services and for whom the district continues to have CSE responsibility, the CSE has met to develop a new IEP that is in compliance with the transition requirements.  In addition, the school district must have addressed the reasons why the students did not receive appropriate IEPs in order to ensure that other students will have appropriate transition planning in their IEPs.  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.

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 verifies the correction of noncompliance for NYC by requiring annual monitoring for compliance with this indicator.

Actions Taken if Noncompliance Not Corrected:
Following is a description, by school, of the nature of the noncompliance finding(s), why the noncompliance has persisted, steps the State has taken to ensure such correction and any new or different actions the State will take to enforce such correction of the 26 instances of noncompliance found in five public school district and one approved private school.

  1. Nature of the noncompliance:  behavioral interventions, discipline procedures, IEP implementation.  The State cannot determine why noncompliance has persisted.  The State provided written clarification and onsite technical assistance to administrators in the program.  The State will consider whether the school’s failure to correct long-standing noncompliance may result in termination of the State’s approval.
  2. Nature of the noncompliance: timely preschool evaluations and services.  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 CSE meetings and to direct resources to hire additional special education administrators and clerical staff to improve their capacity to meet timelines; 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 noncompliance.  If concerns persist, the State may redirect the district’s use of IDEA funds.
  3. Nature of the noncompliance: least restrictive environment.  Contributing reasons that the noncompliance has persisted have been determined, in part, to be inappropriate administrative procedures and board of education action to implement CSE IEP recommendations.  The State met with district officials, and required them to publicly post SED letters of findings from the State monitoring and verification reviews.  The State has provided contingencies on the district’s receipt of State aid.  The State may redirect or withhold IDEA funds if the district does not come into compliance.
  4. Nature of the noncompliance: inappropriate policies and practices relating to evaluation practices leading to the disproportionality by race/ethnicity in the classification of students with disabilities (Indicator 10), CSE membership, timely IEP implementation and timely evaluations.  Contributing reasons the noncompliance has persisted have been determined to be lack of resources and administrative issues. The State provided additional technical assistance and required the district to receive professional development on compliance issues.  This district was notified of enforcement actions, requiring the district to develop an Action Plan to Resolve Outstanding Noncompliance and a portion of its 2011-12 IDEA funds were redirected to hire a special education consultant to assist the district in making the required changes.  A special investigation of the district and its governance structure to determine the reasons the district has not been able to resolve the noncompliance is being initiated by the Commissioner through the local District Superintendent of BOCES.
  5. Nature of the noncompliance:  transition planning.  Contributing reasons for the continuing noncompliance relate to loss of key personnel in the district responsible for coordination of transition activities.  This district has 11 of the 26 findings of noncompliance identified as continuing from 2010.  The State directed the district to develop an Action Plan to Resolve Outstanding Noncompliance and to engage in professional development from the Regional Special Education Technical Assistance Support Centers (RSE-TASC) Transition Specialist to assist the district in resolving the noncompliance.
  6. Nature of noncompliance:  IEP implementation.  The school in this district has resolved 8 of 11 findings.  The reason why noncompliance was continuing was related to systemic administrative issues.  This district was provided additional technical assistance from the State.  The State continued to provide technical assistance to the district to ensure the students are receiving services in accordance with their IEPs at the schools in which each student is currently enrolled.  The school where the complaint originated has since closed.

 

Correction of Remaining FFY 2009 Findings of Noncompliance (if applicable):
  1. Number of remaining FFY 2009 findings noted in Office of Special Education’s (OSEP) September 2012 FFY 2010 APR response table for this indicator (2009-20).
73
  1. Number of remaining FFY 2009 findings the State has verified as corrected
46
  1. Number of remaining FFY 2009 findings the State has not verified as corrected [(1) minus (2)]
27

Verification of Correction of Remaining 2009 findings:

In 2011-12 the State verified the correction of 46 findings of noncompliance that were first identified in FFY 2009.  The process the State used for the verification of noncompliance is the same process as identified above.  The correction of all findings over 12 months from identification was verified by monitoring staff, assuring correction of findings for individuals and systemic change.

Actions Taken if Noncompliance Not Corrected:

The 27 findings of noncompliance were identified in three school districts.  One of the districts is one of the districts identified with continuing noncompliance identified in 2010 as described above.  Following is a description, by school, of the nature of the noncompliance finding(s), why the noncompliance has persisted, steps the State has taken to ensure such correction and any new or different actions the State will take to enforce such correction of the 26 instances of noncompliance found in five public school district and one approved private school.

  1. Nature of the noncompliance: the school district referenced above in FFY 2010, has 9 unresolved findings from 2 complaints relating to evaluations, IEP development and implementation, suspension procedures and home instruction.  The reasons the noncompliance has persisted have been determined to be lack of resources and administrative issues.  The State provided additional technical assistance and required the district to receive professional development on compliance issues.  This district was notified of enforcement actions, requiring the district to develop an Action Plan to Resolve Outstanding Noncompliance and a portion of its 2011-12 IDEA funds were redirected to hire a special education consultant to assist the district in making the required changes.  A special investigation of the district and its governance structure to determine the reasons the district has not been able to resolve the noncompliance is being initiated by the Commissioner through the local District Superintendent of BOCES.
  2. Nature of the noncompliance:  inappropriate policies and procedures relating to the provision of services to students in long term suspensions.  The reasons noncompliance has persisted, in part, is due to the size of the district, which is one of the big four districts in NYS.  The district has developed an Action Plan to Resolve Outstanding Noncompliance and has made significant progress in resolving all but one of six original noncompliant issues affecting the provision of services during suspensions.  Monitoring staff has been actively engaged with the district administration assisting the district in developing appropriate policies, practices and procedures regarding the sole noncompliant issue, the provision of services during suspension.  It is expected that the district will be able to demonstrate the resolution of this noncompliant issue by early spring 2013.
  3. Nature of the noncompliance:  30 findings of noncompliance relating to IEP development and implementation to address student behaviors and services provided to students in long term suspensions.  The reasons noncompliance has persisted have been attributed to turnover in all top district personnel and Special Education administrators.  The district was required to develop an Action Plan to Resolve Outstanding Noncompliance.  Monitoring staff continues to provide ongoing technical assistance to assist new administration and train staff on new policies and procedures.  Substantial progress has been made during the current school year as the district continues to work with monitoring staff to reach full compliance. Technical assistance resources have been offered to the district.  The district currently has 17 noncompliant issues left to resolve.

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

  1. Number of remaining FFY 2008 findings noted in OSEP’s September 2012 FFY 2010 APR response table for this indicator.  2008-2009
103
  1. Number of remaining FFY 2008 findings the State has verified as corrected
52
  1. Number of remaining FFY 2008 findings the State has not verified as corrected [(1) minus (2)]
51

Verification of Correction of Remaining 2008 findings:

For all FFY 2008 noncompliance verified as corrected, NYS verified that each LEA with noncompliance:  (1) was correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirements (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 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 2008 (including any revisions to general supervision procedures, technical assistance provided and/or any enforcement actions that were taken):

In 2011-12, the State verified the correction of 52 findings of noncompliance that were first identified in FFY 2008.  The process the State used for the verification of noncompliance is the same process as identified above.  The correction of all findings over 12 months from identification were verified individually by State personnel, assuring correction of findings for individuals and systemic change in accordance with OSEP Memorandum 09-02.

Actions Taken if Noncompliance Not Corrected:

The 51 unresolved instances of noncompliance were all found in three school districts; one district responsible for noncompliance in both previous years, had 43 of the 52 instances of noncompliance still unresolved from FFY 2008.  Following is a description, by school, of the nature of the noncompliance finding(s), why the noncompliance has persisted, steps the State has taken to ensure such correction and any new or different actions the State will take to enforce such correction.

  1. Nature of the noncompliance: the school district has findings relating to behavioral assessments and interventions, manifestation determinations, IEP development and implementation; continuum of special education services, annual reviews, least restrictive environment and prior written notice.  The district was identified as “Needs Intervention.”  The State has put this district under enforcement action, requiring the district to develop an Action Plan to Resolve Outstanding Noncompliance and to redirect a portion of its 2011-12 IDEA funds to hire a special education consultant to assist the district in making the required changes.  A special investigation of the district and its governance structure to determine the reasons the district has not been able to resolve the noncompliance is being initiated by the Commissioner through the local District Superintendent of BOCES.  Despite the provision of technical assistance and professional development for staff, the district has been unable to resolve the systemic issues contributing to inappropriate policies, practices and procedures in the identification and suspension of students with disabilities.
  2. Nature of the noncompliance: development and implementation of IEPs and behavioral intervention plans (BIPs) in NYC.  The district corrected most noncompliance stemming from an Academic Achievement Review, but despite intense technical assistance there still remains noncompliance with IEPs including all mandated components, developing and implementing IEPs when appropriate, provision of all intermediate level required instruction and fully serving all students with disabilities as mandated by their IEPs.  The District was identified as Needs Intervention.  The persistence of the remaining noncompliance relates to the following: annual reorganization of the LEA (District of NYC) and resultant changes in supports to the school, continued inappropriate practices and procedures regarding IEP and BIP development and limited resources relative to the latter two areas of noncompliance.
  3. Nature of the noncompliance: certification.  One approved private school, although correcting 33 instances of noncompliance from a program review, still has one remaining finding around the certification of one staff member.  The school has been advised that an appropriately certified teacher must be hired.

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
24
  1. Number of remaining FFY 2007 findings the State has verified as corrected
2
  1. Number of remaining FFY 2007 findings the State has not verified as corrected [(1) minus (2)]
22

Verification of Correction of Remaining 2007 findings:

For all FFY 2007 noncompliance verified as corrected, NYS verified that each LEA with noncompliance:  (1) was correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirements (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 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 (including any revisions to general supervision procedures, technical assistance provided and/or any enforcement actions that were taken):

In 2011-12, the State verified the correction of 2 findings of noncompliance that were first identified in FFY 2007.  The process the State used for the verification of noncompliance is the same process as identified above.  The correction of all findings over 12 months from identification must be verified individually by State personnel, assuring correction of findings for individuals and systemic change in accordance with OSEP Memorandum 09-02.

Actions Taken if Noncompliance Not Corrected:

Following is a description, by school, of the nature of the noncompliance finding(s), why the noncompliance has persisted, steps the State has taken to ensure such correction and any new or different actions the State will take to enforce such correction.  The 22 findings of noncompliance identified in 2007 were in three schools.

  1. Nature of the noncompliance: this district is one of the same school districts referenced above for outstanding noncompliance for 2010, 2009, 2008 and 2007.  There were 19 findings relating to suspension policies, procedures and practices and one relating to timely services for children transitioning from early intervention (Indicator 12).  The district was identified as a District in Need of Intervention.  The State has put this district under enforcement action, requiring the district to develop an Action Plan to Resolve Outstanding Noncompliance and to redirect a portion of its 2011-12 IDEA funds to hire a special education consultant to assist the district in making the required changes.  A special investigation of the district and its governance structure to determine the reasons the district has not been able to resolve the noncompliance is being initiated by the Commissioner through the local District Superintendent of BOCES.  Despite the provision of technical assistance and professional development for staff, the district has been unable to resolve the systemic issues contributing to inappropriate policies, practices and procedures in the identification and suspension of students with disabilities.
  2. Nature of the noncompliance: teacher certification.  Although all other instances of noncompliance for one district have been corrected from the investigation of a State complaint, one remains around the certification of staff.  The school’s noncompliance has persisted due to hiring additional staff that are not appropriately certified and need extended time to achieve appropriate certification.  Two required submissions of materials in 2012 have not met State standards.  A meeting was held to clarify State certification requirements, and school was sent a letter in December 2012 requesting immediate submission of correction action documents indicating compliance.
  3. Nature of the noncompliance: provision of related services.  Contributing reasons for the continuing noncompliance include a shortage of related service providers and CSE recommendations based on disability classification.  The district has hired 50 percent more occupational therapy (OT) and physical therapy (PT) providers since 2010.  They now have 600 providers, an increase from 400 in 2010.  Unfortunately these new hires have not always matched the increasing number of students mandated for OT and PT.  The District was identified as a District in Need of Intervention.  SED met with the District’s superintendent and Cabinet 12 times during 2012 to review the district’s actions to ensure the provision of related services.  The District provided monthly data for trend analysis and the State is seeing substantial progress.  Changes to administrative practices and organizational oversight have been implemented.  SED will continue to provide technical assistance and monitoring of the district’s corrective action steps to re-examine hiring practices and more efficient deployment of OT and PT providers, to establish guidelines for CSE and CPSE recommendations for OT and PT services and to monitor the progress of providing mandated services with monthly Cabinet meetings and accurate tracking and reporting.

Correction of Remaining FFY 2006 Findings of Noncompliance (if applicable):

  1. Number of remaining FFY 2006 findings noted in OSEP’s September 2012 FFY 2010 APR response table for this indicator 
8
  1. Number of remaining FFY 2006 findings the State has verified as corrected
8
  1. Number of remaining FFY 2006 findings the State has not verified as corrected [(1) minus (2)]
0

Verification of Correction of Remaining 2006 findings:

For all FFY 2006 noncompliance verified as corrected, NYS verified that each LEA with noncompliance:  (1) was correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirements (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 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 2006 (including any revisions to general supervision procedures, technical assistance provided and/or any enforcement actions that were taken):

In 2011-12, the State verified the correction of 8 findings of noncompliance that were first identified in FFY 2006.  The process the State used for the verification of noncompliance is the same process as identified above.  The correction of all findings over 12 months from identification must be verified individually by monitoring staff, assuring correction of findings for individuals and systemic change in accordance with OSEP Memorandum 09-02. 

Actions Taken if Noncompliance Not Corrected:

All findings of noncompliance from 2006 and before have been verified as resolved.

Additional Information Required by the OSEP APR Response Table

Statement from the OSEP Response Table State’s Response
The State must demonstrate, in the FFY 2011 APR, that the remaining 73 findings identified in FFY 2009, 103 findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2008, 24 findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2007, and eight findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2006 that were not reported as corrected in the FFY 2010 APR, were corrected.

The State has corrected 46 of the 73 findings identified in FFY 2009, 52 or the 103 findings identified in FFY 2008, 22 of the 24 findings identified in FFY 2007 and all 8 of the 8 findings identified in FY 2006.  Of the total 126 uncorrected findings, 78 belong to one school district, and 17 to another. 

The State must review its improvement activities and revise them, if appropriate, to ensure they will enable the State to provide data in the FFY 2011 APR, demonstrating that the State timely corrected noncompliance identified by the State in FFY 2010 in accordance with 20 U.S.C. 1232d(b)(3)(E), 34 CFR §§300.149 and 300.600(e), and OSEP Memo 09-02. 93.5 percent of findings from FFY 2011 were corrected within 12 months.  Only findings from 5 districts are still unresolved.  The State has reviewed, and as appropriate revised, its improvement activities to provide additional automated notifications on outstanding noncompliance to districts and to provide State intervention earlier than 12 months.
OSEP is concerned about the State’s failure to correct longstanding noncompliance from FFY 2008, FFY 2007, and FFY 2006.  The State must take the steps necessary to ensure that it can report, in the FFY 2011 APR, that it has corrected the remaining 103 findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2008, 24 findings of noncompliance identified in 2007, and eight findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2006.  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. Only nine (9) of the 1350 schools or districts in this State, or 0.6 percent, continue to have uncorrected noncompliance after 12 months.  The State is taking progressive enforcement actions with each of these schools to ensure correction of noncompliance.

When reporting on correction of findings of noncompliance in the FFY 2011 APR, the State must report that it verified that each LEA with noncompliance identified in FFY 2010 and FFY 2009: (1) is correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirements (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.

In addition, in reporting on Indicator 15 in the FFY 2011 APR, the State must use the Indicator 15 Worksheet.

The detailed steps the State has taken to verify the correction of noncompliance are identified above.

The State used the Indicator 15 worksheet to report on this Indicator.
In addition, in responding to Indicators 4A, 4B, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 in the FFY 2011 APR, the State must report on correction of the noncompliance described in this table under those indicators. The State also reported on the correction of the noncompliance described in this table under those indicators.

Improvement Activities Completed in 2011-12

  • IDEA discretionary funds were used to provide funds to approved private schools and Special Act school districts to provide tuition for coursework and test preparation support to uncertified teachers seeking teacher certification.
  • The State used IDEA discretionary funds to support intensive teacher institutes and to fund personnel preparation projects to address personnel shortages in bilingual areas (such as special education teachers, psychologists and speech and language therapists.)
  • The State continues to implement Court Order Settlement Agreements (DD, Ray M., Jose P.) for the timely evaluation and placement of preschool children.
  • The State accessed and used federal technical assistance to further inform its activities to improve identification and correction of noncompliance as follows:
      • Office of Special Education managers and staff routinely participated in meetings, teleconferences and Community of Practice (CoP) webinars related to all aspects of the various indicators in an effort to ensure consistency, accuracy and reliability of the data being collected, analyzed and reported.
      • Staff attended the 2012 OSEP Leadership Conference.
      • Regular participation in the Northeast Regional Resource Center (NERCC) Legal and Regulatory Workgroup’s twice yearly forums assisted our State teams’ legal counsel, special education policy and other key staff to remain current in legal and policy developments, systems operations issues, and evaluation of short-term and long-term impact of implementation of the IDEA.
      • Staff participated in NERCC State monitoring workgroups.
  • See individual Indicator sections (4, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13) for information on activities completed to address resolution of issues of noncompliance.
  • The State revised its procedures for the resolution of noncompliance.  The monitoring staff sends out reminder notices 30 days before a corrective action due date and follows up with telephone calls in order to facilitate the correction in a timely manner.  The State requires the program to correct its noncompliance within a shorter time frame.  The State has also established a graduation of enforcement actions even if the program is within its first 12 months of identification of noncompliance.
  • Special Education Quality Assurance Nondistrict monitoring staff initiated 35 Behavioral Management and Support Focused Reviews to determine if approved private residential schools and Special Act school districts serving students with disabilities appropriately address student behaviors and support the continued implementation of quality behavioral management practices.

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

  • See revisions to improvement activities identified under Indicators 4, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13.
  • A newly designed module will be added to the State’s Comprehensive Special Education Information System to alert monitoring staff to districts within their region that are required to submit data, the result of that submission, status of correction of noncompliance, last notifications/reminder sent to the district, and need to schedule follow-up, focused, or comprehensive reviews.  This will allow monitoring staff to intervene sooner, prior to 12 months from identification of noncompliance, to help districts resolve noncompliance earlier.  Prior proposed timeline of December 31, 2012 was not met because of lack of technology resources, but is scheduled for completion in the spring of 2013.
  • Each regional office is having a staff person trained in using a data collection system to access and sort all noncompliance from the region.
  • Training has recently been provided to regional offices on how to implement new procedures for the resolution of noncompliance.
  • Monitoring capacity of each regional office has been increased by the addition of at least one monitoring staff person, per office.

1 When the same compliance issue is identified for a school district both for Indicator 4 and 4B, it is reported only once in Indicator 15.

2 When the same compliance issue is identified for a school district both for Indicator 9 and 10, it is reported only once in Indicator 15.

Last Updated: September 16, 2013