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.  In 2012, the State discussed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) waiver and its impact on results for Indicator 3 with the Commissioner’s Advisory Panel for Special Education Services.

Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE

Indicator 3:  Participation and performance of children with individualized education programs (IEPs) on statewide assessments:

  1. Percent of the districts with a disability subgroup that meets the State’s minimum “n” size that meet the State’s adequate yearly progress1 (AYP) targets for the disability subgroup.
  2. Participation rate for children with IEPs.
  3. Proficiency rate for children with IEPs against grade level, modified and alternate academic achievement standards.
    (20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A))

Measurement:

  1. (A.1) AYP percent = [(# of districts with a disability subgroup that meets the State’s minimum “n” size that meet the State’s AYP targets for the disability subgroup) divided by the (total # of districts that have a disability subgroup that meets the State’s minimum “n” size)] times 100.
  2. Participation rate percent = [(# of children with IEPs participating in the assessment) divided by the (total # of children with IEPs enrolled during the testing window, calculated separately for reading and math)].  The participation rate is based on all children with IEPs, including both children with IEPs enrolled for a full academic year and those not enrolled for a full academic year.
  3. Proficiency rate percent = ([(# of children with IEPs scoring at or above proficient against grade level, modified and alternate academic achievement standards) divided by the (total # of children with IEPs who received a valid score and for whom a proficiency level was assigned, and, calculated separately for reading and math)].  The proficiency rate includes both children with IEPs enrolled for a full academic year and those not enrolled for a full academic year.

Notes:

  • New York State (NYS) public reports of assessment results are available at https://reportcards.nysed.gov/.
  • NYS administers alternate assessments against alternate achievement standards aligned to grade level content.
  • NYS does not administer assessments against modified achievement standards.
  • http://www.p12.nysed.gov/sedcar/state.htm#assessments –  Report of the Participation of Students with Disabilities on Assessment:  Report of the Participation of Students with Disabilities on Mathematics Assessment)" and "Report of the Participation of Students with Disabilities on Reading/Language Arts Assessment."

Data Source:

The Student Information Repository System (SIRS) is used to collect State assessment data for all students.  NYS uses AYP data as is used for accountability reporting under Title I of the ESEA.

Beginning in 2011-12, AYP for students with disabilities, consistent with the ESEA waiver provided to NYS, is determined using two criteria: participation and performance.  To meet the participation criterion in elementary/middle and secondary level English language arts (ELA) and mathematics, 95 percent of students (enrolled during the test administration period at the elementary/middle level and in 12th grade at the secondary level) must be tested on an approved assessment.  To meet the performance criterion, a performance index (PI) that is calculated using assessment results must be equal to or greater than a predetermined EAMO or a Safe Harbor Target (10 percent improvement over the previous year’s performance).  An EAMO is the lowest PI that an accountability group of a given size can achieve in the subject for a group's PI not to be considered significantly different from the statewide AMO for that subject.  The table below displays statewide PI targets and the statewide calculated PI.  It is important to note that districts from across the State will have different EAMOs, depending on the size of the students with disabilities population.

At the elementary/middle level, students may achieve one of six performance levels2:

  • Level 1 On Track (Basic and On Track to Proficient)
  • Level 1 Off Track (Basic and Not on Track to Proficient)
  • Level 2 On Track (Basic Proficient and On Track to Proficient)
  • Level 2 Off Track (Basic Proficient and Not on Track to Proficient)
  • Level 3 (Proficient)
  • Level 4 (Advanced)

The PI is calculated using the following formula:3**
((Level 1 On Track) + (Level 1 On Track) + (Level 2 On Track) + (Level 2 On Track) + (Level 3) + (Level 3) + (Level 4) + (Level 4) + (Level 2 Off Track)) ÷ number of continuously enrolled tested students) × 100

Continuously enrolled tested students are those enrolled on the first Wednesday of October and during the test administration period.

At the secondary level, students may achieve one of four performance levels:

  • Level 1 (Basic)
  • Level 2 (Basic Proficient)
  • Level 3 (Proficient)
  • Level 4 (Advanced)

The PI is calculated using the following formula:
(Level 2) + (Level 3) + (Level 3) + (Level 4) + (Level 4)) ÷ number of cohort members) × 100

Cohort members are students who entered grade 9 in the same school year. Data for these students are calculated on June 30, four years after they first enter 9th grade.

Actual Target Datat for FFY 2011:

FFY 2011 Measurable and Rigorous Targets
  Districts Meeting AYP for Disability Subgroup (3A.1) Participation for Students with Disabilities (3B) Proficiency* for Students with Disabilities (3C)
Reading Math Reading Math
3-8 HS 3-8 HS 3-8 HS 3-8 HS
Targets 31% 95% 95% 95% 95% PI
101
PI
97
PI
122
PI
82
Actual Target Data for FFY 2011 44.3% 98% 98% 97% 97% PI
97
PI
116
PI
100
PI
77

AYP

AYP for Students with Disabilities Subgroup
FFY Number of School Districts Required to Make AYP (had minimum of 40 students for participation and 30 students for performance) Number and Percent of School Districts that made AYP in all Required Subjects
2009 (2009-10) 672 (includes 35 Charter Schools) 30.8% (n = 207)
2010 (2010-11) 677 (includes 46 Charter Schools) 17.2% (n = 116)
2011
(2011-12)
682
(includes 55 Charter Schools)
44.23% (n = 302)

Participation Rate

The participation rate of students with disabilities in the 2011-12 school year by grade and subject is as follows: 

Participation Rates for Students with Disabilities Subgroup
Assessment 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12
Enrollment Participation
Rate
Number Tested/ Enrollment Participation
Rate
Number Tested/ Enrollment Participation
Rate
Grade 3-8 ELA 204,287/
208,722
98% 203,051/
207,129
98% 225,645/
229517
98%
Grade 3-8 Math 204,515/
208,672
98% 202,902/
207,128
98% 225,767/
229,554
98%
High School ELA (seniors) 19,906/
20,693
96% 20,580/
21,318
97% 24,164/
24,880
97%
High School Math (seniors) 20,049/
20,693
97% 20,685/
21,318
97% 24,178/
24,880
97%

Report of the Participation of Students with Disabilities on Reading/Language Arts Assessment:  The State’s report on the numbers of students with disabilities who participated in the reading and math assessments, both with and without testing accommodations can be found at: http://www.p12.nysed.gov/sedcar/state.htm#assessments.

Performance

The two charts below show the 2011-12 NYS performance outcomes by proficiency levels and related PIs for the students with disabilities subgroup.  Students who scored at levels 3 or 4 were considered proficient.  As described above, a PI is a value from 0 to 200 that is assigned to an accountability group, indicating how that group performed on a required State test (or approved alternative) in ELA or mathematics.

Proficiency Levels for Students with Disabilities 2011-12
Assessment Continuously Enrolled Students with Disabilities in Grades 3-8 and in 2008 Accountability Cohort in High School (HS) Number by Proficiency Level on State Assessments
Level 1 On Track Level 1 Off Track Level 2 On Track Level 2 Off Track Level 3 Level 4
Grade 3-8 ELA 215,775 63
(0.029%)
65,613
(30.4%)
9,757 (4.5%) 90,597
(42.0%)
39,891 (18.5%) 9,854
(4.6%)
Grade 3-8 Math 215,741 7 (0.003%) 48,890 (22.7%) 7,880 (3.7%) 82,670
(38.3%)
54,169 (25.1%) 22,125 (10.3%)
HS ELA 28,988 10,014
(34.5%)
N/A 8,987
(31.0%)
N/A 7,953
(27.4%)
2,034 (7.0%)
HS Math 28,988 11,316
(39.0%)
N/A

13,039 (45.0%)

N/A 3,474
(12.0%)
1,159 (4.0%)

 

Performance Index for the Students with Disabilities Subgroup 2011-12
Assessment Continuously Enrolled Students with Disabilities in Grades 3-8 and in 2008 Accountability Cohort in High School (HS) NYS PI Effective AMOSafe- Harbor Target Students with Disabilities Made AYP in 2011-12 2012-13 AMO or
Safe- Harbor Target
Grades 3-8 ELA 215,775 97 101 101 No 118
Grades 3-8 Math 215,741 116 122 122 No 132
HS ELA 28,988 100 97 97 Yes 121
HS Math 29,988 77 82 82 No 102

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

Public Reporting of Assessment Information:  Public reports of assessment results are available at https://reportcards.nysed.gov/counties.php?year=2012 4.

Explanation of Progress or Slippage

AYP:

44.3 percent of school districts (including Charter Schools) met AYP in every grade and subject for the subgroup of students with disabilities.  The State exceeded its target for AYP.  In FFY 2010, only 17.2 percent of districts (including Charter Schools) met AYP in every grade and subject for the subgroup of students with disabilities.  The increased number of districts making AYP in FFY 2011 is attributable, in part, to the number of districts that were able to make Safe Harbor based on the change to the State’s calculation of AYP, as approved through the ESEA waiver.  Under the waiver, the State eliminated the requirement that in order to make Safe Harbor in grades 3-8 ELA or Math, an accountability group must also make AYP with that group in science, as well as the requirements that to make Safe Harbor for high school ELA or Math, an accountability group must also make AYP with that group for graduation rate.

Participation:

The State exceeded its targets in all areas.  The grade 3-8 ELA and Math targets were exceeded by three percentage points (98 percent actual compared to 95 percent target) and the high school ELA and Math targets were exceeded by two percentage points (97 percent actual compared to 95 percent target).  All targets were also exceeded in the prior year at the same rate.

Performance:

Grades 3-8 ELA and Math: 
The Grades 3-8 ELA and Math performance of students with disabilities improved based on the proficiency levels reported in 2010-11 compared to the proficiency levels reported in 2011-12.

  • In 2010-11, 20 percent of students with disabilities were at levels 3 and 4 in grades 3-8 ELA.  In 2011-12, 22.9 percent of students with disabilities were at levels 3 and 4 in grades 3-8 ELA.
  • In 2010-11, 34 percent of students with disabilities were at levels 3 and 4 in grades 3-8 Math.  In 2011-12, 35.4 percent of students with disabilities were at levels 3 and 4 in grades 3-8 Math.

High School ELA and Math:
Under the ESEA waiver calculations, in order to make a level 3 proficiency, a student must have achieved a score between 75 and 89 on the Regents Comprehensive Examination in English or between 80 and 89 on a Regents examination in mathematics; or passed a State-approved alternative to those Regents examinations; or a score of level 3 on a State alternate assessment.  (Under prior year calculations, the student must have achieved a score between 65 and 84 to earn a level 3.)    

Under the ESEA waiver calculations, in order to achieve level 4 proficiency on the high school assessment, a student must have achieved a score of 90 or higher on the Regents Comprehensive Examination in English or a Regents mathematics examination; or a score of level 4 on a State alternate assessment. (Under prior year calculations, the student must have achieved a score above 85 to earn a level 4.)    

These changes established standards on Regents exams in ELA and mathematics that are better aligned to college- and career- readiness to hold schools and districts accountable.  As a result, fewer students with disabilities were able to reach these proficiency standards. 

  • In 2010-11, 58 percent of students with disabilities were at levels 3 and 4 for HS ELA.  In 2011-12, 34.4 percent were at levels 3 and 4. 
  • In 2010-11, 54 percent of students with disabilities were at levels 3 and 4 for HS Math.  In 2011-12, 16 percent were at levels 3 and 4.

As stated above, the reason for the change in proficiency levels is due to the change in the required score necessary to be considered college and career ready.

Improvement Activities Completed during 2011-12

  • During the 2011-12 school year, Special Education Quality Assurance (SEQA) monitoring staff conducted focused reviews in 27 school districts that targeted policies, practices and procedures in key areas, such as individual evaluations and eligibility determinations; IEP development and implementation; appropriate instruction from qualified staff; access, participation and progress in the general education curriculum; instruction in literacy; behavioral support; and parental involvement.
  • SEQA monitoring staff conducted 12 monitoring reviews of the Boards of Cooperative Educational Services (BOCES).  BOCES serves students with disabilities who require a highly structured setting or who participate in career and technical education programs.  The reviews targeted specific compliance areas fundamental to priority student outcomes, such as graduation rate, participation and achievement on state assessments, and behavior management.
  • During 2011-12, SEQA monitoring staff regularly met with Special Education Directors of BOCES to update them on changes to regulations and encourage dialogue on the impact of emerging policy on outcomes for students with disabilities.  The BOCES directors were then able to share information provided at these meetings with district leadership within their respective regions.  (See Indicator 1)
  • SEQA monitoring staff teamed with liaisons from the Office of School Accountability and members of the Joint Intervention Teams in those school that had the subgroup of students with disabilities performing low on State assessments to assess specific areas of special education instruction that impact priority outcomes for this group of students.  They conducted a total of 27 reviews which resulted in recommendations for changes to curriculum; teaching and learning; school leadership; infrastructure for student success; collection, analysis and utilization of data; professional development and district support.  (See Indicator 1)
  • Senior management from the Office of Special Education met quarterly with the Directors of Special Education of the Big 4 City School Districts as a forum to problem solve key issues in improving outcomes for students with disabilities.  The school leadership also shared best practices in curriculum and delivery of instruction, in management of behavior and in the design of special education programs.  (See Indicator 1)
  • SEQA monitoring staff conducted monthly meetings with public school and approved private program special education leadership to provide targeted technical assistance and support in the implementation of the SED’s initiatives that impact priority outcomes for students with disabilities.  (See Indicator 1)
  • A total of 40 site visits were conducted by the SEQA monitoring staff during the administration of State examinations in January and June to verify that testing accommodations for students with disabilities were being appropriately provided, as indicated in their IEPs.
  • Specialists from the Regional Special Education Technical Assistance Support Centers delivered multiple regional training sessions for school districts including, but not limited to training on:  Committee on Special Education Process; Accessible Instructional Materials; Testing Accommodations; and IEP Development.
  • Twenty-six (26) schools with effective instructional practices for students with disabilities were identified by the State.  Sixteen (16) selected effective practice schools received grants to assist low performing schools to adopt these effective practices.  The remaining ten (10) schools with effective instructional practices received grants and served as statewide resources, providing technical assistance.  These schools were not partnered with low performing schools.  See www.S3TAIRproject.com.
  • See information on the State’s implementation of the Common Core Curriculum and Assessments at http://engageny.org/common-core-curriculum-assessments.
  • See information on Data Driven Instruction at http://engageny.org/data-driven-instruction.
  • See information on Teacher/Leader evaluations at http://engageny.org/teacherleader-effectiveness.
  • See information on Parent and Family Resources at http://engageny.org/parent-and-family-resources.
  • See information on Network Teams at http://engageny.org/network-teams.

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

The State is revising its proposed targets for FFY 2012 for AYP as follows:

AYP:  45 percent of school districts that are required to make AYP for the students with disabilities subgroup will make AYP in grades 3-8 ELA, grades 3-8 Math, high school ELA and high school Math.

The reasons for the revised targets are the changes in the calculation of AYP provided through the ESEA waiver.  NYS exceeded the previously identified target and a revised target is necessary that considers the FFY 2011 data. 


1  The State Education Department (SED) submitted its ESEA Flexibility Request to the U.S. Education Department (USED) on February 28, 2012.  On May 29, 2012, SED received approval from the USED for its flexibility waiver request.  Because the State still calculates AYP through its waiver, New York State (NYS) is reporting on A.l and not A.2 (Annual Measurable Objective (AMO) percent).  Through the waiver, in order to make AYP, schools continue to be required to achieve their Effective Annual Measurable Objective (EAMO) or make Safe Harbor, and demonstrate the required participation rate on State assessments for the subgroup on each measure for which the school is accountable. However, SED eliminated the requirement that in order to make Safe Harbor in grades 3-8 ELA or Math, an accountability group must also make AYP with that group in science, as well as the requirements that to make Safe Harbor for high school ELA or Math, an accountability group must also make AYP with that group for graduation rate.

2 New York’s approved ESEA flexibility waiver increased the number of performance levels to six from four to accommodate student growth.

3 This is a new formula under New York’s approved ESEA flexibility waiver.

4 2011-12 school district report cards

 

Last Updated: March 6, 2013