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 4:  Rates of suspension and expulsion:

  1. Percent of districts that have a significant discrepancy in the rate of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year for children with individualized education programs (IEPs); and
  2. Percent of districts that have (a) a significant discrepancy, by race or ethnicity, in the rate of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year for children with IEPs; and (b) policies, procedures or practices that contribute to the significant discrepancy and do not comply with requirements relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards.
    (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A); 1412(a)(22))

Measurement 4A:

A.  Percent = [(# of districts that have a significant discrepancy in the rates of suspensions and expulsions for greater than 10 days in a school year of children with IEPs) divided by the (# of districts in the State)] times 100.

New York State’s (NYS) Definition of Significant Discrepancy and Methodology:

In NYS, the rates of suspensions and expulsions of students with disabilities out of  school for more than 10 days in a school year are compared among the school districts in the State. 

For the baseline year 2004-05 through 2006-07, significant discrepancy was defined as a suspension rate of greater than three times the baseline statewide average (i.e., a rate of 4.0 percent or higher).

Beginning in 2007-08 through 2011-12, significant discrepancy is defined as a suspension rate of greater than two times the baseline statewide average, (i.e., a rate of more than 2.7 percent or higher).

The 2004-05 baseline statewide average suspension rate was 1.34 percent. School districts with at least 75 school-age students with disabilities that had a suspension rate of 4.0 percent or higher were identified as having significant discrepancy in their rate among school districts.  A minimum number of 75 students with disabilities was used since small numbers of students with disabilities may distort percentages.

The State uses a minimum of 75 students with disabilities “n” size requirement in its formula to compute significant discrepancy. However, it does not exclude school districts from the denominator when calculating results for this indicator.

Data Source:

NYS collects data on the number of students with disabilities suspended or expelled out of school for more than 10 days in a school year on the PD-8 report. See http://www.p12.nysed.gov/sedcar/forms/pdforms/1112/pdf/pd8_1112.pdfPDF document.  Data for this report are collected through the PD Data System, which is a web-based application used by school districts to provide aggregate data.  The State verifies the reliability and accuracy of the State’s data through automated edit checks and verification procedures.

Section 618 data are used to analyze for discrepancy in the rates of out-of-school suspensions of students with disabilities for greater than 10 days in a school year among school districts.  Suspension rates were calculated for all school districts.  From 2004-05 through 2007-08, the rates were computed by dividing the number of students with disabilities suspended out of school for more than 10 days, by the December 1 count of school-age students with disabilities and the result expressed as a percent.  From 2008-09 onward, the date for determining the count for school-age students changed from December 1 to the first Wednesday in October.

For Indicator 4A, NYS uses data collected for Table 5 of Information Collection 1820-0621 (Report of Children with Disabilities Unilaterally Removed or Suspended/Expelled for More than 10 Days) and reported to the United States Education Department (USED) annually in the 618 report. These data are also provided to USED in the corresponding EDFacts files.

Actual Target Data for FFY 2009

Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) Measurable and Rigorous Target
FFY 2011
Using 2010-11 school year data
4A.  No more than 2 percent of school districts in the State will suspend students with disabilities for more than 10 days at a rate of 2.7 percent or higher. (This rate is two times the baseline average.)

Actual Target Data for FFY 2011 (using 2010-11 data)

In the 2010-11 school year, 33 school districts (4.8 percent of all school districts) had an out-of-district suspension rate for more than 10 days at a rate of 2.7 percent or higher.

NYS evaluated suspension data from 570 school districts with a minimum enrollment of 75 students with disabilities (enrollment as of October 7, 2010).  This means that 112 school districts were excluded in the calculation for this indicator because of the State’s minimum size criteria. All districts were included in the denominator.

Indicator 4A. Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) with Significant Discrepancies in Rates for Suspension and Expulsion of Students with Disabilities
Year Total Number of LEAs Number of LEAs that have Significant Discrepancies Percent
FFY 2008
(using 2007-08 data)
683 64 9.4%
FFY 2009
(using 2008-09 data)
682 40 5.9%
FFY 2010
(using 2009-10 data)
682 41 6.0%
FFY 2011
(using 2010-11 data)
682 33 4.8%

Review of Policies, Procedures and Practices (completed in FFY 2011 using 2010-11 data)

For each school district identified by its data as having a significant discrepancy in the rate of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year of students with disabilities, the State ensures that a review is conducted of the district’s policies, procedures and practices related to the development and implementation of IEPs, the uses of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards among students with disabilities subject to discipline.  The State provides for the review of policies, procedures and practices each year a school district’s data shows a significant discrepancy in its suspension rates for students with disabilities, as follows:

  • The first year a district’s data indicates a significant discrepancy, the State requires the district to complete a State-developed self-review monitoring protocol, which requires the review of specific policies, practices and procedures related to discipline of students with disabilities, including requirements relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards.  The monitoring protocol for this review is available at http://www.p12.nysed.gov/specialed/spp/indicators/4.htm.  A report of the results of this review is submitted by the district to the State.  At the time of submission, school districts that identify issues of noncompliance are notified through a written finding of noncompliance that they must correct all instances of noncompliance immediately, but not later than the prescribed due date contained in the district’s notification.  The results from this review are reported to the State for follow-up and corrective actions if compliance issues are identified within one year or sooner.  Sixteen (16) of the 33 school districts identified had their review of policies, procedures and practices conducted in this manner.
  • For subsequent years in which a school district’s data indicates significant discrepancies, the State conducts the monitoring review of the district’s policies, procedures and practices as identified above.  Seventeen (17) of the 33 school districts identified had a review of their policies, procedures and practices conducted in this manner.

It was determined that 24 of the 33 school districts had one or more inappropriate policies, procedures and/or practices relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral supports and interventions, and/or procedural safeguards.  These school districts were notified through written findings of noncompliance that they must correct their policies, practices and procedures within one year of being notified of noncompliance.

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

Explanation of Progress or Slippage

FFY 2011 represents the fourth year of implementing the State’s more rigorous definition of significant discrepancy of 2.7 percent or higher.  The rate for FFY 2011 represented a decrease from FFY 2010 in both percentage and the number of districts (1.2 percentage point representing eight fewer school districts).

While the State has not met its target for this indicator, the State has shown progress each year.  This progress has persisted even with the definition of significant discrepancy becoming more stringent in 2006-07 (from 4 percent to 2.7 percent).  In addition, 27 school districts identified with high suspension rates in 2009-10 decreased their rates of long-term suspensions in 2010-11 to below the State’s target.

Correction of FFY 2010 Findings of Noncompliance

  1. Number of findings of noncompliance the State made during FFY 2010 (the period from July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011) using 2009-10 data
473 findings
(46 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 district of the finding)
460 findings
(43 school districts)
  1. Number of FFY 2010 findings not verified as corrected within one year [(1) minus (2)]
13 findings
(3 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)
13 findings
(3 school districts)
  1. Number of FFY 2010 findings the State has verified as corrected beyond the one-year timeline (“subsequent correction”) 
13 findings
(3 school districts)
  1. Number of FFY 2010 findings not yet verified as corrected [(4) minus (5)]
0 findings
(0 school district)

Actions Taken if Noncompliance Not Corrected:
NYS does not have any uncorrected noncompliance related to this indicator from FFY 2010.

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

The State verified that each noncompliant district (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) had corrected each individual case of noncompliance, unless the child is no longer within the jurisdiction of the LEA, consistent with OSEP Memorandum 09-02, dated October 17, 2008 (OSEP Memo 09-02).

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

The State verified correction of all noncompliance timely or subsequent for Indicator 4 as follows:

The State’s monitoring staff followed up with each district that had continuing noncompliance beyond the one-year timeline to assure that the compliance assurance plan (CAP) was fully implemented and verified by a review of revised policies and a sample of student records, that the district is correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirements and that individual instances of noncompliance had been corrected.

Correction of Any Remaining Findings of Noncompliance from FFY 2009 or Earlier (if applicable):

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

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 report, in its FFY 2011 APR, on the correction of noncompliance that the State identified in FFY 2010 as a result of the review it conducted pursuant to 34 CFR §300.170(b).

When reporting on the correction of the noncompliance identified in FFY 2010, the State must report that it has verified that each local educational agency (LEA) with noncompliance identified by the State: (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 Memorandum 09-02, dated October 17, 2008 (OSEP Memo 09-02).  In the FFY 2011 APR, the State must describe the specific actions that were taken to verify the correction.
See above

Improvement Activities Completed in 2011-12

  • Electronic notices were sent to 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 State should timely correction not occur.
  • Through a regional planning process, behavior specialists from the State’s Regional Special Education Technical Assistance Support Centers (RSE-TASC) were assigned to provide technical assistance and training on implementation of positive behavioral interventions and supports and policies, procedures and practices 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.
  • Behavior specialists worked directly with 404 schools (as of July 2012) to support PBIS implementation. 
  • The State added 15 full time behavior specialists funded through the RSE-TASC to increase the capacity to assist more schools in implementing systems of positive behavioral supports and strategies. 
  • The State provided a three-day training program for chairpersons of Committees on Special Education (CSEs) and Committees on Preschool Special Education (CPSEs), which included training on IEP development and positive behavioral interventions and supports.  Forty-seven (47) regional training sessions were conducted throughout the year.
  • The New York State Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports Technical Assistance Center (NYS PBIS TAC) continued to operate and expand their website.
  • The NYS PBIS TAC delivered nine days of training and ongoing technical assistance to the RSE-TASC behavior specialists and other State technical assistance providers who, in turn, provided training and technical assistance to identified districts in the development of positive behavior principles and practices.
  • During the 2011-12 school year, the PBIS TAC and RSE-TASC behavior specialists developed and delivered 10 one-day regional forums across the State, focusing on the entire continuum of PBIS supports across the three-tiered system, with an emphasis on data tools and behavioral interventions for groups of students and individuals with higher levels of need.  Eleven (11) one-day sessions focusing on the use of data and applying a functional perspective to behavior were planned for the 2012-13 school year and are currently being delivered across the State.
  • The PBIS TAC, in partnership with an expert from the federal Technical Assistance Center on PBIS and the RSE-TASC behavior specialists, provided two training opportunities for identified districts/schools on the systems, data and practices of the Wraparound Process as a Tier 3/Tertiary Level Intervention.  This training was attended by all RSE-TASC behavior specialists and PBIS TAC staff and is intended to be replicated in the future for identified districts/schools who demonstrate readiness for this level of intervention.
  • NYSED supported attendance of the PBIS TAC staff and the RSE-TASC behavior specialists at the National Leadership Forum in 2012.  In addition, NYSED staff, PBIS TAC staff and RSE-TASC behavior specialists attended and participated in the 2011 Northeast PBIS Leadership Forum.
  • Specialists from RSE-TASC provided technical assistance and professional development to selected approved private schools.
  • The RSE-TASC behavior specialists provided intensive two-day trainings on functional behavioral assessments and intervention plans to more than 30 schools from identified districts in each region of the State.  The RSE-TASC regional special education training specialists and behavior specialists continue to develop trainings on functional behavioral assessments and intervention plans, to be delivered regionally throughout the State for all interested districts.
  • Special Education Quality Assurance (SEQA) monitoring staff provided targeted technical assistance to each school district that was identified, or at risk for being identified, with noncompliance related to this indicator.  Contact was made at three-month intervals with districts identified with noncompliance to assess the status of each district’s progress in correcting inappropriate policies, practices and/or procedures regarding the suspension and expulsion of students with disabilities.
  • During the 2011-12 school year, SEQA monitoring staff provided targeted technical assistance to the Big Four city school districts (Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, Yonkers) regarding the implementation of programs and services which ensure the provision of a free and appropriate public education for students with disabilities that have a disciplinary change in placement.
  • SEQA monitoring staff provided presentations for special education leaders within their regions on appropriate procedures for the suspension and discipline of students with disabilities.

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

None


4B: Significant Discrepancies by Race/Ethnicity in High Suspension Rates

Measurement 4B:

B.   Percent = [(# of districts that have: (a) a significant discrepancy, by race or ethnicity, in the rate of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year for children with IEPs; and (b) policies, procedures or practices that contribute to the significant discrepancy and do not comply with requirements relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards) divided by the (# of districts in the State)] times 100. 

Definition of significant discrepancy:

NYS compares the number of students suspended in each race/ethnicity category with the statewide number suspended of all students with disabilities and computes a standard deviation to determine if there is significant discrepancy in suspensions.  The State uses the following definition of “significant discrepancy”:

  • At least 75 students with disabilities enrolled on 10/1/11;
  • At least 10 students with disabilities of the particular race/ethnicity were suspended;
  • The suspension rate of the particular race/ethnicity was greater than two standard deviations above the mean.

For the school district calculations, the minimum numbers of students with disabilities is used because of the potential for small numbers of students with disabilities to distort percentages.  New York State includes the total number of LEAs in the State in the denominator.  The Statewide calculation does not exclude school districts from the denominator calculation as a result of this minimum “n” size.

Reports include significant discrepancies of children in the “two or more races” category for Indicator 4B.

For each school district identified by its data as having a significant discrepancy in the rate of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year of students with disabilities, the State ensures that a review is conducted of the district’s policies, procedures and practices relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral supports and procedural safeguards among students with disabilities subject to discipline.  The State provides for the review of policies, procedures and practices each year a school district’s data shows a significant discrepancy in its suspension rates for students with disabilities as follows:

  • The first year a district’s data indicates a significant discrepancy, the State requires the district to complete a State-developed self-review monitoring protocol, which requires the review of specific policies, practices and procedures related to discipline of students with disabilities, including requirements relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, use of positive behavioral supports and procedural safeguards.  The monitoring protocol for this review is available at http://www.p12.nysed.gov/specialed/spp/indicators/4.htm.  A report of the results of this review is submitted by the district to the State.  At the time of submission, school districts that identify issues of noncompliance are immediately notified through a written finding of noncompliance that they must correct all issues of noncompliance as soon as possible, but not later than 12 months.  The results from this review are reported to the State for follow-up and corrective actions if compliance issues are identified.  Districts that are identified with inappropriate policies, procedures and/or practices are identified for purposes of reporting in the APR for indicator 4B.
  • For subsequent years in which a school district’s data indicates significant discrepancies, the State conducts the monitoring review of the district’s policies, procedures and practices in the areas as identified above.

Data Source:

For 4B, NYS uses data collected for Table 5 of Information Collection 1820-0621 (Report of Children with Disabilities Unilaterally Removed or Suspended/Expelled for More than 10 Days) and reported in the annual 618 report to USED.  For 4B, NYS also includes data from reviews of policies, practices and procedures as defined in the above Measurement for this indicator.

Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) Measurable and Rigorous Target
FFY 2011 (using 2010-11 data) 4B. 0 percent of school districts will be 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 that is the result of inappropriate policies, procedures and/or practices.

Actual Target Data for FFY 2011 (using 2010-11 data)

The State included 570 school districts in the calculation of this indicator because they had a sufficient minimum enrollment of at least 75 students with disabilities.  A total of 112 school districts were excluded from the calculation because of the State’s minimum size criteria.  All districts (682) were included in the denominator for this indicator.  

In FFY 2011, 22 districts had data showing significant discrepancy in the rates of suspension and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year by race and ethnicity; fifteen (15) of these school districts (2.2 percent of all school districts) had 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 that were the result of inappropriate policies, procedures and/or practices.  The State did not meet its target for this indicator.

Indicator 4B(a). LEAs with Significant Discrepancy, by Race or Ethnicity in Rates of Suspension and Expulsion
Year Total Number of LEAs Number of LEAs that have Significant Discrepancies by Race or Ethnicity Percent
FFY 2010
(using 2009-10 data)
682 12 1.8%
FFY 2011
(using 2010-11 data)
682 22 3.2%
Indicator 4B(b). LEAs with Significant Discrepancy, by Race or Ethnicity, in Rates of Suspensions and Expulsions; and policies, procedures or practices that contribute to the significant discrepancy and do not comply with requirements relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of PBIS, and procedural safeguards
Year Total Number of LEAs Number of LEAs that have Significant Discrepancies by, Race or Ethnicity, and Policies, Procedures or Practices that Contribute to the Significant Discrepancy Percent
FFY 2010
(using 2009-10 data)
682 9 1.3%
FFY 2011
(using 2010-11 data)
682 15 2.2%

Review of Policies, Procedures and Practices (completed in FFY 2011 using 2010-11 data):

During FFY 2011, 22 school districts were identified by the State as having data showing significant discrepancy based on race/ethnicity in the percent of students with disabilities suspended out of school for more than 10 days based on their 2010-11 school year data.  Five (5) of these school districts were sent notifications with directions to use a State-developed self-review monitoring protocol to review their policies, practices and procedures.  Seventeen (17) school districts received focused or comprehensive reviews by the special education monitoring office to review their policies, procedures and practices because these school districts had two or more consecutive years of data with significant discrepancies.

It was determined that 15 of the 22 school districts (2.2 percent) of all school districts in the State had one or more inappropriate policies, procedures and/or practices that contributed to the significant discrepancy and did not comply with requirements relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of PBIS, and/or procedural safeguards.  These school districts have been notified through written findings of noncompliance that they must correct their policies, practices and procedures within one year from being notified of noncompliance.

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

Explanation of Progress or Slippage

In FFY 2011, the State demonstrated slippage, increasing the percentage of districts that have Significant Discrepancies by Race or Ethnicity, and Policies, Procedures or Practices that Contribute to the Significant Discrepancy by .9 percentage points from the previous year.  While there were nine districts identified in FFY 2010, fifteen school districts were identified in FFY 2011.

The slippage may be attributable, in part, to a demographic change based on changes in how students’ race/ethnicity was reported and not an actual increase in suspension rates.  In FFY 2011, there was an increase in parents who self-reported as two or more races.  The students reported in the ‘two or more races’ category have lower suspension rates than the students who continue to be reported as Black or African American.  Eight districts were identified this year that had 15 or fewer suspensions of a particular race/ethnicity.  In these districts, one or two student suspensions made the difference between being identified and not being identified.  Four of these 15 districts just met the criteria of at least 10 suspensions of students with disabilities in the particular race/ethnicity.  In prior years, there were only two districts that were identified based on 15 or fewer suspensions. 

Although the number found to have inappropriate policies and procedures increased from nine to 15, the percent of districts of those notified actually decreased from 75 percent (nine out of 12) to 68 percent (15 out of 22). 

Correction of FFY 2010 Findings of Noncompliance

  1. Number of findings of noncompliance the State made during FFY 2010 (the period from July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011) using 2009-10 data
209 findings
(19 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 district of the finding)
170 findings
(15 school districts)
  1. Number of FFY 2010 findings not verified as corrected within one year [(1) minus (2)]
39 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)
39 findings
(4 school districts)
  1. Number of FFY 2010 findings the State has verified as corrected beyond the one-year timeline (“subsequent correction”) 
39 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 Not Corrected:

NYS does not have any uncorrected noncompliance related to this indicator from FFY 2010.

Verification of Correction of FFY 2010 Findings (either timely or subsequent)

The State verified that each noncompliant district (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) had corrected each individual case of noncompliance, unless the child is no longer within the jurisdiction of the LEA, consistent with OSEP Memorandum 09-02, dated October 17, 2008 (OSEP Memo 09-02).

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

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

  • For noncompliance identified based on self-reviews, when the school district reported correction of noncompliance to the State, the State required an assurance from the school superintendent that each instance of noncompliance was corrected and that the information reported is accurate.
  • For findings of noncompliance not timely corrected, the State’s monitoring staff followed up with each district to assure that the CAP was fully implemented and verified, by review of revised policies and a sample of student records that the district is correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirements and that individual instances of noncompliance had been corrected.

Correction of Remaining FFY 2009 Findings of Noncompliance (if applicable)

  1. Number of remaining findings for FFY 2009 (in the period from July 1, 2009-June 30, 2010 using 2008-2009 data), noted in OSEP’s September 2012 FFY 2010 APR response table for this indicator
36 findings
(2 school districts)
  1. Number of remaining FFY 2009 findings the State has verified as corrected
12 findings
(0 school districts)
  1. Number of remaining FFY 2009 findings the State has not verified as corrected [(1) minus (2)]
24 findings
(2 school districts)

Verification of Correction of Remaining FFY 2009 findings:

The State verified that each noncompliant district (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) had corrected each individual case of noncompliance, unless the child is no longer within the jurisdiction of the LEA, consistent with OSEP Memorandum 09-02, dated October 17, 2008 (OSEP Memo 09-02).

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

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

  • For noncompliance identified based on self-reviews, when the school district reported correction of noncompliance to the State, the State required an assurance from the school superintendent that each instance of noncompliance was corrected and that the information reported is accurate.
  • For findings of noncompliance not timely corrected, the State’s monitoring staff followed up with each district to assure that the CAP was fully implemented and verified, by review of revised policies and a sample of student records, that the district is correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirements and that individual instances of noncompliance had been corrected.

Actions Taken if Noncompliance Not Corrected:

The State directed the two districts to develop and implement an Action Plan to Resolve Outstanding Noncompliance.  Monitoring staff then followed implementation of the Action Plan and provided technical assistance.  In both districts, State staff met with district staff and leadership on a monthly basis to review policies, procedures and practices regarding the outstanding noncompliance.  In one district, the leadership of the district has changed and a special education consultant has been hired to assist the district to address the issues of noncompliance.  In the other district, professional development has been provided to school staff.  Both districts are making progress in resolving the noncompliance.

Correction of Any Remaining Findings of Noncompliance from FFY 2008 or Earlier (if applicable):

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

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

Statement from the OSEP Response Table State’s Response

Because the State reported less than 100 percent compliance for FFY 2010 (greater than 0 percent actual target data for this indicator), the State must report on the status of the correction of noncompliance that the State identified in FFY 2010 as a result of the review it conducted pursuant to 34 CFR §300.170(b) for districts identified with significant discrepancy.

The State must also report on the status of correction of noncompliance identified in FFY 2009 as a result of the review it conducted pursuant to 34 CFR §300.170(b) for districts identified with a significant discrepancy based upon FFY 2008 data

The State verified all findings from 2010 as corrected.

 

 

 

 

Two school districts have continuing noncompliance identified in 2009.  The State took additional actions with each of these districts to bring them into compliance.
When reporting on the correction of this noncompliance, the State must report that it has verified that each LEA with noncompliance identified by the State: (1) is correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirement(s) (i.e., achieved 100% compliance) based on a review of updated data such as data subsequently collected through on-site monitoring or a State data system; and (2) has 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.  If the State is unable to demonstrate compliance with those requirements in the FFY 2011 APR, the State must review its improvement activities and revise them, if necessary, to ensure compliance. See above.

Improvement Activities Completed in 2011-12

  • See Indicator 4 improvement activities.
    • During the 2011-12 school year, the Technical Assistance Center on Disproportionality (TACD) at New York University (NYU) worked with 14 school districts, plus the New York City Department of Education, to address the policy, practices and procedures that contribute to the disproportionate suspension of students with disabilities based upon race or ethnicity.  In addition, TACD offered five training sessions in each of six regional locations, plus New York City.

    Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources for FFY 2012  [If applicable] None

Last Updated: September 16, 2013