Overview of the Annual Performance Report Development:
See Overview of the Development of the Annual Performance Report (APR) in the Introduction section, page 1.
Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE
Indicator 13: Percent of youth with individualized education programs (IEP) aged 15* and above with an IEP that includes appropriate measurable post-secondary goals that are annually updated and based upon an age-appropriate transition assessment; transition services, including courses of study, that will reasonably enable the student to meet those post-secondary goals; and annual IEP goals related to the student’s transition services needs. There also must be evidence that the student was invited to the IEP Team meeting where transition services are to be discussed and evidence that, if appropriate, a representative of any participating agency was invited to the IEP Team meeting with the prior consent of the parent or student who has reached the age of majority. (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B))
* While federal regulations require transition planning to begin with the first IEP in effect at age 16, New York State (NYS) law requires transition planning on a student’s IEP beginning with the IEP in effect when the student turns age 15. In NYS, the IEP Team is the Committee on Special Education (CSE).
Measurement used through school year 2008-09:
Percent = (# of youth with disabilities aged 15 and above with an IEP that includes coordinated, measurable, annual IEP goals and transition services that will reasonably enable the student to meet the post-secondary goals) divided by the (# of youth with an IEP age 15 and above) times 100.
Measurement used as of school year 2009-10:
Percent = [(# of youth with IEPs aged 15 and above with an IEP that includes appropriate measurable post-secondary goals that are annually updated and based upon an age-appropriate transition assessment, transition services, including courses of study, that will reasonably enable the student to meet those post-secondary goals, and annual IEP goals related to the student’s transition services needs. There also must be evidence that the student was invited to the CSE meeting where transition services are to be discussed and evidence that, if appropriate, a representative of any participating agency was invited to the CSE meeting with the prior consent of the parent or student who has reached the age of majority) divided by the (# of youth with an IEP age 15 and above)] times 100.
NYS used data taken from annual State monitoring of a statewide representative sample of school districts. Because New York City (NYC) has a total enrollment of 50,000 or more students, it is represented in the sample of school districts for each year.
|Federal Fiscal Year (FFY)||Measurable and Rigorous Target|
(2012-13 school year)
|100 percent of youth* aged 15 and above will have IEPs that include appropriate measurable post-secondary goals that are annually updated and based upon an age-appropriate transition assessment, transition services, including courses of study, that will reasonably enable the student to meet those post-secondary goals, and annual IEP goals related to the student’s transition services needs, with evidence that the student was invited to the CSE meeting where transition services are to be discussed and evidence that, if appropriate, a representative of any participating agency was invited to the CSE meeting with the prior consent of the parent or student who has reached the age of majority.|
*i.e., percent of youth with IEPs reviewed
Actual Target Data for FFY 2012:
86.1 percent of youth, ages 15 and above, had IEPs that included appropriate measurable post-secondary goals that are annually updated and based upon an age-appropriate transition assessment; transition services, including courses of study, that will reasonably enable the student to meet those post-secondary goals; and annual IEP goals related to the student’s transition services needs.
|Year||Number of Youth Age 15 and Above Whose Transition IEPs were Reviewed||Number of IEPs in Full Compliance with all Transition Requirements||Percent of IEPs in Full Compliance with all Transition Requirements|
|FFY 2009 (baseline)||3,321||2,232||67.2%|
Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that occurred for FFY 2012:
NYS showed minor slippage in meeting the State's target for this indicator. In FFY 2012, 86.1 percent of youth aged 15 and above had IEPs that included appropriate measurable post-secondary goals based on age-appropriate transition assessments, coordinated, measurable, annual IEP goals and transition services, including courses of study that would reasonably enable the student to meet the post-secondary goals, compared to 89.4 percent in FFY 2011. The data are from a new selection of districts, except for NYC, which is annually included in the State’s representative sample.
The FFY 2012 data is based on the monitoring review of IEPs from a representative sample of 109 school districts, including NYC. Except for NYC 1, all districts used a State-developed self-review monitoring protocol to review a sample of IEPs of students with disabilities aged 15 and above to determine if each IEP is in compliance with all transition planning requirements. The self-review monitoring protocol is posted at http://www.p12.nysed.gov/specialed/spp/13selfreview-Oct2012.pdf. The State conducted the monitoring review of the NYC IEPs.
The total number of students with IEPs, ages 15-21, enrolled in the school districts sampled during 2012-13 was 68,600. The total number of IEPs reviewed from these representative school districts was 3,184. Of the IEPs reviewed, 2,743 were found to have been in compliance with all IEP transition requirements; and 441 had one or more transition planning requirements that were not appropriately addressed in the students’ IEPs.
Of the 109 school districts:
- No school districts reported that 0 percent of their students’ IEPs that were reviewed were in compliance with the IEP transition requirements. This is an improvement from the prior year report of 1 school district in this category.
- 11 school districts (10.1 percent) reported between 1 and 49 percent of the students' IEPs that were reviewed met the transition requirements, an improvement from the 6 school districts reported last year in this category.
- 10 school districts (9.2 percent) reported between 50 and 79 percent of their IEPs that were reviewed met the transition requirements. This is slightly less than the 10.3 percent reported in this category last year.
- 22 school districts (20.2 percent) reported between 80 and 99 percent of IEPs that were reviewed met the transition requirements, showing significant improvement over the 15.9 percent reported last year.
- 66 school districts (60.6 percent) reported 100 percent of IEPs that were reviewed were in compliance with all transition planning requirements, a 6.7 percent slippage from the prior year.
Regional variations are noted in the following chart. The regional trends are similar to baseline data, indicating in part the need for regionally designed targeted interventions, training and technical assistance.
|Indicator 13 - Transition IEP FFY 2012 Data|
|RSE-TASC* Region||Total # of School Districts Reviewed in FFY 2012||Number of Reviewed School Districts with IEPs found in Compliance|
|0% of IEPs in compliance||1-49% of IEPs in compliance||50-79% of IEPs in compliance||80-99% of IEPs in compliance||100% of IEPs in compliance|
|Capital District/ North Country||24||0||5||2||4||13|
|New York City||1||0||0||1||0||0|
*Regional Special Education Technical Assistance Support Centers (See map of regions at http://www.p12.nysed.gov/specialed/techassist/rsetasc/regionmap.htm)
Improvement Activities Completed in 2012-13
- The State-funded Transition Services Professional Development Support Center (PDSC) utilizes information from the National Secondary Transition Technical Assistance Support Center (NSTTAC) throughout the year to bring information back to the State’s transition specialists. The PDSC has adapted national information into usable tools for us to employ. In particular, NYS has benefited from NSTTAC information on transition assessment to develop our own training package, and the transition specialists consistently include the listed NSTTAC evidence-based practices in all of their trainings. NYS has also developed informational brochures from the evidence-based practices to get people interested in the process a transition specialist would use to provide technical assistance and/or regional trainings.
- State Education Department staff reviewed information and resources, including but not limited to information available through the following Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) technical assistance centers: National Post-School Outcome Center, National Dropout Prevention Center for Students with Disabilities, and NSTTAC.
- To improve timely correction of noncompliance, the Office of Special Education continued the use of electronic notices, sent to school districts at three-month intervals, as a reminder of the noncompliance that needs correction and the next steps that will be taken by the Office of Special Education should timely correction not occur. Special education monitoring staff also received copies of the electronic notices and took appropriate proactive measures, including direct follow-up upon a finding that noncompliance was not corrected within nine months.
- In 2012-13, the RSE-TASC Regional Special Education Training Specialists delivered a total of 40 regional three-day training programs to CSE chairpersons across the State. These trainings focused on meaningful and effective parent involvement and the IEP development process.
- The Offices of Special Education and Adult Career and Continuing Education Services (ACCES) collaborated with other State agencies and the University of Rochester on a federal grant to improve transition planning and results for students with developmental disabilities. Work of the grant includes the development of a job-training curriculum, a resource guide for families and schools, and community groups focused on improving transition outcomes for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities.
- The RSE-TASC Transition Specialists held 162 interagency meetings across the State. These meetings were established to assist local partners with communication and understanding between and across the different systems. Attendees of the interagency meetings typically include ACCES-Vocational Rehabilitation, Office for People With Developmental Disabilities, Independent Living Council, school/district representatives, workforce development, parent agencies, post-secondary agencies, parents, and local community agencies, such as community counseling centers.
- The RSE-TASC Transition Specialists and Special Education Parent Centers collaborated to provide 35 joint training and/or information sessions for parents across the State. A variety of topics were addressed, including transition planning.
- In 2012-13, the RSE-TASC Transition Specialists provided locally developed training sessions within their regions on the following topics: Transition in the IEP, Graduation Requirements, Transition Curricula, the Student Exit Summary, Work-Based Learning, Self-Determination, Building Capacity, and Student-Centered Planning, reaching 592 of the 747 NYS school districts/NYC clusters through some form of training or a combination of events. A total of 522 districts participated in regional training events, 185 were provided with direct technical assistance, and 362 participated in interagency meetings.
- In 2012-13, the Transition Services PDSC provided professional development to the RSE-TASC Transition Specialists through three network meetings and five webinars. Topics included Transition Assessment, Self-Determination, Data Collection and Decision-Making, Work-Based Learning, and Interagency Collaboration. The PDSC provides direct technical assistance, on an ongoing basis, to the Transition Specialists to support their work with school districts.
- The PDSC website, www.transitionsource.org, was updated to include additional resources pertaining to supports and services for families, students and schools. The website also served as a vehicle for professional development for the Transition Specialists through the use of discussion threads and the sharing of resources and materials.
- Specialists from the RSE-TASC delivered 333 regional training sessions for school districts during 2012-13. These trainings included, but were not limited to, the following topics: Parent Member of the CSE, Testing Accommodations, Chairperson Training, IEP Development, Educational Benefit, Progress Monitoring, and the Special Education Process for Principals.
Correction of FFY 2011 Findings of Noncompliance:
Level of compliance (actual target data) State reported for FFY 2011 for this indicator: 89.4 percent
(53 school districts)
|| 94 findings
(50 school districts)
(3 school districts)
Actions Taken if Noncompliance Found in FFY 2011 Is Not Corrected:
In two of the districts, the State provided technical assistance to district staff after sending three-, six- and nine-month electronic notices. During the 2011-12 school year, a follow-up review was conducted and a corrective action plan was issued. Follow-up activities were conducted to assess the district’s progress in completing the corrective actions specified in the plan. The resolution of the identified noncompliance in these two districts was verified during the 2012-13 school year.
In the third district, the State’s monitoring staff met regularly with the district to discuss areas of identified noncompliance, review and analyze trend data pertaining to the areas of transition planning which are systemically noncompliant and identify strategies to address the noncompliance. The district was also required to submit a strategic action plan to the State that focused on the development of transition plans and transition planning activities consistent with regulatory standards.
Verification of Correction of FFY 2011 Noncompliance (either timely or subsequent):
The State verified that each LEA with noncompliance identified in FFY 2011 for this indicator: (1) is correctly implementing 34 CFR §§300.320(b) and 300.321(b) (i.e., achieved 100 percent compliance) based on a review of updated data such as data subsequently collected through on-site monitoring or a State data system; and (2) has corrected each individual case of noncompliance, unless the child is no longer within the jurisdiction of the LEA, consistent with OSEP Memo 09-02.
Describe the specific actions that the State took to verify the correction of findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2011:
Specifically, the State verified correction of noncompliance by reviewing individual student records, including records of individual students whose IEPs were identified as noncompliant. The State also verified the correction of noncompliance for NYC by requiring annual monitoring for compliance with this indicator.
Upon completion of the individual IEP reviews and a determination that the district has resolved the reason(s) for the noncompliance, the School Superintendent was required to provide a written assurance verifying accuracy of the district’s report to the State. All reports to the State were subject to verification.
Correction of Any Remaining Findings of Noncompliance from FFY 2010 or Earlier (if applicable):
NYS does not have any uncorrected noncompliance related to this indicator from FFY 2010 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 2011, the State must report on the status of correction of noncompliance identified in FFY 2011 for this indicator.||All findings from FFY 2011 have been verified as corrected.|
|When reporting on the correction of noncompliance, the State must report in its FFY 2012 APR that it has verified that each LEA with noncompliance identified in FFY 2011 for this Indicator: (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 2012 APR, the State must describe the specific actions that were taken to verify the correction.||See narrative above.|
Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources for FFY 2012 [If applicable]