Part B State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2010

Overview of the State Performance Plan Development

See Overview of the State Performance Plan Development preceding Indicator #1.
 

Monitoring Priority:  FAPE in the LRE


Indicator 3:  Participation and performance of children with disabilities on statewide assessments:

  1. Percent of districts meeting the State’s Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) objectives for progress for disability subgroup.

  1. Participation rate for children with IEPs in a regular assessment with no accommodations; regular assessment with accommodations; alternate assessment against grade level standards; alternate assessment against alternate achievement standards.

  1. Proficiency rate for children with IEPs against grade level standards and alternate achievement standards.

 (20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A))

 

Measurement:

A.  Percent = # of districts meeting the State’s AYP objectives for progress for the disability subgroup (children with IEPs) divided by the total # of districts in the State times 100.

Note: For this measure, NYS also computes the percent of districts meeting the State’s AYP objectives for progress for the disability subgroup (students with IEPs) divided by the number of districts that were required to make AYP (met the minimum size criteria).

B.  Participation rate =

a.   # of children with IEPs in grades assessed;

b.  # of children with IEPs in regular assessment with no accommodations (percent = b divided by a times 100);

c.   # of children with IEPs in regular assessment with accommodations (percent = c divided by a times 100);

d.   # of children with IEPs in alternate assessment against grade level standards (percent = d divided by a times 100); and

e.   # of children with IEPs in alternate assessment against alternate achievement standards (percent = e divided by a times 100). 

Account for any children included in a but not included in b, c, d, or e above.

Overall Percent = b + c + d + e divided by a.

C.  Proficiency rate =

a.   # of children with IEPs  in grades assessed;

b.  # of children with IEPs in grades assessed who are proficient or above as measured by the regular assessment with no accommodations (percent = b divided by a times 100);

c.  # of children with IEPs in grades assessed who are proficient or above as measured by the regular assessment with accommodations (percent = c divided by a times 100);

d.   # of children with IEPs in grades assessed who are proficient or above as measured by the alternate assessment against grade level standards (percent = d divided by a times 100); and

e.   # of children with IEPs in grades assessed who are proficient or above as measured against alternate achievement standards (percent = e divided by a times 100).

 

Overall Percent = [(b+c+d+e) divided by (a)].

 

 Overview of Issue/Description of System or Process

 NYS’ accountability system for all students that is approved by the U.S. Department of Education (USDOE) under NCLB is characterized as follows:

 The following table identifies the State’s AMOs for 2004-05 through 2013-14:

School Year

Elementary Level

Middle Level

Secondary Level

ELA

Math

ELA

Math

ELA

Math

2003-04

123

136

107

81

142

132

2004-05

131

142

116

93

148

139

2005-06

138

149

126

105

154

146

2006-07

146

155

135

117

159

152

2007-08

154

162

144

129

165

159

2008-09

162

168

154

141

171

166

2009-10

169

174

163

152

177

173

2010-11

177

181

172

164

183

180

2011-12

185

187

181

176

188

186

2012-13

192

194

191

188

194

193

2013-14

200

200

200

200

200

200

 

 

 

 

 

 

The following sources provide
 

The following sources provide additional detailed information about New York State’s Accountability system for all students, including students with disabilities, which are approved under NCLB:

Baseline Data for FFY 2004 (2004-2005)

NYS will provide 2004-05 school year data by December 2005 and will revise the SPP at that time.

Baseline for School Years 2003-04

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Measure

In the 2003-04 school year, 75 school districts made AYP for students with disabilities in the grades and subjects in which they had sufficient enrollment. This represents 10.5 percent of all 712 school districts in the State, and 25.1 percent of the 299 school districts with the required minimum number of students with disabilities for accountability.

Participation Rate in State Assessments

In the 2003-04 school year, the participation rates of students with disabilities in State assessments exceeded 95 percent at the elementary level, were between 92 and 94 percent for the grade 8 assessments and were at the 86 percent rate for secondary-level assessments.

 

Assessment

Enrollment of Students with Disabilities

Regular Assessment, With or Without Accommodations*

Alternate Assessment-Alternate Achievement Standards

Participation Rate

Absent or Administrative Error

Grade 4 ELA

30,902

28,033

1,429

95.3%

1,439

Grade 4 Math

30,958

28,017

1,435

95.2%

1,496

Grade 8 ELA

35,250

31,645

1,455

94.0%

2,118

Grade 8 Math

35,033

30,874

1,409

92.2%

2,713

HS English-Seniors in 2003-04

16,738

Not Available

Not Available

86.0%

Not Available

High School Math-Seniors in 2003-04

16,738

Not Available

Not Available

86%

Not Available

 

* NYS will provide disaggregated data for students with disabilities who took the regular assessment with and without testing accommodations when the individual student record system includes all State assessment data.

 

Proficiency Rate

In 2003-04, the students with disabilities accountability group did not achieve a PI score sufficient to make safe harbor for any of the grade 4, grade 8 or secondary level State assessments.  As the table below indicates, the students with disabilities accountability group achieved the following a PI of:

 

Assess-ment

2003-04 Performance

2003-04 Standard 

Students with Disabilities Made AYP in 2003-04

2004-05

Continuously Enrolled Students with Disabilities in Elementary and Middle Schools and 2000-01 Accountability Cohort in High School (HS)

NYS PI

Effective AMO

Safe- Harbor Target

Met Third Indicator for Safe Harbor

 

Safe- Harbor Target

Grade 4 ELA

28,721

97

123

105

Yes

No

107

Grade 4 Math

28,448

133

136

135

Yes

No

140

Grade 8 ELA

32,381

80

107

83

Yes

No

92

Grade 8 Math

31,226

79

81

80

Yes

No

91

HS Eng.  2000-01

18,066

99

141

105

Yes

No

109

HS Math- 2000-01

18,066

97

131

106

Yes

No

107

 

Discussion of Baseline Data

The baseline data for each of these measures is expected to change for the 2004-05 and subsequent years as the grade 3-8 testing is implemented.  NYS is not able to provide data disaggregated for students with disabilities who received testing accommodations and those who did not.  We expect to be able to report this disaggregation once the individual student record system includes all State assessment data.

NYS will implement State testing in ELA and mathematics in Grades 3-8 during the 2005-06 school year.  The State plans to develop two new State Performance Indices to replace the four indices that currently exist for elementary and middle level assessments; one new index is planned for Grades 3-8 ELA and the other for Grades 3-8 mathematics.  Creation of the two new indices will require the State to establish new AMOs.

Measurable and Rigorous Targets

Targets established for the three measures relating to the participation and performance of students with disabilities on statewide assessments will be the same targets as established in the State’s approved plan under NCLB.  Targets will be revised, as appropriate, when changes to the State’s NCLB plan are made.

 

School Year

Measurable and Rigorous Target

2005

(2005-06)

AYP:  100 percent of school districts will achieve AYP

Participation: 95 percent in each grade and subject

Performance: Achieve safe-harbor target in each grade and subject

2006

(2006-07)

AYP:  100 percent of school districts will achieve AYP

Participation: 95 percent in each grade and subject

Performance: Achieve safe-harbor target in each grade and subject

2007

(2007-08)

AYP:  100 percent of school districts will achieve AYP

Participation: 95 percent in each grade and subject

Performance: Achieve safe-harbor target in each grade and subject

2008

(2008-09)

AYP:  100 percent of school districts will achieve AYP

Participation: 95 percent in each grade and subject

Performance: Achieve safe-harbor target in each grade and subject

2009

(2009-10)

AYP:  100 percent of school districts will achieve AYP

Participation: 95 percent in each grade and subject

Performance: Achieve safe-harbor target in each grade and subject

2010

(2010-11)

AYP:  100 percent of school districts will achieve AYP

Participation: 95 percent in each grade and subject

Performance: Achieve safe-harbor target in each grade and subject


Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources

Activity

Timeline

Resources

The required sanctions for schools and districts not making AYP are defined in federal and State law and include a continuum of consequences.

2005-11

SEQA, EMSC, SETRC and RSSC

Improvement activities identified for graduation and drop out rates are also targeted to improve achievement results for students with disabilities. 

 

See Indicators #1 & 2

Conduct “Achievement” focused monitoring reviews of school districts with achievement rates that are the furthest from State targets.

2005-11

SEQA, SETRC, RSSC

New York State Alternate Assessment for Students with Disabilities (NYSAA):

  • Distribute and provide training on the revised teacher manual, training materials, enrollment system and the new electronic data folio template called ProFile™.

  • Annually issue field memoranda and training regarding performance and participation requirements under NCLB and IDEA. 

2005-11

Contract with Measured Progress - $2,068,139 in 2005-06

Develop an alternate assessment aligned against grade level standards.

2007-09

EMSC & VESID

Provide funding to the Task Force on School and Community Collaboration to support local coordination efforts to enhance interagency supports to school age students.

2005-08

$200,000 in 2005-06

Provide support to the “Big City Initiatives”, which is a statewide support center with six regional consortia.  This support center provides technical assistance to improve student performance in the areas of math and reading, with an emphasis on assisting school districts to align math curriculum. 

2005-06

$580,000 in 2005-06

Provide technical assistance to assist targeted school districts to improve math instruction of students with disabilities.

2005-06

$625,000 in 2005-06

Develop State criteria and identify effective practices to promote the use of “response-to-intervention” identification processes for students with learning disabilities, with an emphasis on implementation in early grades 1-3 statewide.  See the description of these improvement activities referenced in Indicator #1.

2005-09

See Indicator #1

Provide financial assistance to the State schools for the deaf and blind to improve academic achievement for their students.

2005-08

$233,362 in 2005-06

Provide resources to ensure students with disabilities have their instructional materials in accessible formats:

  • Expand the distribution of Braille materials in the downstate area.

  • Provide materials in electronic formats for students unable to use standard print, large print or Braille textbooks due to visual, physical and perceptual disabilities.

2005-08

NYS Resource Center for the Blind

Center for the Preparation of Educational Interpreters

Helen Keller Services for the Blind

$643,000 in 2005-06

Provide technical assistance regarding assistive technology for students with disabilities, including individual student technology consultations, an Internet Web Page, a newsletter, reference and software libraries, an assistive technology device loan and training service, and turnkey training for the State guidelines.

2005-10

The Technology Resource Center (TRE)

$225,000 in 2005-06

Provide staff development on universal design for learning to each of the large 5 cities and other targeted low-performing schools. 

2005-08

TRE (see above)