IDEA Part B State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012
Revised February 2011

Overview of the State Performance Plan Development
Indicator 1: Graduation Rates
Indicator 2: Drop-Out Rates
Indicator 3: Participation and Performance on Statewide Assessments
Indicator 4: Rates of Suspension and Expulsion
Indicator 5: Least Restrictive Environment – School Age
Indicator 6: Least Restrictive Environment – Preschool
Indicator 7: Preschool Outcomes
Indicator 8: Parental Involvement
Indicator 9: Disproportionality in Special Education by Race/Ethnicity
Indicator 10: Disproportionality in Classification/Placement by Race/Ethnicity
Indicator 11: Child Find
Indicator 12: Early Childhood Transition
Indicator 13: Secondary Transition
Indicator 14: Post-School Outcomes
Indicator 15: Identification and Correction of Noncompliance
Indicator 16: Complaint Timelines
Indicator 17: Due Process Timelines
Indicator 18: Hearing Requests Resolved by Resolution Session
Indicator 19: Mediation Agreements
Indicator 20: State Reported Data
Attachment 1: Report of Dispute Resolution
Attachment 2: Overview of NYS Sampling Methodology

OVERVIEW

Public Law 108-446, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) 2004, requires the State Education Department (SED) to develop and submit a six year State Performance Plan (SPP) to the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) at the U.S. Education Department (USED). The SPP is designed to evaluate the State's efforts to implement the requirements and purposes of IDEA and describe how the State will improve results. OSEP has identified three monitoring priorities and 20 indicators relating to the priority areas that must be reported in the SPP. For each of the indicators, the State must establish measurable and rigorous targets and improvement activities for a six-year period of time. The priority areas and indicators addressed in the SPP for 2005-2012, as revised by OSEP, are as follows.

Priority: Free Appropriate Public Education in the Least Restrictive Environment

Percent of youth with individualized education programs (IEPs) graduating from high school with a regular diploma.
Percent of youth with IEPs dropping out of high school.
Participation and performance of children with disabilities on statewide assessments:

Percent of districts meeting the State’s annual yearly progress (AYP) objectives for progress for the disability subgroup.
Participation rate for children with IEPs.
Proficiency rate for children with IEPs against grade level, modified and alternate achievement standards.

Rates of suspension and expulsion:
- Percent of districts identified by the State as having a significant discrepancy in the rate of suspensions and expulsions of children with disabilities for greater than 10 days in a school year; and
- 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 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 positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards.
Percent of children ages 6 through 21 with IEPs:
- Inside the regular class 80% or more of the day;
- Inside the regular class less than 40% of the day; and
- In separate schools, residential facilities or homebound/hospital placements.
Percent of preschool children (aged 3 thorough 5) with IEPs attending a:
- Regular early childhood program and receiving the majority of special education and related services in the regular early childhood program; and
- Separate special education class, separate school or residential facility.
Percent of preschool children with IEPs who demonstrate improved:
- positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships);
- acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/ communication and early literacy); and
- use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs.
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.

Priority: Disproportionality

Percent of districts identified with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services that is the result of inappropriate identification.
Percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories that is the result of inappropriate identification.

Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B

Child Find and Effective Transitions (district-level indicators)

Percent of children with parental consent to evaluate, who were evaluated within State required timelines.
Percent of children referred by Part C (Early Intervention Services) prior to age three (3), who are found eligible for Part B, and who have an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthdays.
Percent of youth aged 15 and above with an IEP that includes appropriate measurable postsecondary 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 postsecondary goals, and annual IEP goals related to the student’s transition services needs, with evidence that the student was invited to the Committee on Special Education (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.
Percent of youth who are no longer in secondary school, had IEPs in effect at the time they left school, and within one year of leaving high school were:
- Enrolled in higher education;
- Enrolled in higher education or competitively employed; or
- Enrolled in higher education or in some other postsecondary education or training program; or competitively employed or in some other employment.

General Supervision

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.
Percent of signed written complaints with reports issued that were resolved within 60-day timeline or a timeline extended for exceptional circumstances with respect to a particular complaint or because the parent (or individual or organization) and the public agency agree to extend the time to engage in mediation or other alternative means of dispute resolution.
Percent of adjudicated due process hearing requests that were adjudicated within the 45-day timeline for school age students and 30-day timeline for preschool students or a timeline that is properly extended by the hearing officer at the request of either party or in the case of an expedited hearing, within the required timelines.
Percent of hearing requests that went to resolution sessions that were resolved through resolution session settlement agreements.
Percent of mediations held that resulted in mediation agreements.
State reported data (618) and SPP and Annual Performance Report (APR) are timely and accurate.

The State must report annually to the public and OSEP on the State’s performance on each target for all 20 of the indicators in the SPP. APRs are due to OSEP by February 1 of each year. Furthermore the State must also report annually to the public on each local educational agency’s (LEA) performance on the targets for the first 14 indicators. LEA public reports must be posted within 90 days of the date the State submits its APR to OSEP and can be found at http://eservices.nysed.gov/sepubrep/.

Questions regarding the SPP may be directed to the New York State Education Department Office of Special Education at 518-473-2878. For more information on these federal requirements see www.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/bapr/index.html

Overview Of The State Performance Plan Development

New York State’s (NYS) Part B State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012 was developed as follows:

In April 2005, the Office of Vocational and Educational Services for Individuals with Disabilities (VESID) convened a work group to develop the SPP. The workgroup included representatives from the following VESID units: Special Education Policy and Partnerships, Quality Assurance, and Strategic Evaluation, Data Collection, Analysis and Reporting (SEDCAR). VESID staff developed the SPP in consultation with staff from the Office of Elementary, Middle, Secondary and Continuing Education (EMSC) responsible for data collection and reporting under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Data for indicators requiring baselines reported in the 2005-06 SPP were obtained and analyzed to identify trends and related data for establishing targets. Implementation activities that impacted those trends were also identified.

In August 2005, VESID staff attended the OSEP Summer Institute where the requirements for the SPP were provided to states.

VESID issued a State memorandum in September 2005 to provide information to the field about the requirements for the SPP.
https://www.p12.nysed.gov/specialed/spp/memo.htm.

A report was made to the Board of Regents in October 2005 to obtain their input on addressing the issues relating to the development and implementation of the SPP.
http://www.regents.nysed.gov/2005Meetings/October2005/1005emscvesidd2.htm

Meetings were held with various constituent groups beginning in late September into early November 2005 from a broad spectrum of stakeholders on various stages of the initial development and revisions of the SPP. Stakeholders provided recommendations for State targets, improvement activities and methods to collect data on new indicators,

Composition of the stakeholder groups

In separate meetings conducted from late September until early November 2005, the following groups provided input into the State’s development of the SPP. In total, approximately 420 individuals participated in these meetings, providing stakeholder input on the development of the State’s Performance Plan.

Regional and Central office special education staff of VESID.
Board of Regents, Subcommittee on EMSC and VESID.
Statewide meeting of the Special Education Training and Resource Centers (SETRC) and representatives of the statewide network of Regional School Support Centers (RSSC). After the full group presentation and overview, there were small group discussions on selected indicators and report out to the larger group. This stakeholder group represented the State’s technical assistance networks for special education and included representatives from every region of the State.
Local school district Committee on Special Education (CSE) and Committee on Preschool Special Education (CPSE) directors and chairpersons, Board of Cooperative Educational Services (BOCES) directors, principals and assistant principals of schools, directors of preschool programs, school psychologists and regional trainers representing public school districts, BOCES and approved private schools and approved preschool programs.
Representatives from Parent Training and Information Centers, including representatives from Sinergia, Inc., Parent-to-Parent of NYS, Advocates for Children, Long Island Parent Center, United We Stand of NY, The Advocacy Center and Resources for Children with Special Needs. This meeting was held in New York City (NYC).
Representatives from the New York City Department of Education (NYCDOE) participated in a meeting held in NYC. A follow-up telephone conference call was conducted with two Parent Coordinators from the NYCDOE to further obtain input on Indicator 8 (Parent Involvement).
To ensure broad representation from stakeholders in a forum that would foster interactive discussion on various indicators from different perspectives, an invitational group was convened, represented by district superintendents, superintendents and assistant superintendents of schools, directors of approved private schools, representatives from institutions of higher education, New York State United Teachers, School Boards Association, NYS Association of Retarded Citizens, Inc. (NYSARC), NYS Parent Teachers Association (NYSPTA), approved preschool programs and NYS legislative staff.
Families Together of NYS, an Albany-based parent support and advocacy organization, convened a group of parents from the Capital District.
The SPP was discussed with BOCES District Superintendents at statewide meetings held in October and November, and various decision points for the SPP were shared at that time. Beginning in November 2005, follow-up meetings in each of the supervisory districts were scheduled with school superintendents to review the requirements for data collection, reporting, accountability and school improvement.
An all day meeting was held with the Commissioner’s Advisory Panel for Special Education to review recommendations received to date and to obtain further input on the submission and implementation of the SPP.
A meeting was held with the Conference of Big Five School Districts, with representatives participating from the Syracuse, Rochester, Buffalo and NYC school districts.

How stakeholder input was obtained

The requirements set forth by the U.S. Education Department (USED) for the development of the SPP were shared with each group, including information on measures proposed by the State, current baseline information and proposed strategies. The meetings with stakeholders generally included an overview presentation, including a discussion of requirements for targets, a presentation of baseline data and included a facilitated discussion of targets, improvement strategies and proposed plans to collect data on new indicators. Depending on the size of the stakeholder meeting, both large group and small group discussions focused on particular indicators. Participants were provided with forms with guiding questions to facilitate their input, which could be provided as part of the group process and/or in writing. Guiding questions included:

What factors should be considered in setting targets for this indicator (e.g., selected improvement activities, trend data, new policies, etc.)?
What targets would you recommend for this indicator?
What issues should be considered in designing a method to collect data for the new indicators?
What methods or strategies would you recommend?
What specific and targeted improvement activities would you recommend the State implement to lead to improved results toward the targets?
What role do you recommend our funded networks (e.g., SETRC, Early Childhood Direction Centers, Transition Coordination Sites) take in implementing the SPP and improving results in the priority areas?

Stakeholder input on SPP revisions

Office of Special Education (OSE)1 staff meet with various constituency groups throughout the year to share and discuss the design and implementation of NYS’ SPP, including, but not limited to, the following groups:

Early Childhood Direction Centers
SETRC
Transition Coordination Sites
Regional Special Education Technical Assistance Support Centers (RSE-TASC) (added 1/10)
State and federal funded Special Education Parent Centers
Commissioner’s Advisory Panel (CAP) for Special Education
Higher Education Support Center and Higher Education Task Force
New York University (NYU) Disproportionality Technical Assistance Center
District Superintendents
Other professional organizations

Annually, OSE staff meets with its State Advisory Panel to specifically obtain input on proposed targets and revisions to the SPP. The Advisory Panel is continuously kept apprised on an annual basis regarding progress and issues reflected in the SPP in order to obtain their insights and input in determining implementation strategies and need for revisions.

In October 2010, OSE staff met with its State Advisory Panel to establish targets and improvement activities for two additional years (FFY 2011 and 2012). Throughout the year, OSE staff engaged its funded technical assistance centers to discuss improvement activities in relation to Annual Performance Report data.

Public dissemination plan

The SPP is posted on the Department’s website (https://www.p12.nysed.gov/specialed/spp/home.html). An announcement of its availability will be provided annually through the list serve and through a memorandum to school districts, parent organizations and others interested in the education of students with disabilities. Press announcements are released to newspapers regarding its availability.

Data sources

The following current data collection sources were reviewed in determining how the State will collect baseline and annual data for each of the indicators:

System for Tracking Education Performance (STEP)
Pupils with Disabilities (PD) data
Impartial Hearing Reporting System (IHRS)
Quality Assurance Information System (QAIS)
Comprehensive Special Education Information System (CSEIS)
Basic Educational Data System (BEDS)
TransQual
New York State Dispute Resolution Association
Post School Indicator Longitudinal Study
Preschool Longitudinal Study
Student Information Repository System (SIRS): NYS will begin to phase in implementation of a statewide SIRS, beginning in the 2005-06 school year for grades 3-8. The new system will be a single system to collect all the required data for NCLB as well as to meet all other State and federal reporting requirements, including data required for the Part B SPP.

Design of the SPP

NYS has, to the maximum extent possible, developed its SPP to minimize reporting burdens on school districts and emphasize opportunities for improvement. For six of the indicators requiring new data collection, NYS will collect and report data from a representative sample of school districts throughout the State (see Indicators 7, 8, 11, 12, 13 and 14). All school districts will provide data on all the indicators selected for sampling distributed over a six-year period beginning with the initial year in which data on the indicator is collected. In this way, a school district can focus its resources to improve results in the identified area. In some instances, the school district will be required or permitted to collect and report on a particular indicator more frequently than once every six years in order to demonstrate improvement and to have their publicly reported data reflect that improvement. All school districts are encouraged to proactively address these indicators prior to the year in which they must provide data to be used in the public reporting. An overview of the sampling methodology is provided in Attachment 2.

Summary of Revisions to the SPP, June 2007 Edition: