Overview of the Annual Performance Report Development:
See Overview of the Development of the Annual Performance Report on page 1.
Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE |
Indicator #6: Percent of preschool children with IEPs who received special education and related services in settings with typically developing peers (i.e., early childhood settings, home, and part-time early childhood/part-time early childhood special education settings).
(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A))
Measurement: Percent = [(# of preschool children with IEPs who received special education services in settings with typically developing peers) divided by the (total # of preschool children with IEPs)] times 100. |
FFY |
Measurable and Rigorous Target |
2005 |
64 percent of preschool students with disabilities will be served in either natural settings or settings that include nondisabled children. |
Actual Target Data for FFY 2005 (As of December 1, 2005):
Statewide Trend Data: LRE for Preschool |
||
School Year |
Number of Preschool Children with Disabilities as of December 1 |
Percent of Children in Integrated for Natural Settings for Preschool Children |
1997-98 |
32,530 |
45.1% |
1998-99 |
33,051 |
52.2% |
1999-00 |
32,753 |
55.4% |
2000-01 |
34,492 |
57.7% |
2001-02 |
36,144 |
57.8% |
2002-03 |
37,009 |
58.7% |
2003-04 |
37,936 |
60.0% |
2004-05 |
42,495 |
63.5% |
2005-06 |
40,422 |
63.0% |
County Level Trend Data: LRE for Preschool* (sorted based on 2005-06 data from county with greatest percentage of preschool children with disabilities provided services in integrated or natural environments to lowest) |
||||
County |
Total Number of Preschool Students as of December 1, 2005 |
Percent
in Integrated or Natural |
||
12-01-03 |
12-01-04 |
12-01-05 |
||
1. Hamilton |
2 |
100.00% |
100.00% |
100.00% |
2. Cayuga |
129 |
60.48% |
80.56% |
96.12% |
3. Otsego |
76 |
96.39% |
94.81% |
96.05% |
4. Jefferson |
158 |
97.69% |
88.05% |
95.57% |
5. Schoharie |
75 |
83.93% |
91.23% |
94.67% |
6. Schuyler |
18 |
86.67% |
80.95% |
94.44% |
7. Wyoming |
59 |
72.06% |
83.82% |
93.22% |
8. Lewis |
68 |
95.08% |
88.89% |
92.65% |
9. Seneca |
58 |
96.00% |
94.20% |
89.66% |
10. Delaware |
55 |
90.20% |
76.92% |
89.09% |
11. Essex |
64 |
87.50% |
85.71% |
89.06% |
12. Broome |
422 |
92.75% |
91.60% |
88.86% |
13. Onondaga |
1336 |
88.15% |
88.95% |
88.40% |
14. Chautauqua |
207 |
87.19% |
90.78% |
87.44% |
15. Albany |
562 |
86.05% |
94.38% |
87.37% |
16. Cortland |
112 |
95.65% |
96.30% |
86.61% |
17. Clinton |
239 |
88.07% |
93.48% |
85.77% |
18. Fulton |
91 |
84.06% |
89.87% |
84.62% |
19. Schenectady |
344 |
85.37% |
83.08% |
84.30% |
20. Wayne |
314 |
76.29% |
74.11% |
83.44% |
21. Montgomery |
95 |
81.01% |
87.88% |
83.16% |
22. Monroe |
1465 |
87.61% |
85.19% |
82.59% |
23. Orleans |
120 |
71.07% |
74.63% |
82.50% |
24. Tompkins |
197 |
98.48% |
89.62% |
82.23% |
25. Niagara |
527 |
78.47% |
80.46% |
81.97% |
26. Allegany |
78 |
75.25% |
78.26% |
80.77% |
27. Chenango |
78 |
81.94% |
76.00% |
78.21% |
28. Herkimer |
73 |
75.71% |
75.0% |
78.08% |
29. Chemung |
146 |
78.91% |
72.73% |
76.03% |
30. Columbia |
131 |
80.0% |
79.85% |
75.57% |
31. Livingston |
164 |
75.63% |
78.77% |
74.39% |
32. Oneida |
378 |
67.56% |
74.25% |
74.07% |
33. Tioga |
100 |
77.78% |
75.26% |
74.0% |
34. Sullivan |
129 |
60.58% |
79.34% |
73.64% |
35. Erie |
2395 |
70.79% |
74.47% |
73.40% |
36. Washington |
115 |
74.44% |
63.27% |
71.30% |
37. Ontario |
260 |
56.03% |
69.65% |
71.15% |
38. Rockland |
1054 |
68.10% |
67.78% |
69.45% |
39. Westchester |
2477 |
69.59% |
71.85% |
69.44% |
40. St Lawrence |
114 |
77.23% |
82.52% |
69.30% |
41. Madison |
119 |
92.31% |
75.61% |
68.07% |
42. Dutchess |
743 |
68.05% |
69.70% |
67.43% |
43. Rensselaer |
413 |
74.80% |
69.25% |
67.31% |
44. Putnam |
243 |
57.94% |
66.03% |
66.67% |
45. Steuben |
198 |
66.83% |
63.84% |
64.65% |
46. Genesee |
164 |
48.33% |
57.99% |
62.80% |
47. Oswego |
301 |
64.65% |
64.22% |
62.79% |
48. Franklin |
93 |
69.70% |
78.18% |
62.37% |
49. Ulster |
346 |
64.86% |
69.21% |
60.98% |
50. Cattaraugus |
225 |
61.71% |
61.43% |
60.44% |
51. Saratoga |
491 |
59.68% |
60.97% |
58.25% |
52. Suffolk |
4116 |
61.06% |
57.96% |
58.24% |
53. Nassau |
3579 |
51.60% |
54.74% |
55.77% |
54. Greene |
91 |
72.63% |
79.12% |
53.85% |
55. Orange |
901 |
54.51% |
54.02% |
52.50% |
56. NYC Public |
13730 |
41.50% |
52.37% |
50.56% |
57. Warren |
138 |
49.66% |
50.68% |
48.55% |
58. Yates |
46 |
55.32% |
57.14% |
47.83% |
* These data represent the county in which the administrative address of the district is located, not the county in which children reside or receive programs/services.
Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that occurred for FFY 2005:
NYS has trend data for this indicator for many years and as indicated above, the data showed that the percentage of preschool children provided special education services in integrated or natural settings was increasing annually and reached 63.5 percent in 2004-05. In 2005-06, there was a slight decline in the percentage to 63.0 percent. The State did not meet its 2005-06 target of increasing the percentage to 64 percent. An analysis of data at the county level indicates the declines occurred in the following 32 out of a total of 58 counties in NYS (NYC is counted as a single county, even though it is made up of five boroughs):
Seneca, Broome, Onondaga, Chautauqua, Albany, Cortland, Clinton, Fulton, Montgomery, Monroe, Tompkins, Columbia, Livingston, Oneida, Tioga, Sullivan, Erie, Westchester, St. Lawrence, Madison, Dutchess, Rensselaer, Oswego, Franklin, Ulster, Cattaraugus, Saratoga, Greene, Orange, New York City, Warren, and Yates.
We believe based on national trends and reports from school districts and parents, that the downward trend may be a byproduct of the increasing number of children diagnosed with autism who are being recommended for intensive programming in separate settings in the early years.
Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources for FFY 2005:
Analysis of Data
The State will use the above data provided above by county to review the need for more integrated program options in these counties.