APR 2008 - Indicators 1-5

Overview of the Annual Performance Report Development:

See Overview of the Development of the Annual Performance Report in the Introduction section, page 1.

Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE

Indicator 1: Percent of youth with individualized education programs (IEPs) graduating from high school with a regular diploma compared to percent of all youth in the State graduating with a regular diploma.

(20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A))

Measurement:
Measurement for youth with IEPs should be the same measurement as for all youth. Explain calculation.

New York State’s Measurement:

Percent of “total cohort” of students with disabilities who graduate with a high school diploma (Regents or local diploma) as of June 30 after four years of first entering 9^th grade or for ungraded students with disabilities, after four years of becoming 17 years of age. NYS will begin using the performance of the 2003 total cohort for accountability under the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act.

New York State’s Calculation:

NYS has set its targets based on the performance of the “total cohort”. See below for the definition of the 2003 total district cohort.

The 2003 district total cohort consists of all students, regardless of their current grade level, who met one of the following conditions:

first entered grade 9 (anywhere) during the 2003-04 school year (July 1, 2003 through June 30, 2004); or
in the case of ungraded students with disabilities, reached their seventeenth birthday during the 2003–04 school year. Ungraded students are included in the 2003 cohort if their birth date is between July 1, 1986 and June 30, 1987 (inclusive).

Students who have spent at least five months in district schools or out-of-district placements during year 1, 2, 3, or 4 of high school are included in the district total cohort unless they transferred to another diploma-granting program outside the district. For the 2003 Total Cohort, Year 1, 2, 3, and 4 are the 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, and 2006-07 school years, respectively.

A student will be included in the district total cohort if the student’s enrollment record in the district shows that the student was enrolled for:

at least five continuous (not including July and August) months and the Reason for Ending Enrollment in the district was not one of the following: transferred to a school in another district, a nonpublic school, or a school outside New York; died; transferred by court order; or left the US.
less than five months and has an ending reason indicating that the student dropped out or transferred to an Alternative High School Education Preparation Program (AHSEPP) or High School Equivalency Preparation Program (HSEPP) program and the student’s previous enrollment record in that district (assuming one exists) indicates:

a) that the student was enrolled in the district for at least five months (not including July and August); and

b) that the student dropped out or transferred to a AHSEPP or HSEPP program.

FFY	Measurable and Rigorous Target
FFY 2006 (2006-07 school year) (2003 total cohort)	The percent of youth with IEPs graduating from high school with a regular high school diploma within four years, as of June, will be 37 percent.

Actual Target Data for FFY 2006:

Graduation-Rate Cohort, As of August 31, Four Years Later
Cohort Year	All Students		Students with Disabilities
Cohort Year	# in Cohort	Graduation Rate	# in Cohort	Graduation Rate
1998	165,226	77%	14,306	55%
1999	173,978	76%	15,056	58%
2000 (old baseline data)	179,092	77%	18,909	53%
2001	181,848	77%	19,504	49%
2002	192,149	75%	23,150	50%
2003	192,162	75%	23,154	50%

Total Cohort, As of June 30, Four Years Later
Cohort Year	All Students		Students with Disabilities
Cohort Year	# in Cohort	Graduation Rate	# in Cohort	Graduation Rate
2000	199,312	67%	21,262	46%
2001 (new baseline data)	212,135	66%	26,281	38%
2002	210,910	67%	27,453	37%
2003	220,332	68.6%	28,528	39.3%

Total Cohort Analysis of Students with Disabilities’ (SWD) Graduation Rates for New York City, Large Four Cities Combined and Rest of School Districts
Need/Resource Capacity Category	2001 Total Cohort of SWD		2002 Total Cohort of SWD		2003 Total Cohort of SWD
Need/Resource Capacity Category	# in Cohort	Grad. Rate	# in Cohort	Grad. Rate	# in Cohort	Grad. Rate
New York City	7,627	17.6%	7,587	18.6%	8,407	19.8%
Large Four Cities	1,784	21.7%	1,862	20.5%	1,536	22.5%
Urban/Suburban High Need Districts	2,487	30.4%	2,619	28.8%	2,778	31.7%
Rural High Need Districts	2,165	32.5%	2,240	31.2%	2,323	35.9%
Average Need Districts	8,733	48.1%	9,366	45.6%	9,563	49.0%
Low Need Districts	3,459	74.0%	3,740	74.1%	3,873	72.4%
Charter Schools	11	15.4%	39	15.9%	48	6.3%
Total State	26,266	37.9%	27,453	37.5%	28,528	39.3%

Total Cohort Analysis of Students with Disabilities (SWD) Graduation Rate by Need/Resource Capacity Category of School Districts
Group of School Districts	2001 Total Cohort of SWD		2002 Total Cohort of SWD		2003 Total Cohort of SWD
Group of School Districts	# in Cohort	Grad. Rate	# in Cohort	Grad. Rate	# in Cohort	Grad. Rate
Big Five Cities	9,411	18.4%	9,449	19.0%	9,943	20.2%
Rest of State	16,855	48.7%	18,004	44.7%	18,585	49.6%
Total State	26,266	37.9%	27,453	37.5%	28,528	39.3%

Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that occurred for FFY 2006:

Explanation of Progress or Slippage

The State exceeded its 2006-07 target of 37% graduation rate for the 2003 total cohort of students with disabilities with a graduation rate of 39.3% There were 1,132 more students with disabilities in the 2003 total cohort compared to the previous year. The graduation rate improved in most Need/Resource Capacity categories of school districts. Large Four Cities improved from 20.5% to 22.5%. The Urban-Suburban High Need districts rate went from 28.8% to 31.7% and in the Rural High Need districts the rate improved from 31.2% to 35.9%. The Average Need districts’ rate improved from 45.6% to 49.0%.

Improvement Activities Completed during 2006-07

In September 2006, based on 2004-05 data, 58 school districts were identified as needing assistance and 17 districts were identified as needing intervention.
In June 2007, based on 2005-06 data, 69 school districts were identified as needing assistance and 31 districts were identified as needing intervention.
Regional Work Plans were developed for 2006-07 to provide districts identified for low performance under indicators 1, 2 and 3 with appropriate levels of support and assistance which included focused monitoring reviews by the Special Education Quality Assurance (SEQA) Regional Office and/or quality improvement technical assistance provided by Special Education Training and Resource Center (SETRC) professional development specialists or other technical assistance networks funded with IDEA discretionary funds.
Quality Assurance Review grants were provided to large city school districts to offset the costs that these school districts incurred to participate in the focused monitoring reviews.
Quality Assurance Improvement grants were provided to school districts to implement improvement activities identified through the focused review monitoring process.
SED increased resources for SETRC personnel in the locations where more districts were being identified as needing assistance or intervention. Fifteen full-time SETRC Professional Development Specialists (PDSs) were added upstate and an additional six SETRC staff were added in New York City (NYC). Two additional SETRC regional trainers were added to upstate regions.
Quality Indicator Review and Resource Guides were developed to guide the work of SETRC in identified districts to address literacy, behavioral supports and interventions and the quality delivery of special education services in school districts. Professional development in these key areas was provided to the SETRC network.
The NYC SEQA Regional Office piloted a new High School Graduation Rate Focused Review (FR) to evaluate the interventions implemented in selected secondary level schools and their impact on the rate that students with disabilities earn a Regents or local diploma. In 2007-08 this FR will also be used in districts outside of NYC.
The NYSED Approved Work-Based Learning Programs: A Guide for School Administrators and Work-Based Learning Coordinators was revised in 2007 to add information regarding coordinating Career and Technical Education (CTE) programs and special education services.

Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources for FFY 2006: [If applicable]

The following activity was added:

Activities	Timelines	Resources
Develop and implement revised monitoring protocols that specifically focus on compliance issues most related to improving graduation rates.	2007-2011	SEQA SETRC Other Technical Assistance Networks

Activities

Timelines

Resources

Develop and implement revised monitoring protocols that specifically focus on compliance issues most related to improving graduation rates.

2007-2011

SEQA

SETRC

Other Technical Assistance Networks

Overview of the Annual Performance Report Development:

See Overview of the Development of the Annual Performance Report in the Introduction section, page 1.

Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE

Indicator 2: Percent of youth with IEPs dropping out of high school compared to the percent of all youth in the State dropping out of high school.

(20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A))

Measurement:
Measurement for youth with IEPs should be the same measurement as for all youth. Explain calculation.

New York State’s Measurement:

Percent of “total cohort” of students with disabilities who drop out as of June 30 after four years of first entering 9^th grade or for ungraded students with disabilities, after four years of becoming 17 years of age. NYS will begin using the performance of the 2003 total cohort for accountability under NCLB.

New York State’s Calculation:

NYS has set its targets based on the performance of the “total cohort”. See below for the definition of the 2003 total district cohort.

The 2003 district total cohort consists of all students, regardless of their current grade level, who met one of the following conditions:

first entered grade 9 (anywhere) during the 2003-04 school year (July 1, 2003 through June 30, 2004); or
in the case of ungraded students with disabilities, reached their seventeenth birthday during the 2003–04 school year. Ungraded students are included in the 2003 cohort if their birth date is between July 1, 1986 and June 30, 1987 (inclusive).

A student will be included in the district total cohort if the student’s enrollment record in the district shows that the student was enrolled for:

at least five continuous (not including July and August) months and the Reason for Ending Enrollment in the district was not one of the following: transferred to a school in another district, a nonpublic school, or a school outside New York; died; transferred by court order; or left the US.
less than five months and has an ending reason indicating that the student dropped out or transferred to a AHSEPP or HSEPP program and the student’s previous enrollment record in that district (assuming one exists) indicates:

a) that the student was enrolled in the district for at least five months (not including July and August); and

b) that the student dropped out or transferred to a AHSEPP or HSEPP program.

FFY	Measurable and Rigorous Target
FFY 2006 (2006-07 school year) (2003 total cohort)	No more than 19 percent of students with disabilities will drop out of school.

Actual Target Data for FFY 2006:

Total Cohort, As of June 30, Four Years Later
Cohort Year	All Students		Students with Disabilities
Cohort Year	# in Cohort	Drop-Out Rate	# in Cohort	Drop-Out Rate
2000	199,312	11.9%	21,262	13.0%
2001 (New Baseline Data)	212,135	15.4%	26,281	25.5%
2002	216,910	14.0%	27,453	22.2%
2003	220,332	11.5%	28,528	16.9%

Total Cohort Analysis of Students with Disabilities (SWD) Drop-Out Rate by Need/Resource Capacity Category of School District
Need/Resource Capacity Category	2001 Total Cohort of SWD		2002 Total Cohort of SWD		2003 Total Cohort of SWD
Need/Resource Capacity Category	# in Cohort	Drop-Out Rate	# in Cohort	Drop-Out Rate	# in Cohort	Drop-Out Rate
New York City	7,627	37.8%	7,587	30.4%	8,407	22.0%
Large Four Cities	1,784	42.8%	1,862	39.7%	1,536	38.9%
Urban/Suburban High Need Districts	2,487	25.5%	2,619	26.2%	2,778	20.0%
Rural High Need Districts	2,165	25.1%	2,240	26.1%	2,323	19.9%
Average Need Districts	8,733	18.3%	9,366	16.6%	9,563	12.5%
Low Need Districts	3,459	7.5%	3,740	5.6%	3,873	4.0%
Charter Schools	11	42.3%	39	30.8%	48	31.3%
Total State	26,281	25.5%	27,453	22.2%	28,528	16.9%

Total Cohort Analysis of Students with Disabilities (SWD) Drop-Out Rate for Big Five Cities combined and Rest of State
Group of School Districts	2001 Total Cohort of SWD		2002 Total Cohort of SWD		2003 Total Cohort of SWD
Group of School Districts	# in Cohort	Drop-Out Rate	# in Cohort	Drop-Out Rate	# in Cohort	Drop-Out Rate
Big Five Cities	9,411	38.8%	9,449	38.8%	9,943	24.6%
Rest of State	17,496	18.1%	19,866	18.8%	18,585	12.8%
Total State	26,281	25.5%	27,453	22.2%	28,528	16.9%

Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that occurred for FFY 2006:

Explanation of Progress or Slippage

The drop-out rate for the 2003 total cohort was 16.9% which is better than the State’s target for 2006-07 of 19%. The drop-out rate improved substantially in some Need/Resource Capacity categories of school districts. For example, in New York City the rate dropped from 30.6% to 22.0% and in the Urban/Suburban High Need districts it improved from 26.2% to 20.0%. Rural High Need districts improved their drop-out rate from 26.1% to 19.9% and the Average Need districts improved from 16.6% to 12.5%.

Improvement Activities Completed during 2006-07

See graduation Improvement Activities Completed reported for Indicator #1.
NYSED awarded 60 Model Transition Program (MTP) grants to urban, suburban and rural districts that will benefit students with disabilities at approximately 150 high schools. These will create partnerships among high schools, the State vocational rehabilitation services, local vocational rehabilitation providers, independent living centers, colleges and universities, and the business community. Cornell University and The University of Buffalo will join NYSED in this initiative.
VESID's Transition Coordination Site (TCS) network participated in improving transition practices and outcomes as a dropout prevention strategy, assisting schools with developing community based work experience programs, improving Career and Technical Education (CTE) participation and improving collaborations between schools and vocational rehabilitation. The TCSs assisted school districts to implement the Skills Achievement Profile to document student attainment of job skills that meet industry standards for performance, which is used to support successful post-school job-seeking.
In December 2007, training based on National Dropout Prevention Center (NDPC) for Students with Disabilities materials was developed on dropout prevention for students with disabilities and shared with the TCS network for regional presentations.

Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources for FFY 2006 [If applicable]

See indicator 1.

Overview of the Annual Performance Report Development:

See Overview of the Development of the Annual Performance Report in the Introduction section, page 1.

Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE

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

A. Percent of districts that have a disability subgroup that meets the State’s minimum “n” size meeting the State’s AYP objectives for progress for disability subgroup.

B. 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.

C. 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 that have a disability subgroup that meets the State’s minimum “n” size in the State)] times 100.

B. Participation rate =

a. # of children with IEPs in assessed grades;

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 achievement 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 assessed grades;

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

e. # of children with IEPs in assessed grades who are proficient or above as measured 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)].

New York State Notes:

NYS is not using data reported under section 618 in OSEP Table 6 for this indicator because Table 6 data are not consistent with how NYS calculates participation, proficiency and AYP under NCLB. Since school, district and State report cards contain data that are calculated to determine accountability under NCLB, the same data that are used in the State report card are presented in this APR.
One of the reasons that NYS is not using section 618 data from Table 6 in this APR is that in Table 6 there is no differentiation between the enrollment of students in each grade that is used as the basis for computing the participation rate and the proficiency rate. In NYS, there is a difference. The participation rate is computed based on total enrollment of students in a grade, or, for high school, it is computed based on enrollment of “seniors”. However, the proficiency rate is based on the enrollment of “continuously enrolled” students in a grade or at the high school, the number of students in the accountability cohort.
Another reason that NYS does not use section 618 data is that for measures of proficiency, NYS uses a Performance Index (PI) for each grade and assessment, which consists of the percent of continuously enrolled tested students at “basic proficiency” and above (which is Level 2 and above) plus the percent of such students “at or above proficiency” (which is Levels 3-4). For the 2004-05 school year, NYS had six performance indices (grade 4 English language Arts (ELA), grade 4 math, grade 8 ELA, grade 8 math, high school ELA, and high school math). Beginning with the 2005-06 school year, NYS has four indices (grades 3-8 ELA, grades 3-8 math, high school ELA and high school math).
NYS is not able to provide data disaggregated for students with disabilities who received testing accommodations and those who did not at the high school level. We plan to collect testing accommodations for high school students beginning with the cohort of students who will enter ninth grade in 2008-09 school year. Four years later when we report results for the 2011-12 school year, we plan to report results achieved with accommodations and results achieved without accommodations.

NYS does not currently administer an “alternate assessment against grade level standards” as described in measurement d. NYS has an alternate assessment against alternate achievement standards that is aligned to grade level standards.

FFY

Measurable and Rigorous Target

FFY 2006
(2006-07 school year)

AYP: 57 percent of school districts that are required to make AYP for the students with disabilities subgroup will make AYP in grades 3-8 ELA, grades 3-8 math, high school ELA and high school math.

Participation: 95 percent in grades 3-8 and high school in ELA and math.

Performance: The State’s average performance on the performance indices (PI) which represent the percent of students with disabilities performing at Level 2 (basic proficiency) and above plus the percent of students with disabilities performing at Level 3 (proficiency) and above will be as follows:

Grades 3-8 ELA: 96
Grades 3-8 Math: 105
High School ELA: 119
High School Math: 129

Actual Target Data for FFY 2006:

AYP

75.5 percent of school districts (including Charter Schools) that were required to make AYP made AYP in every grade and subject in which they had sufficient number of students with disabilities. The State exceeded its 2006-07 target of 57 percent of school districts making AYP.

Participation Rate

The participation rate of students with disabilities in 2006-07 school year was as follows:

Grades 3-8 ELA: 96.8 percent
Grades 3-8 math: 96.9 percent
High school ELA: 92.7 percent
High school math: 94.0 percent.

The State met its target of 95 percent participation rate for students with disabilities in grades 3-8 ELA and math, but not in high school ELA and math.

Performance

The State’s has four PIs. The PIs represent the percent of students scoring at Levels 3-4 plus the percent of students scoring at Levels 2-4. In the 2006-07 school year, the State average performance for the students with disabilities subgroup on these indices was as follows:

Grades 3-8 ELA: 103
Grades 3-8 Math: 115
High School ELA: 117
High School Math: 127

The State exceeded its 2006 targets on performance indices for grades 3-8 ELA and math, but fell short on high school ELA and math.

AYP for Students with Disabilities Subgroup
FFY	Number of School Districts Required to Make AYP (had minimum of 40 students for participation and 30 students for performance	Percent of School Districts that made AYP in all the Subjects they were Required to.
2004 (2004-05)	290	48.3%
2005 (2005-06)	675 (includes 5 Charter Schools)	57.2%
2006 (2006-07)	648 (includes 12 Charter Schools)	75.5%

AYP for Students with Disabilities Subgroup by Need/Resource Capacity Category of School Districts in 2006-07
Need/Resource Capacity Category of School Districts	Number of School Districts Required to Make AYP (had minimum of 40 students for participation and 30 students for performance	Percent of School Districts that made AYP in all the Subjects they were Required to
New York City	32	3.1%
Large Four Cities	4	0.0%
Urban-Suburban High Need Districts	44	45.5%
Rural High Need Districts	133	79.7%
Average Need Districts	309	79.6%
Low Need Districts	114	92.1%
Charter Schools	12	91.7%

Participation Rate for Students with Disabilities Subgroup
Assessment	2005-06		2006-07
Assessment	Enrollment	Participation Rate	Enrollment	Participation Rate
Grade 3-8 ELA	198,410	95%	196,434	96.8%
Grade 3-8 Math	198,074	96%	196,252	96.9%
High School ELA (seniors)	17,321	90%	16,262	92.7%
High School Math (seniors)	17,321	91%	16,262	94.0%

Performance Index for the Students with Disabilities Subgroup
Assessment	2006-07 Performance		2006-07 Standard			Students with Disabilities Made AYP in 2006-07	2007-08 AMO or Safe- Harbor Target
Assessment	Continuously Enrolled Students with Disabilities in Grades 3-8 and in 2002 Accountability Cohort in High School (HS)	NYS PI	Effective AMO	Safe- Harbor Target	Met Third Indicator for Safe Harbor	Students with Disabilities Made AYP in 2006-07	2007-08 AMO or Safe- Harbor Target
Grades 3-8 ELA	185,224	103	122	102	Yes	Yes	113
Grades 3-8 Math	183,397	115	86	NA	NA	Yes	102
HS Eng. 2003 accountability cohort	20,351	117	159	123	No	No	125
HS Math 2003 accountability cohort	20,351	127	152	132	No	No	134

Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that occurred for FFY 2006:

Explanation of Progress or Slippage

The State far exceeded its 2006 target for the percentage of school districts that would make AYP in all subjects in which they were required to. In the 2005-06 school year, 57.2 percent of the required school districts (including Charter Schools) made AYP and in 2006-07 school year, 75.5% of school districts (including Charter Schools) made AYP. The target for 2006-07 school year was 57 percent.

The State exceeded the participation target of 95 percent in grades 3-8 ELA and math, but did not achieve the same target in high school ELA and math. Compared to 2005, the 2006 participation rate improved in all subjects and grades.

The State exceeded its performance target in 2006 in grades 3-8 ELA and math by improving by more than five points on the PI. In grades 3-8 ELA, the score on the PI improved by 12 points and by 15 points in grades 3-8 math. The State did not meet its target to improve by five points in high school ELA and math. Instead, the scores on the PIs in high school ELA and math each improved by 3 points.

The data provided above indicates a significant difference in the percent of school districts that made AYP for the students with disabilities subgroup in the Big Five Cities and the urban-suburban high need school districts compared with other school districts in the State. For example, only one community school district in NYC made AYP, none of the large four cities made AYP, and only 46 percent of the urban-suburban high need districts made AYP compared to 80 percent of rural high need, 80 percent of average need school districts and 92 percent of low need school districts and 92 percent of Charter schools.

Improvement Activities Completed during 2006-07

See activities reported as completed under Indicator #1.
A group of experts was convened in reading and response-to-intervention (RtI) models to assist in developing State criteria. Regulations were passed in September 2007 addressing both the components of a RtI program and procedures for using RtI as part of the process to identify students with learning disabilities.
IDEA Effective Instructional Practices focused monitoring reviews were used with schools districts with achievement rates that are farthest from State targets.
The New York State Alternate Assessment (NYSAA) redesign, including technical specifications was completed. The redesigned NYSAA was administered to 18,000 students with severe cognitive disabilities in spring 2007, enabling their participation in the State assessment program. Professional development and technical documentation were provided continuously throughout the year.
In 2006-07, through VESID's contract with Helen Keller Services for the Blind (HKSB), assistance was provided to school districts to provide instructional resources in accessible format under National Instructional Materials Accessibility Standards (NIMAS) and worked with the National Instructional Materials Accessibility Center (NIMAC) to implement the system in NYS.
The Office of State Assessment (OSA) took steps to assure that training in universal design for assessment is systematically addressed. Every contract for State test development includes the requirement that test item developers receive training in Universal Design. Key resources were provided to staff with responsibility for subject matter test development and every teacher who writes test items.
In 2006-07, through VESID's funded Technology Resource Center (TRE), 186 individuals received training on effective practices in providing assistive technology and universal design in six regions of the State.

Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources for FFY 2006 [If applicable]

None at this time.

Overview of the Annual Performance Report Development:

See Overview of the Development of the Annual Performance Report in the Introduction section, page 1.

Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE

Indicator 4: Rates of suspension and expulsion:

A. Percent of districts identified by the State as having a significant discrepancy in the rates of suspensions and expulsions of children with disabilities for greater than 10 days in a school year; and

B. 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.

(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A); 1412(a)(22))

Measurement:

A. Percent = [(# of districts identified by the State as having significant discrepancies in the rates of suspensions and expulsions of children with disabilities for greater than 10 days in a school year) divided by the (# of districts in the State)] times 100.

B. Percent = [(# of districts identified by the State as having significant discrepancies in the rates of suspensions and expulsions for greater than 10 days in a school year of children with disabilities by race ethnicity) divided by the (# of districts in the State)] times 100.

Include State’s definition of “significant discrepancy.”

New York State Notes:

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. This report is available at https://www.p12.nysed.gov/sedcar/0607pdrpts.htm .

Section 618 data was used to analyze the 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. The rates were computed by dividing the number of students with disabilities suspended out-of-school for more than 10 days during the school year by the December 1 count of school-age students with disabilities and the result expressed as a percent. 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.)

New York State’s Definition of Significant Discrepancy in Suspension Rate:

For the baseline year and through 2006-07 school year, significant discrepancy is 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 2010-11 school years, significant discrepancy is defined as a suspension rate of greater than two times the baseline statewide average, (i.e., a rate of 2.7 percent or higher).

FFY

Measurable and Rigorous Target

FFY 2006

(School Year 2006-07)

4.A. No more than 0 percent of the school districts in the State will suspend students with disabilities for more than 10 days at a rate of 4.0 percent or higher. (This rate is three times the baseline average.)

4.B. Reporting this indicator by race and ethnicity is not required for the FFY 2006 APR due February 1, 2008.

Actual Target Data for FFY 2006:

State Average Suspension Rates of Students with Disabilities for Greater Than 10 Days in a School Year
School Year	Number of Students with Disabilities Suspended for More than 10 Days in the School Year	Number of School-Age Students with Disabilities Receiving Special Education Services on December 1	Suspension Rate	Significant Discrepancy in Suspension Rate	Percent of School Districts with Significant Discrepancy in Suspension Rate
2004-05 (baseline data)	5,502	409,791	1.34%	Three times the State baseline average	2.9%
2005-06	5,294	407,000	1.30%	Three times the State baseline average.	2.5%
2006-07	5,622	409,149	1.37%	Three times the State baseline average	2.3%

Number of School Districts with their Suspension Rates and Percent of all Suspensions in the 2006-07 School Year
# of districts in 2006-07 School Year	% of 684 districts	% of students with disabilities suspended for greater than 10 days	Comparison to statewide baseline average	% of total 10-day out-of-school suspensions
100	14.6%	Not applicable	These districts each had less than 75 students with disabilities enrolled on December 1, 2006.	0.8%
415	60.7%	0% to < 1.3%	Below the baseline Statewide average	43.1%
109	15.9%	≥ 1.3% < 2.7%	Between baseline and 2 times the baseline statewide average	14.6%
44	6.4%	≥ 2.7%< 4.0%	Between 2 and 3 times the baseline statewide average	15.2%
16	2.3%	≥ 4.0%	Three time or more than the baseline statewide average	26.4%

Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that occurred for FFY 2006:

Explanation of Progress or Slippage

The average suspension rate of students with disabilities in the 2004-05 school year was 1.34 percent, in 2005-06 it was 1.30 percent, and in 2006-07 it was 1.37 percent. Preliminary data analysis of 2006-07 suspension data indicates that the State will identify 16 school districts that had a suspension rate of 4.0 percent or higher compared to 20 school districts that were initially identified based on 2004-05 school year data (two were subsequently removed from identification). While the State did not meet its 2006-07 school year target of having 0 percent of school districts with a suspension rate of 4.0 percent or higher, there was a decrease from 2.9 percent of school districts identified based on 2004-05 data to 2.3 percent of school districts that will be identified based on 2006-07 data.

All 18 school districts that were required to review their policies, practices and procedures related to discipline based on 2004-05 school year data reported some noncompliance with one or more regulatory citations related to discipline of students with disabilities. They were required to correct noncompliance as soon as possible but no later than one year from identification. The Table below provides information on the number of school districts that reported compliance within one year and those that reported compliance after the one year time frame. The State is providing additional technical assistance and corrective action with the school districts reflected in the last column below that are still pending correction of noncompliance.

Data Year	Notification Year	Number of Districts Identified	Number of Districts Reporting Non- compliance	Number of Districts Correcting Non- compliance Within one Year	Number of Districts Correcting Non-compliance After one Year	Number of Districts that have not Corrected Non-compliance to Date
2004-05	2005-06	18	18	0	13	5*
2005-06	2006-07	17 (4 of these were identified during the previous year)	11 (possibly up to two more after verification review)
2006-07	2007-08	16 (7 of these identified in a previous year)
*Of the 5 school districts, three made progress and reported corrections to some issues of noncompliance, even though they are still not in compliance with all regulatory citations.

During the 2006-07 school year, based on 2005-06 school year data, 17 school districts were notified that they had a suspension rate that was significantly greater than the suspension rate in other school districts. Four of the 17 school districts were also identified during the 2004-05 school year and completed the State-developed self-review monitoring protocol during the 2005-06 school year to evaluate their compliance with selected regulatory requirements, policies, practices and procedures related to discipline procedures for students with disabilities. Thirteen school districts completed the same review during the 2006-07 school year. The chart below provides the statewide results for the percent of identified school districts reporting compliance with each regulatory requirement. Eleven of the 13 school districts reported some noncompliance and will need to revise their policies, practices and procedures and become compliant within one year from notification. Two districts that reported being in full compliance will have a verification of their results completed by the State.

The Statewide results of compliance with regulatory citations provided below were disaggregated by the SEQA Regional Offices and technical assistance network regions to enable staff to provide required technical assistance to school districts based on the regional profile of results on the self-review monitoring protocol.

Results of 2006-07 Suspension Self-Reviews		Number out of 13 School Districts Reporting Compliance	Percent of 13 School Districts Reporting Compliance
Regulatory Citation 8 NYCRR		Number out of 13 School Districts Reporting Compliance	Percent of 13 School Districts Reporting Compliance
§200.4(b)(1)(v)	Initial evaluations of students with disabilities include a functional behavioral assessment (FBA) for students whose behaviors impede their learning or that of others.	4	30.8%
§200.4(b)(4)	The reevaluation is sufficient to determine the student's individual needs.	8	61.5%
§200.1(r)	FBAs identify the problem behavior, define the behavior in concrete terms, identify contextual factors that contribute to the behavior and formulate a hypothesis regarding the general conditions under which a behavior usually occurs and the probable consequences that serve to maintain it.	7	53.8%
§200.22(a)(3)*	FBAs are based on multiple sources of data, including but not limited to, information obtained from direct observation of the student, information from the student, the student’s teacher(s) and/or related service provider(s), a review of available data and information from the student’s record and other sources including any relevant information provided by the student’s parent. The FBA is not based solely on the student’s history of presenting problem behaviors.	7	53.8%
§200.22(a)(3)	The FBA provides a baseline of the student's problem behaviors with regard to frequency, duration, intensity, and/or latency across activities, settings, people and times of the day and includes information in sufficient detail to form the basis for a behavioral intervention plan (BIP) for the student that addresses antecedent behaviors, reinforces consequences of the behavior, recommendations for teaching alternative skills or behaviors and an assessment of student references for reinforcement.	5	38.5%
§201.3(a)	FBAs are conducted when students are suspended for behaviors determined to be related to their disabilities.	6	46.2%
§200.4(d)(3)	For students whose behaviors impede their learning or that of others, the IEPs include positive behavioral interventions and supports and other strategies to address the behaviors.	5	38.5%
§200.3(d)(1)	The general education teacher participated in the Committee on Special Education (CSE) meeting to identify appropriate positive behavioral interventions and strategies for the student.	7	53.8%
§201.4(e)	The IEP was revised as a result of any deficiencies noted during a manifestation determination review.	8	61.5%
§201.2(a)	BIPs are based on the results of the FBA and, at a minimum, include a description of the problem behavior, global and specific hypotheses as to why the problem behavior occurs and intervention strategies to address the behavior.	7	53.8%
§200.22(b)(4)(i)**	BIPs identify the baseline measure of the problem behavior, including the frequency, duration, intensity and/or latency of the targeted behaviors. Such baseline, to the extent practicable include data taken across activities, settings, people and time of the day.	4	30.8%
§200.22(b)(4)(ii)**	BIPs identify the intervention strategies to be used to alter antecedent events to prevent the occurrence of the behavior, teach individual alternative and adaptive behavior to the student, and provide consequences for the targeted inappropriate behavior(s) and alternative acceptable behaviors.	8	61.5%
§200.22(b)(4)(iii)**	BIPs include a schedule to measure the effectiveness of the interventions, including the frequency, duration and intensity of the targeted behaviors at scheduled intervals.	6	48.2%
§200.22(b)(5)**	The implementation of a student’s BIP includes regular progress monitoring of the frequency, duration and intensity of the behavioral interventions at scheduled intervals. The results of the progress monitoring are documented and reported to the student’s parents and to the CSE and are considered in any determination to revise the student’s BIP or IEP.	5	38.5%
§201.3(a)	When a student has been removed for more than 10 days and the student's conduct was determined to be a manifestation of the student's disability, the CSE conducted a FBA and implements a behavioral intervention plan for that student.	6	46.2%
§201.3(b)	If the student already has a behavioral intervention plan, the CSE meets to review the plan and its implementation and modifies the plan and its implementation, as necessary, to address the behavior that resulted in the disciplinary change of placement.	7	53.8%
§200.4(e)	Behavioral intervention plans are implemented, monitored and progress documented.	6	46.2%
§201.4(a)	The manifestation review is conducted immediately, but not later than 10 days after the decision to remove or suspend the student.	8	61.5%
§201.4(b)	A team that includes the student’s parent, an individual knowledgeable about the student and the interpretation of behavior and other relevant members of the CSE as determined by the parent and the school district conducts the manifestation review. Parents are notified in writing of the meeting.	10	76.9%
§201.4(c)	All relevant information in the student’s file, including the student’s IEP, any teacher observations and relevant information provided by the parent is reviewed.	8	61.5%
§201.4(d) (2)(ii)	If the conduct was determined to be related to the student’s disability, the student is returned to the placement from which the student was removed (except drugs, weapons or serious bodily injury removals).	9	69.2%
§201.7(a)	The parent is notified and provided a copy of the procedural safeguards notice within 10 days of the decision to suspend the student for more than 10 days.	11	84.6%
§201.7(b)	Suspensions of students with disabilities do not exceed the amount of time that a nondisabled student would be subject to suspension for the same behavior.	13	100%
§201.7(c)	A manifestation determination has been made prior to the removal of a student with a disability for more than 10 school days. If the behavior is a manifestation of the disability, the penalty phase of a superintendent's hearing is dismissed.	10	76.9%
§201.7(d)	Short-term suspensions are reviewed to determine if they constitute a pattern of removals.	7	53.8%
§201.7(f)	School personnel consider unique circumstances on a case-by-case basis when determining whether to suspend a student with a disability.	13	100%
§201.10(b)	Students with disabilities of compulsory school age are provided with alternative instruction for short-term suspensions (10 days or less in the school year).	13	100%
§201.10(c) and (d)	During suspensions of more than 10 days in a school year, regardless of the manifestation determination, students with disabilities receive services to enable them to participate in the general curriculum and to continue to progress toward IEP goals.	12	92.3%
§201.10(e)	Interim alternative educational setting (IAES) and the services to be provided to a student are determined by the CSE.	10	76.9%
* FBAs conducted after July 1, 2006. **For BIPs developed after July 1, 2006.

As shown in the table above, less than one half of the school districts were in compliance with nine of the citations listed above. More than one half of the school districts were in compliance with 20 citations.

NYS will use the above information in providing assistance to school districts through the State’s quality assurance and technical assistance networks. NYS will require documentation of correction of noncompliance from each district identified in 2006-07, based on 2005-06 school year data.

During the 2007-08 school year, based on 2006-07 school year data, 16 school districts will be notified that they had a suspension rate that was significantly greater than the suspension rate in other school districts. These school districts will be required to complete the State-developed self-review monitoring protocol to evaluate their compliance with selected regulatory requirements, policies, practices and procedures related to discipline procedures for students with disabilities. They will report results of their self-review to the State by August 31, 2008. The web-based reporting system will notify them immediately to correct any noncompliance they identify as soon as possible but no later than one year from the automated notification date. The web-based reporting system also allows school districts to report corrections to each of the citations in which they initially reported noncompliance.

In 2006, the State established new rigorous regulatory standards for behavioral interventions, including standards for conducting functional behavioral assessments and behavioral intervention plans, use of time out rooms and use of emergency interventions. Because these standards were new, and the monitoring protocol measured compliance against these standards, many districts had not fully revised their policies, procedures and practices to align to the new standards.

Improvement Activities Completed in 2006-07

In 2006-07, in NYC, in addition to schools required to conduct self-reviews based on data analysis, the NYC Regional Office of SEQA also conducted additional monitoring reviews of selected NYC high school sites with high suspension rates. In New York City, the NYC Department of Education (NYCDOE) was subsequently required by NYSED to implement Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) in selected districts with high suspension rates.
NYS regulations were amended, effective June 2006, to establish general standards for behavioral interventions, including standards for functional behavioral assessments, behavioral intervention plans, use of time out rooms and use of emergency interventions.
In 2006-07, the IDEA-funded Coordinated Children’s Services Initiative (CCSI) delivered the Statewide Wraparound Training Project. Wraparound is a team-based planning process that brings people together involved in a family’s life working on a common goal. In 2006-07, to support localities in creating systems of care, CCSI established 5 Regional Technical Assistance Teams (RTATS) comprised of field staff from participating CCSI agencies, family organizations/advocates, schools and county-level staff addressing systems barriers, sharing best practices and providing training.
See Indicators 9 and 10 for additional activities.

Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources for FFY 2006 [If applicable]

The following improvement activity has been added.

Activity	Timelines	Resources
Expand field based PBIS technical assistance resources to work directly with schools identified by the State as having disproportionate rates of suspension of students with disabilities.	2008-11	PBIS state technical assistance network
Through VESID regional planning process, direct SETRC to work with schools identified with disproportionate rates of suspension using its Behavior Quality Indicator Review and Resource Guide.	2008-11	SETRC professional development specialists
Provide regional training on functional behavioral assessments and behavioral intervention plans	2008-11	SETRC regional trainers

Overview of the Annual Performance Report Development:

See Overview of the Development of the Annual Performance Report in the Introduction section, page 1.

Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE

Indicator 5: Percent of children with IEPs aged 6 through 21:

A. Removed from regular class less than 21% of the day;

B. Removed from regular class greater than 60% of the day; or

C. Served in public or private separate schools, residential placements, or homebound or hospital placements.

(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A))

Measurement:

A. Percent = [(# of children with IEPs removed from regular class less than 21% of the day) divided by the (total # of students aged 6 through 21 with IEPs)] times 100.

B. Percent = [(# of children with IEPs removed from regular class greater than 60% of the day) divided by the (total # of students aged 6 through 21 with IEPs)] times 100.

C. Percent = [(# of children with IEPs served in public or private separate schools, residential placements, or homebound or hospital placements) divided by the (total # of students aged 6 through 21 with IEPs)] times 100.

FFY

Measurable and Rigorous Target

FFY 2006(School Year 2006-07)

The statewide percent of students with disabilities, ages 6-21, removed from regular class less than 21 percent of the day will be greater than 55 percent.

The statewide percent of students with disabilities, ages 6-21, removed from regular class greater than 60 percent of the day will be less than 26 percent.

The statewide percent of students with disabilities, ages 6-21, served in public or private separate schools, residential placements, or homebound or hospital placements will be less than 6.5 percent.

Actual Target Data for FFY 2006:

Statewide Trend Data: LRE for School-Age Students with Disabilities
School Year	Number of Students Ages 6-21, on December 1 of the School year	Percent of Day Students are Removed from Regular Classes			Percent of Students in Separate Settings	Percent of Students in Other Specific Settings*
School Year		Less than 21%	21% to 60%	Greater than 60%	Percent of Students in Separate Settings	Percent of Students in Other Specific Settings*
1997-98	372,716	43.2%	12.9%	34.8%	9.1%
1998-99	381,342	44.7%	12.9%	33.5%	8.9%
1999-00	384,352	47.6%	13.2%	30.7%	8.5%
2000-01	389,668	49.5%	12.9%	29.8%	7.7%
2001-02	387,014	51.1%	12.9%	28.6%	7.4%
2002-03	386,082	51.8%	13.9%	27.0%	7.4%
2003-04	387,633	53.4%	12.4%	27.0%	7.3%
2004-05 (Baseline Year for APR)	391,595	53.6%	12.0%	27.3%	7.0%
2005-06	389,125	54.5%	13.1%	25.5%	6.9%
2006-07	391,773	53.1%	12.9%	24.6%	6.8%	2.6%
*Other specific settings include students who are home-schooled, parentally placed in nonpublic schools or incarcerated.

Big Five Cities’ Combined Trend Data: LRE for School-Age Students with Disabilities
School Year	Number of Students Ages 6-21, on December 1 of the School year	Percent of Day Students Removed from Regular Classes			Percent of Students in Separate Settings	Percent of Students in Other Specific Settings*
School Year		Less than 21%	21% to 60%	Greater than 60%	Percent of Students in Separate Settings	Percent of Students in Other Specific Settings*
2002-03	160,410	47.9%	5.4%	38.1%	8.6%
2003-04	161,347	49.5%	2.5%	39.0%	9.0%
2004-05	165,795	49.9%	2.1%	39.3%	8.8%
2005-06	164,462	51.3%	4.8%	35.2%	8.7%
2006-07	169,394	49.7%	4.8%	33.5%	9.0%	3.1%
*Other specific settings include students who are home-schooled, parentally placed in nonpublic schools or incarcerated.

2006-07 LRE Data for Students with Disabilities by Need Resource Capacity Category of School Districts
Need Resource Capacity	Number of Students Ages 6-21, on December 1 of the School year	Percent of Day Students are Removed from Regular Classes			Percent of Students in Separate Settings	Percent of Students in Other Specific Settings*
Need Resource Capacity		Less than 21%	21% to 60%	Greater than 60%	Percent of Students in Separate Settings	Percent of Students in Other Specific Settings*
NYC	146,101	48.9%	4.0%	34.5%	9.4%	3.3%
Large 4 Cities	23,293	55.0%	9.8%	27.2%	6.1%	1.9%
Urban-Suburban High Need School Districts	34,481	46.2%	15.8%	28.8%	6.3%	3.0%
Rural High Need School Districts	25,150	53.4%	23.1%	21.2%	1.7%	0.6%
Average Need School Districts	109,307	56.6%	20.9%	16.5%	4.1%	1.8%
Low Need School Districts	48,712	64.6%	16.6%	11.9%	4.7%	2.3%
*Other specific settings include students who are home-schooled, parentally placed in nonpublic schools or incarcerated.

2006-07 LRE Data by Board of Cooperative Educational Services (BOCES) Regions for Separate Settings:

Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that occurred for FFY 2006:

Explanation of Progress or Slippage

The State met its target in one of three settings and would have met its target in two of three settings if the categories of LRE settings had not been revised by USED:

The percentage of students with disabilities who are removed from regular classes for less than 21 percent of the day decreased from 54.5 percent in 2005-06 school year to 53.1 percent in 2006-07 school year. The State target was to increase this percentage to 55 percent. If the LRE categories were not revised, an additional 2.6 percent of students with disabilities would have been reported in this setting, making this percentage 55.7 percent.
The percent of students with disabilities who are removed from regular classes for more than 60 percent of the day decreased from 25.5 percent in 2005-06 to 24.6 percent in 2006-07. The State met its target, which was to be below 26 percent in 2006-07.
The percent of students with disabilities who are educated in separate settings decreased from 6.9 percent in 2005-06 to 6.8 percent in 2006-07. The State made progress; however, the State’s target was to be below 6.5 percent in 2006-07.
Beginning in 2006-07 school year, USED required students with disabilities who are home-schooled, parentally placed in nonpublic schools or incarcerated to be reported in their own specific categories. In the past, these students were usually reported in “removed from regular classes for less than 21 percent of the day” category. The State is revising its future targets in all LRE settings in order to reflect the changes in LRE reporting categories.
All need/resource categories of school districts except the low need districts decreased the percentage of students who are removed from regular classes for more than 60 percent of the day.
NYC uses the separate settings placement category to a much greater extent than other need/resource categories for school districts.
The high need school districts tend to use the removed from regular classes for more than 60 percent of the day setting for significantly greater percentages of students with disabilities compared to average or low-need school districts.

Improvement Activities Completed in 2006-07

In the 2006-07 school year focused monitoring using the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) and the Effective Instructional focused monitoring protocols was conducted to review policies, procedures and practices in school districts whose data showed LRE data below the State's targets.
In 2006-07, regional space plans were reviewed to assure availability of space for students with disabilities to be educated in age-appropriate settings and to the maximum extent possible with students who are not disabled. NYS required documentation of regional needs prior to expansion and/or approval of new private school programs to serve students with disabilities in separate settings.
NYS Regulations were amended, effective October 4, 2007, to add options to the continuum of special education services to promote the delivery of specially designed instruction in a general education classroom by adding integrated co-teaching services and the combination of resource room and consultant teacher services to meet the minimum level of service requirements.
The Nondistrict Unit (NDU) was created in 2006-07 to provide technical assistance and monitoring to approved private schools.
In 2006-07, under the five-year interagency development plan to reduce the number of NYS students with disabilities placed in out-of-State programs, there was a 35 percent reduction in out-of-state placements, comparing 2006-07 to 2005-06.
In 2006-07, the School Support Projects (SSP) provided mental health support to students in 23 project sites in ten counties and four NYC boroughs, including elementary, intermediate, middle and high schools. In 2006, approximately 1,600 students received services through SSP clinics.

Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources for FFY 2006 [If applicable]

Changes in Proposed Targets

Because of the changes made by USED in the reporting categories that went into effect for the 2006-07 school year, NYS is revising its targets for school age LRE categories, as described below.

2007-08 School Year:

The statewide percent of students with disabilities, ages 6-21, removed from regular class less than 21 percent of the day will be greater than 53.1 percent.

The statewide percent of students with disabilities, ages 6-21, removed from regular class greater than 60 percent of the day will be less than 24.6 percent.

2008-09 School Year:

The statewide percent of students with disabilities, ages 6-21, removed from regular class less than 21 percent of the day will be greater than 53.2 percent.

The statewide percent of students with disabilities, ages 6-21, removed from regular class greater than 60 percent of the day will be less than 24.5 percent.

2009-10 School Year:

The statewide percent of students with disabilities, ages 6-21, removed from regular class less than 21 percent of the day will be greater than 53.3 percent.

The statewide percent of students with disabilities, ages 6-21, removed from regular class greater than 60 percent of the day will be less than 24.4 percent.

2010-11 School Year:

The statewide percent of students with disabilities, ages 6-21, removed from regular class less than 21 percent of the day will be greater than 53.4 percent.

The statewide percent of students with disabilities, ages 6-21, removed from regular class greater than 60 percent of the day will be less than 24.3 percent.