February 2009 APR - Indicator 13

Part B Annual Performance Report for 2007-08 - New York State
February 2009

Overview of the Annual Performance Report Development:

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

Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B / Effective Transition

Indicator 13: Percent of youth aged 15* and above with an individualized education program (IEP) that includes coordinated, measurable, annual IEP goals and transition services that will reasonably enable the student to meet the post-secondary goals.

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

* The federal indicator is age 16. New York State (NYS) has elected to measure this beginning at age 15, since NYS law and regulations require that transition services be indicated on a student’s IEP to be in effect when the student turns age 15.

Measurement:
Percent = [(# of youth with disabilities aged 15 and above with an IEP that includes coordinated, measurable, annual IEP goals and transition services that will reasonably enable the student to meet the post-secondary goals) divided by the (# of youth with an IEP age 15 and above)] times 100.

FFY	Measurable and Rigorous Target
FFY 2007 (School year 2007-08)	100 percent of youth* aged 15 and above will have IEPs that include coordinated, measurable annual IEP goals and transition services that will reasonably enable the student to meet the post-secondary goals.

*i.e., percent of youth with IEPs reviewed.

Actual Target Data for FFY 2007:

During the 2007-08 school year, 58.6 percent of youth aged 15 and above had IEPs that included coordinated, measurable, annual IEP goals and transition services that will reasonably enable the students to meet the post-secondary goals.

The 2007-08 data is based on the monitoring review of IEPs from a representative sample of 106 school districts, including New York City (NYC).
The total number of students with IEPs, ages 15-21 in NYS during the 2007-08 school year was 56,553.
The determination of whether an individual student's IEP included coordinated, measurable annual IEP goals and transition services that will reasonably enable the student to meet the post-secondary goals is based on an IEP that is 100 percent in compliance with all State regulatory requirements for transition planning and documentation on each student's IEP.
The total number of IEPs reviewed from these representative school districts was 3,225.
Of the 3,225 IEPs, 1,890 (58.6 percent) were found to have been in compliance with all IEP transition requirements.

Of the 106 school districts:

13 school districts reported that 0 percent of their students’ IEPs that were reviewed met compliance with the IEP transition requirements.
30 school districts reported between 1 and 49 percent of their students' IEPs that were reviewed met the transition requirements.
16 school districts reported between 50 and 79 percent of their students’ IEPs that were reviewed met the transition requirements.
47 percent reported between 80 and 100 percent of IEPs that were reviewed met the transition requirements.

Data on compliance with each of the eight regulatory citations is reported in the chart below for three years. Major findings include:

A greater percentage of IEPs were in compliance with every regulatory citation in 2007, compared with 2006.
The requirements reflecting lowest compliance were that the IEP includes appropriate measurable post-secondary goals based upon age appropriate transition assessments relating to training, education, employment and, where appropriate, independent living skills (62.3 percent); including a statement of the student’s transition needs in the present levels of performance (64.2 percent) and including needed transition activities (65.1 percent).
The requirement with which most IEPs (88.7 percent) were in compliance was that the IEP indicates the recommended special education program and services to advance appropriately toward meeting the annual goals relating to transition needs.

Compliance Rates for Individual Regulatory Citations – Transition Content in IEPS
Requirement	2005-06 Number & Percent of 108 Districts in Compliance on Citation		2006-07 Number & Percent of 109 Districts in Compliance on Citation		2007-08 *Number & Percent of 106 Districts in Compliance on Citation**
Requirement	#	%	#	%	#	%
When the CSE met to consider transition service needs, the school district invited the student. If the student did not attend, the district ensured that the student's preferences and interests were considered	62	57.41%	66	60.6%	79	74.5%
Under the student's present levels of performance, the IEP includes a statement of the student's needs, taking into account the student's strengths, preferences and interests, as they relate to transition from school to post-school activities.	26	24.07%	47	43.1%	68	64.2%
The IEP includes appropriate measurable post-secondary goals based upon age appropriate transition assessments relating to training, education, employment and, where appropriate, independent living skills.	25	23.15%	53	48.6%	66	62.3%
The IEP includes measurable annual goals consistent with the student's needs and abilities, including (if applicable) benchmarks or short-term objectives.	58	53.70%	72	66.1%	77	72.6%
The IEP includes a statement of the transition service needs of the student that focuses on the student's courses of study.	45	41.67%	62	56.9%	78	73.6%
The IEP indicates the recommended special education program and services to advance appropriately toward meeting the annual goals relating to transition needs.	76	70.37%	87	79.8%	94	88.7%
The IEP includes needed activities to facilitate the student's movement from school to post-school activities, including: instruction, related services, community experiences, the development of employment and other post-school adult living objectives, and when appropriate, acquisition of daily living skills and functional vocational evaluation.	35	32.41%	58	53.2%	69	65.1%
The IEP includes a statement of the responsibilities of the school district and, when applicable, participating agencies, for the provision of such services and activities that promote movement from school to post-school opportunities, or both.	40	37.04%	62	56.9%	78	73.6%

*In the 2007-08 school year, the sample size was 108 school districts, however, two school districts had not submitted their data for this indicator by the time this report was prepared.

Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that occurred for FFY 2007:

Explanation of Progress or Slippage

NYS showed progress in meeting the State's target for this indicator. In 2007, 58.6 percent of youth aged 15 and above had IEPs that included coordinated, measurable, annual IEP goals and transition services that would reasonably enable the student to meet the post-secondary goals compared to 45.8 percent in 2006. This improvement is particularly significant since NYS measures its performance for this indicator each year based on a different representative group of school districts (except that NYC is included in this representative sample each year).

As displayed in the tables below, there were significant improvements in most regions of the State in that fewer school districts reported 0 IEPs out of compliance and far greater number of school districts reported having 80-100 percent of IEPs in full compliance. These regional data are used by the technical assistance networks to prioritize their work with the school districts with the lowest rates of compliance and to assist the State to identify effective improvement activities.

Indicator 13 – Numbers of School Districts and Range of Compliance by Transition Coordination Site (TCS) Region
TCS Region	2006-07					2007-08
	# of School Districts Reviewed	Number of Districts By Percentage of IEPs In Compliance				# of School Districts Reviewed	Number of Districts By Percentage of IEPs In Compliance
	# of School Districts Reviewed	0% of IEPs	1% - 49%	50% - 79%	80 – 100%	# of School Districts Reviewed	0% of IEPs	1% - 49%	50% - 79%	80 – 100%
Eastern	24	5	8	3	8	18	2	3	2	11
Hudson Valley	20	4	7	2	7	20	3	5	5	7
Long Island	17	5	6	5	1	19	3	3	2	11
Mid-State	13	2	4	2	5	18	2	7	2	7
Mid-West	15	2	4	4	5	17	2	3	3	9
NYC	1	0	1	0	0	1	0	1	0	0
Western	19	4	6	4	5	13	1	8	2	2
Total # of School Districts	109	22	36	20	31	106	13	30	16	47

Indicator 13 – Summary of Changes in Compliance by TCS Region
TCS Region	2006-07		2007-08
TCS Region	Total # of School Districts Reviewed	Regional Percent of IEPs Found in 90-100% Compliance Range	Total # of School Districts Reviewed	Regional Percent of IEPs Found in 90-100% Compliance Range
Eastern	24	46.4%	18	65.2%
Hudson Valley	20	44.9%	20	54.4%
Long Island	17	31.5%	19	68.1%
Mid-State	13	62.5%	18	54.0%
Mid-West	15	56.5%	17	65.1%
NYC	1	3.0%	1	46.0%
Western	19	42.6%	13	42.6%
Total # of School Districts	109	45.8%	106	58.6%

In 2007-08, the Mid-West, Eastern and Long Island TCS regions showed the greatest percentages of IEPs meeting the transition planning requirements at 65.1 percent, 65.2 percent and 68.1 percent, respectively.
The regions showing the greatest overall improvement are NYC and Long Island.
- In Long Island, the percentage improved from 31.5 percent in 2006-07 to 68.1 percent in 2007-08.
- In NYC, the percentage improved from the percent in 2006-07 to 46 percent in 2007-08.

The only decrease in rates of compliance occurred in the Mid-State region, which experienced a prolonged disruption in staffing at TCS. The percent of youth with IEPs that met the transition requirements decreased in the Mid-State TCS region from 63.6 percent last year to 54 percent this year.

Technical assistance personnel from the Office of Vocational and Educational Services for Individuals with Disabilities’ (VESID) funded TCSs and/or Special Education Training and Resource Center (SETRC) facilitated the self-review monitoring process in most of the school districts. The participation of TCS staff in this review process is one of the State's actions to improve compliance for this indicator, by providing technical assistance during the compliance review. TCS staff reported to the State that for many student IEPs reviewed, school districts reported to be providing transition programs and services, but not documenting the required information that reflects the Committees on Special Education (CSE) recommendations for these transition programs and services on the students' IEPs.

Since the 2005-06 school year, three representative samples of school districts in NYS have reviewed a sample of IEPs by using the State-developed self-review monitoring protocol and reported compliance with each of eight regulatory requirements related to transition IEPs. Results of the self-review and correction of noncompliance is reported through a web-based data submission system. The results of the reviews and status of compliance with regulatory requirements is displayed in the table below.

School Year	Number of School Districts
School Year	Conducted Reviews of IEPs	Reported Some Non Compliance	Corrected Non Compliance Within one Year from Notification	Corrected Non Compliance After one Year from Notification	Not in Compliance to Date
2005-06	108	108	15	76	17*
2006-07	109	100	54	7	39**
2007-08	106***	68	10		58****
Of the 17 school districts, 13 made progress during the 2007-08 school year and corrected some noncompliance; however, they have not corrected compliance with all eight regulatory citations. Of the 39 school districts 27 made progress during the 2007-08 school year and corrected some noncompliance; however, they have not corrected compliance with all eight regulatory citations. 38 of the 106 school districts have reported having 100 percent of their IEPs in full compliance. The State will conduct a verification review of these districts and report any revisions to the number of school districts with noncompliance in the next APR. **These 58 school districts must report correction of noncompliance within a year from notification. They still have time remaining within one year from notification.

Actions taken to correct noncompliance:

Upon submission of results of the self-review monitoring protocol where noncompliance was indicated, each school district received a written notification that it:

must correct the noncompliance as soon as possible, but not later than 12 months of notification;
review a sample of student IEPs to verify correction of noncompliance;
report its correction of noncompliance to the State and that the State would publicly report on the school district's correction of noncompliance in the Special Education School District Data Profiles (see http://eservices.nysed.gov/
sepubrep/); and
would be required to conduct another review of the district's IEPs the following year in order to verify continuing correction of noncompliance (see the schedule of the school years in which school districts must re-submit data on this indicator, posted at https://www.p12.nysed.gov/sedcar/resubschedule.html).

The State directed its TCS to provide technical assistance to the school districts with noncompliance. 86 of the districts listed in the table above as improving their compliance did so with the provision of TCS technical assistance.
The New York City Department of Education’s (NYCDOE) corrective actions included a requirement for a written improvement plan to include professional development and development of additional transition services. VESID provided direct technical assistance to NYCDOE to improve NYC's transition planning results. In May 2008, the State Education Department (SED) and Cornell University presented the use of TransQUAL to NYC IEP specialists, and TCS initiated the TransQUAL workgroup in NYC.

Improvement Activities Completed in 2007-08

VESID accessed federal technical assistance to further inform its activities to improve transition planning for students with disabilities. This included a review of information and resources, including but not limited to information available through the following Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) technical assistance centers: National Post-School Outcome Center (NPSO), National Dropout Prevention Center for Students with Disabilities (NDPC-SD), and National Secondary Transition Technical Assistance Center (NSTTAC). Also see resources accessed as identified for indicator 1.

Activities Completed:

VESID convened three meetings with its funded TCS during 2007-08 to foster communication and collaboration among these regional technical assistance providers on effective practices to improve transition planning outcomes. Data regarding regional performance was shared and strategies discussed to further inform the State's transition improvement activities. Professional development was provided to clarify questions raised by schools regarding acceptability of IEP content.
In collaboration with VESID, NYCDOE implemented three new vocational training programs sponsored by Educational Training Institute for overage and under credited students, and began development of additional programs for 2008-09.
In 2007-08, as part of ongoing efforts to facilitate the transition of students into appropriate post-secondary options, NYCDOE worked collaboratively with VESID and the NYS Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities on making procedural changes to overcome barriers to services eligibility.
The NYC Special Education Quality Assurance (SEQA) office monitoring activities focused on both intermediate and secondary-level schools, including some that were identified as having a graduation rate less than 55 percent for students with disabilities. The Academic Achievement Focused Review examined the schools’ transition activities and services.
Statewide, TCSs provided targeted technical assistance to school districts on effective transition practices, particularly related to student-focused transition planning in the IEPs. In 2007-08, the TCSs actively engaged with school districts in their regions during the self-review process and correction of noncompliance issues. This was done by providing individual technical assistance and through regional professional development sessions. 86 of the districts listed in the table above as improving their compliance did so with the provision of TCS technical assistance.
To assist school districts to prepare for reviews during 2008-09, VESID notified school districts scheduled to report on this indicator in the 2008-09 school year of resources for technical assistance, and the State Performance Plan (SPP) web page for the Indicator 13 Self-Review Protocol was updated during 2007-08, including links to technical assistance resources (https://www.p12.nysed.gov/specialed/spp/indicators/13.htm).
121 school district teams created work plans to improve transition planning and services using TransQUAL Online. TransQUAL Online, funded by VESID, assists school districts to develop strategic work plans to improve development and implementation of transition IEPs (http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/edi/transqual/open-portal.cfm). It also assists a school district to conduct a self-review of its transition IEPs. Since its inception, approximately 51percent of NYS school districts have TransQUAL work plans.
VESID provided direct technical assistance to NYCDOE to improve their transition planning results. In May 2008, SED and Cornell University presented the use of TransQUAL to NYC IEP specialists, and TCS initiated the TransQUAL workgroup in NYC. The workgroup’s goal is to gain individual high school participation with TransQUAL within the boroughs of NYC in order to facilitate the positive growth of transition policies, procedures, and practices at the individual school level. The workgroup meets almost monthly, shares ideas and problem solves, and prepares for TransQUAL trainings within the boroughs.
Throughout 2007-08, work groups of TCSs used the resources of several national technical assistance centers to assist in development of their technical assistance and resource packets, shared with school districts, students and families. This includes NDPC-SD, NPSO, NSTTAC and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Partnership Communities of Practice.
Also see activities completed for Indicator 14.

Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources for FFY 2007 [If applicable]

School districts will be given a due date for correction of noncompliance that is earlier than one year to provide the State an opportunity to enforce the correction of noncompliance not later than one year from the date of notification.
Comprehensive Special Education Information System (CSEIS) will be enhanced to begin tracking correction of noncompliance for this indicator beginning with the first notification of noncompliance being issued. Close tracking through this computerized system will provide SEQA offices with information necessary to enforce correction of noncompliance in individual school districts.