February 2009- APR - Indicator 3

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

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

Measurement:

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.
Participation rate =

# of children with IEPs in assessed grades;
# of children with IEPs in regular assessment with no accommodations (percent = [(b) divided by (a)] times 100);
# of children with IEPs in regular assessment with accommodations (percent = [(c) divided by (a)] times 100);
# of children with IEPs in alternate assessment against grade level achievement standards (percent = [(d) divided by (a)] times 100); and
# 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)].

Proficiency rate =
1. # of children with IEPs in assessed grades;
2. # 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);
3. # 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);
4. # 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
5. # 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’s (NYS) Notes:

NYS is not using data reported under section 618 in Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) Table 6 for this indicator because Table 6 data are not consistent with how NYS calculates participation, proficiency and AYP under the No Child Left Behind Act (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 the 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.

71.3 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 2007-08 target of 58 percent of school districts making AYP.

The participation rate of students with disabilities in 2007-08 school year was as follows:

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

The State 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 2007-08 school year, the State's average performance for the students with disabilities subgroup on these indices was as follows:

The State exceeded its 2007 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	Number and 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%
2007 (2007-08)	655 (includes 19 Charter Schools)	467/71.3%

AYP for Students with Disabilities Subgroup by Need/Resource Capacity Category of School Districts
Need/Resource Capacity Category of School Districts	2006-07		2007-08
Need/Resource Capacity Category of School Districts	Number of School Districts Required to Make AYP (minimum 40 students for participation and 30 students for performance)	Percent of School Districts that made AYP in all the Subjects they were Required to	Number of School Districts Required to Make AYP (minimum 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%	32	6.3%
Large Four Cities	4	0.0%	4	0.0%
Urban-Suburban High Need Districts	44	45.5%	43	48.8%
Rural High Need Districts	133	79.7%	123	69.1%
Average Need Districts	309	79.6%	316	74.7%
Low Need Districts	114	92.1%	118	88.1%
Charter Schools	12	91.7%	19	100.0%

Participation Rates for Students with Disabilities Subgroup
Assessment	2005-06		2006-07		2007-08
Assessment	Enrollment	Participation Rate	Enrollment	Participation Rate	Enrollment	Participation Rate
Grade 3-8 ELA	198,410	95%	196,434	96.8%	211,495	96.9%
Grade 3-8 Math	198,074	96%	196,252	96.9%	211,104	96.9%
High School ELA (seniors)	17,321	90%	16,262	92.7%	19,080	94.1%
High School Math (seniors)	17,321	91%	16,262	94.0%	19,080	95.0%

Performance Index for the Students with Disabilities Subgroup
Assessment	2007-08 Performance		2007-08 Standard			Students with Disabilities Made AYP in 2007-08	2008-09 AMO or Safe- Harbor Target
Assessment	Continuously Enrolled Students with Disabilities in Grades 3-8 and in 2004 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 2007-08	2008-09 AMO or Safe- Harbor Target
Grades 3-8 ELA	199,559	115	132	113	Yes	Yes	124
Grades 3-8 Math	197,054	133	101	--	Yes	Yes	119
HS ELA 2004 accountability cohort	24,600	118	164	125	No	No	127
HS Math 2004 accountability cohort	24,600	125	158	134	No	No	133

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

The State far exceeded its 2007 target for the percentage of school districts that would make AYP in all subjects in which they were required to. In the 2006-07 school year, 75.5 percent of the required school districts (including Charter Schools) made AYP and in the 2007-08 school year, 71.3 percent of school districts (including Charter Schools) made AYP. The target for the 2007-08 school year was 58 percent.

The State met or exceeded the participation target of 95 percent in grades 3-8 ELA and math and for the first time for a high school subject, high school math; however, the State did not achieve 95 percent participation rate in high school ELA. Compared to two previous years, the 2007 participation rate either remained the same or improved in all subjects and grades.

The State exceeded its performance target in 2007 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 18 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 improved by one point and math declined by two 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, two community school districts in New York City (NYC) made AYP, none of the large four cities made AYP, and less than half of the urban-suburban high need districts made AYP compared to 69 percent of rural high need districts, 75 percent of average need school districts and 88 percent of low need school districts and 100 percent of Charter schools.

The Office of Vocational and Educational Services for Individuals with Disabilities (VESID) obtained technical assistance from the OSEP National Technical Assistance Center on Response to Intervention (RtI), the National Instructional Materials Accessibility Standards (NIMAS) Technical Assistance Center, the National Center on Student Progress Monitoring and the New York Comprehensive Center to further inform and advance the State's initiatives in this area.

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