Meeting of the Board of Regents | June 2009

THE STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT / THE UNIVERSITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK / ALBANY, NY 12234

 

 

TO:
FROM:	Rebecca H. Cort
SUBJECT:	Results for Students with Disabilities and Strategies to Improve Performance
DATE:	June 12, 2009
STRATEGIC GOAL:	Goals 1 and 4
AUTHORIZATION(S):

 

 

SUMMARY

 

Issue for Discussion

 

Results for students with disabilities and strategies to improve performance. 

 

Reason for Consideration

 

For discussion.

 

Proposed Handling

 

              This report will come before the VESID committee in June 2009.  The information in this report should be considered in concert with the joint EMSC/VESID Committee report on Policy Issues Concerning Graduation Rates, also to be discussed at the June 2009 Regents meeting.

 

Summary Information

 

The current report presents results on some of the critical outcome measures for students with disabilities from the 2007-08 school year and describes targeted actions VESID is taking to address these results.  VESID uses the results in the areas of graduation, drop out, State assessments and certain compliance issues most related to results for students with disabilities to identify school districts as needing assistance or intervention and school districts identified as “at risk” of such identification.  VESID then directs intervention in these districts through our regional technical assistance network and dissemination of best practices.

 

 

 

RESULTS AND INTERVENTIONS

 

ELA and Math Results:

 

The performance on the ELA and Math assessments demonstrated significant improvements across virtually all grades and subgroups. The most significant gain is in the movement of students from Level 1 to Levels 2 and 3.  However, the levels of proficiency still fall significantly behind the performance on non-disabled peers, especially for students at Grade 8 and the subgroup of students who are both English Language Learners (ELL) and students with disabilities.

 

ELA Results - Grades 3-8:

 

• The number of students with disabilities tested in Grades 3-8 ELA has increased annually from 166,511 in 2005-06 school year to 182,847 in 2008-09. The percentage of students with disabilities achieving proficiency by scoring at Levels 3 or 4 has also increased annually, from 20.2 percent in 2005-06 to 39.3 percent in 2008-09 school year. The greatest percentage point increases between 2005-06 and 2008-09 were in Grades 6 and 7 (i.e., 16.8 to 44.3 and 16.1 to 43.5 percent, respectively).

 

• There has been significant improvement in decreasing the percentage of students with disabilities performing at Level 1. In 2005-06, 34.6 percent of students with disabilities in Grades 3-8 combined were performing at Level 1 compared to 9.2 percent in 2008-09. The most significant improvement occurred in Grades 6 and 8 (i.e., 33.0 to 0.7 and 38.5 to 7.8 percent in Grades 6 and 8, respectively).

 

• There were improvements in students functioning at Levels 3-4 and decreases in students performing at Level 1 in all Need/Resource categories of school districts, in each of the large five cities, in every race/ethnicity category, as well as for each gender.

 

• More students with disabilities met the standard (scoring at Levels 3-4) as they progressed through school. For example, 26.6 percent of third grade students with disabilities in 2005-06 performed at Levels 3-4. In 2009, when they were in 6th grade, 44.3 percent performed at Levels 3-4.

 

• Fewer students with disabilities are scoring at Level 1 (showing serious academic difficulties) as they move through school. For example, 37.3 percent of third grade students with disabilities in 2005-06 performed at Level 1. In 2009, when they were in 6th grade, 0.7 percent performed at Level 1.

 

• The Mean Scale Scores of students with disabilities have been improving steadily in every grade since 2005-06. For example, in Grade 5, the Mean Scale Score in 2005-06 was 622 and in 2008-09, it was 650.

 

English Language Learners (ELL):

 

• Students with disabilities who are ELL are concentrated in NYC.  NYC accounts for approximately 77 percent of all students with disabilities who are also ELL.

 

• Students with disabilities who are also ELL are approximately 11 percent of students with disabilities in Grades 3-8 combined (3 percent in Grades 3 and 4, 12 percent in Grade 5, 10 percent in Grade 6, 9 percent in Grade 7 and 8 percent in Grade 8).  

 

• ELL students with disabilities performance at Levels 3-4 in Grades 3 to 8 ELA is significantly lower than that of students with disabilities who are not ELL. For example, in 2008-09, in Grade 6, 21.1 percent of ELL students with disabilities performed at Levels 3-4 compared to 46.9 percent of students with disabilities who were not ELL.

 

Math Results - Grades 3-8:

 

• The number of students with disabilities tested in Grades 3-8 math has increased annually from 175,785 in 2005-06 school year to 185,541 in 2008-09. The percentage of students with disabilities achieving proficiency by scoring at Levels 3 or 4 has also increased annually, from 30.2 percent in 2005-06 to 58.4 percent in 2008-09 school year. The greatest percentage point increases between 2005-06 and 2008-09 were in Grades 5 and 6 (i.e., 31.6 to 62.4 and 21.6 to 49.7 percent, respectively).

 

• There has been significant improvement in decreasing the percentage of students with disabilities performing at Level 1. In 2005-06, 36.8 percent of students with disabilities in Grades 3-8 combined were performing at Level 1 compared to 11.9 percent in 2008-09. The most significant improvement occurred in Grades 7 and 8 (i.e., 42.1 to 6.7 and 44.4 to 16.2 percent in Grades 7 and 8, respectively).

 

• There were improvements in students functioning at Levels 3-4 and decreases in students performing at Level 1 in all Need/Resource categories of school districts, in each of the large five cities, in every race/ethnicity category, as well as for each gender.

 

• More students with disabilities met the standard (scoring at Levels 3-4) as they progressed through school. For example, 44.8 percent of 4th grade students with disabilities in 2005-06 performed at Levels 3-4. In 2009, when they were in 7th grade, 59.0 percent performed at Levels 3-4.

 

• Fewer students with disabilities are scoring at Level 1 (showing serious academic difficulties) as they move through school. For example, 28.8 percent of 4th grade students with disabilities in 2005-06 performed at Level 1. In 2009, when they were in 7th grade, 6.7 percent performed at Level 1.

 

• The mean scale scores of students with disabilities have been improving steadily in every grade since 2005-06. For example, in Grade 7, the Mean Scale Score in 2005-06 was 640 and in 2008-09, it was 653.

 

Regents Examination Results:

 

• The number of students with disabilities taking and passing the Regents examinations continues to increase.  For example 25,046 students with disabilities took the Regent’s English examination in 2007-08 compared to 22,735 that took it in 2006-07 school year.

 

• More than five times the number of students with disabilities passed the English Regents in 2008 (17,299) as compared to 1997 (3,414).

 

• Based on twelve years of data on the number of students with disabilities tested and the number passing with a score of 55 and above and 65 and above, 65 percent of students with disabilities passed the English Regents examination with a score of 55 and above while 45 percent passed with a score of 65 and above.

 

 

Exiting Data: Graduation and Dropouts Results:

 

• 41.3 percent of students with disabilities graduated from high school with a regular high school diploma within four years, as of June.

 

• 16 percent of students with disabilities in the 2004 cohort dropped out of school.

 

• The number of students with disabilities earning a Regents diploma in the 2007-08 school year was 7,000, up from 5,843 in 2006-07.  More than 13 times as many students with disabilities earned a Regents high school diploma in 2007-08 compared to 1995-96. 

 

• There is a significant gap in the percentage of students with disabilities who graduate from high school based on Need-Resource Capacity category of school districts.  The range in five-year graduation rate for the 2003 cohort of students with disabilities was 26.7 percent in NYC to 80.7 percent in the Low-Need school districts.

 

• There is also a significant gap in the percentage of students with disabilities who drop out of high school based on Need-Resource Capacity category of school districts. The range in five-year dropout rate for the 2003 cohort of students with disabilities was 43.3 percent in the large four cities combined, compared to 5.7 percent in the Low-Need school districts.

 

• The four-year graduation rate for the 2004 total cohort of students with disabilities (41.3 percent) was higher than the four-year graduation rate of the 2003 total cohort of students with disabilities after four years (39.3 percent).

 

• A fifth year in high school helps additional students with disabilities meet graduation requirements who could not meet the requirements within the typical four years.  For example, 39.3 percent of the 2003 total cohort of students with disabilities graduated within four years, and 46.5 percent did so within five years.

 

Interventions to Address Assessment and Graduation Results:

 

Promote District Implementation of Response to Intervention Programs:

 

Both VESID and EMSC have been working together to encourage school districts to implement response to intervention programs.  RtI is a multi-tiered, problem-solving approach that identifies general education students struggling in academic and behavioral areas early and provides them with systematically applied strategies and targeted instruction at varying levels of intervention.  By preventing smaller learning problems from becoming insurmountable gaps, RtI represents an important educational strategy to close achievement gaps for all students, including students at risk, students with disabilities and English language learners.  

 

• In 2008-09, VESID funded a State Technical Assistance Center on Response to Intervention (RtI) at the State College at Buffalo.

 

• The Department will be issuing a guidance document on RtI (currently under stakeholder review) and will shortly be awarding grants to approximately 14 school districts to develop RtI programs. 

 

Identify What Works and Promote Replication:

 

• Through a federal grant project, VESID funds seven regional facilitators located throughout the State, including one in New York City, whose job it is to identify school districts with effective instructional practices for students with disabilities and to document the school district’s actions that led to these practices.  The overall goal of this project is to pair low performing districts with districts with effective practices.

 

• In 2008-09, VESID identified 31 schools/school districts with effective instructional practices leading to improved results for students with disabilities in such areas as literacy instruction, positive behavioral supports and interventions, effective instructional co-teaching practices and transition planning.  

 

• In our work with school districts across the need resource capacities, we have found that those school districts with high or significantly improving performance of students with disabilities on grades 3-8 math and ELA assessments or that met or exceeded the State's target for graduation rates for students with disabilities have many of the following instructional practices in place.  While these examples of effective instructional practices are not exhaustive, it does provide a focus for policy and school improvement emphasis. 

 

• Professional learning communities establish strategies for school personnel to review and refine effective instruction.

 

• Classes co-taught by special and general education teachers at every grade level.

 

• Common planning time for general and special educators.

 

• Implementation of response to intervention programs.

 

• Fewer students placed in special classes.

 

• Literacy instruction across the grades:  Teaching and learning strategies for explicit literacy instruction across the grades and curriculum content areas and dedicated 90-minute periods for literacy instruction. 

 

• Good transition planning processes:  IEPs that are reasonably calculated to prepare students for post-secondary living, working and education; career and technical education programs, internships and community employment experience programs.

 

• Regular guidance meetings:  Meetings with all students with disabilities through the guidance office to ensure they are taking courses to earn the appropriate credits for graduation and to encourage them to stay that 5th and, if necessary, 6th year in order to graduate.

 

• Supplemental instructional support systems:  Programs such as peer tutoring, after-school academic support.

 

• School-wide, classroom, small group and individualized positive behavioral supports:  System-wide behavioral supports, such as "Check and Connect" programs that are structured to maximize personal contact and relationships for students.  In such programs, student levels of engagement (such as attendance, grades, suspensions) are "checked" regularly and used to guide the monitors' efforts to increase and maintain students' "connection" with school.

 

• Systems of progress monitoring:  Teachers using formative assessment and other means of progress monitoring as part of their instructional practices to provide the information needed to adjust teaching and learning while they are happening.

 

 

Transition Planning Results:

 

• Based on a review of 3,225 IEPs of students ages 15 and older from 106 school districts, 58.6 percent had IEPs that included coordinated, measurable annual IEP goals and transition services that will reasonably enable the student to meet the post-secondary goals.  This is an improvement in results over the previous year of 45.8 percent.

 

• Results in New York City significantly improved from the previous year from three percent to 46 percent. 

 

• The participation rate of individuals with disabilities in institutions of higher education remained approximately the same in the last several years (3.7 percent).

 

Interventions to Improve Transition Planning:

 

• VESID monitored approximately 113 school districts this year to ensure that the IEPs include transition services and activities that are reasonably calculated to assist the student to reach his or her post-school outcomes.  Where districts had poor compliance results, VESID directed its funded Transition Coordination Sites to provide technical assistance to these school districts in this process to improve transition planning results.

 

• VESID is increasing its monitoring and enforcement actions with school districts with high rates of noncompliance with transition requirements.

 

• VESID expanded one of its contracts to add a professional development specialist whose responsibility is to provide ongoing, high quality information and training to VESID’s Transition Coordination Site specialists.

 

Suspension Results:

 

Rates of long term suspension of students with disabilities

 

• 9.4 percent of school districts in the State suspended students with disabilities for more than 10 days at a rate of 2.7 percent or higher.  (A rate of 2.7 is two times the baseline statewide average for the long term suspension of students with disabilities as established in 2004-05.)

 

• In the 2007-08 school year, 64 school districts were identified as having a rate of suspending students with disabilities for more than 10 days in the school year that was twice the baseline rate of other school districts in the State. 

 

Interventions to Reduce Suspensions:

 

Promote Positive Behavioral Supports and Interventions (PBIS)

 

• PBIS is a system to improve student academic and behavior outcomes.  Like RtI, PBIS uses a research-based, data-driven process to provide a three-tiered approach to provide all students with positive behavioral supports.  If the behavior of some students is not responsive to these universal supports, more intensive behavioral supports or highly individualized behavioral plans are put into place. 
• NYS-PBIS regional technical assistance centers provided training to approximately 4500 school personnel during 2007-08 through more than 27 distinct trainings encompassing approximately 165 training events. 
• 414 schools are actively implementing PBIS through NYS-PBIS Regional TAC training and technical assistance efforts.
• VESID is expanding the number of behavioral specialists that will be available statewide to assist identified school districts with PBIS implementation.  These behavioral specialists will be included in the new regional technical assistance centers, providing greater coordination of their work with other Department technical assistance providers.

 

NCLB and IDEA Accountability Results:

 

NCLB Requirements Regarding Participation and Performance on State Assessments

 

• 71.3 percent of school districts that were required to make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) made AYP in every grade and subject in which they had sufficient number of students with disabilities.

 

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

 

IDEA Identification of low performing school districts for students with disabilities:

 

• VESID identifies school districts as needing assistance or intervention and school districts identified as “at risk” of such identification, based on the results in the areas of graduation, drop out, State assessments and certain compliance issues most related to results for students with disabilities. 

 

• For the 2009-10 school year, VESID has identified 102 school districts that need assistance or need intervention (31 in New York City and 71 in the rest of the State).  Of these districts,
• • 16 were determined to need assistance or intervention based on low graduation rates for students with disabilities;
  • 25 were identified for high dropout rates for students with disabilities;
  • 44 were identified for both graduation and dropout;
  • 1 was identified for graduation, dropout and compliance reports; and
  • 16 were identified based on transition compliance reports

 

• Over the past two years, 58 school districts that were identified as needing assistance or intervention and that were provided technical assistance through VESID improved to the extent that they no longer meet the criteria for these determinations.

 

• Of the seven school districts identified by the State as having significant disproportionate representation in special education, classification and/or placement that received technical assistance from the State’s technical assistance center on disproportionality (TAC-D at NYU), four school districts improved to the extent that they were no longer identified. 

 

Interventions to Address Accountability and School Improvement:

 

Redesign of Special Education School Improvement Network

 

VESID has redesigned its school improvement network to provide improved coordination and capacity to help sustain changes to their instructional programs that will lead to improved results for students with disabilities.  The new structure, beginning July 1, 2009, will include nine regional special education technical assistance support centers (RSE-TASC) that are aligned with the Joint Management Team regions and one in New York City.  The RSE-TASCs will provide expertise to work with school districts with the poorest performance for students with disabilities in such areas as literacy, behavior, special education instructional practices, transition and bilingual special education.  This restructuring reflects the next step to the evolution of VESID’s existing technical assistance network.  VESID’s oversight role of these centers is to:

 

• Identify the critical conditions for teaching and learning. 

 

• The key questions that guide the work of many of VESID’s technical assistance providers include:
• What is the quality of literacy instruction for students across the grades?
• What behavioral supports are in place school-wide, in classrooms, in small groups and for individual students?
• What is the quality of the special education instruction and supports students are receiving?
• What is the quality of planning for students transitioning from school to post-school?

 

• Match school districts with technical assistance providers to help build their capacity

 

• VESID uses a regional planning process to strategically deploy its technical assistance resources to those districts most in need of improvement. 

 

• A revised regional planning structure will be introduced beginning in July 2009 to establish a regional coordinating council in each of the Joint Management Team regions of the State.

 

• Support our technical assistance providers with research-based tools and high quality professional development

 

• Standard research-based protocols (Quality Indicator Review and Resource Guides in the areas of literacy, behavior and special education instructional practices) are used to guide the assessment of the school district’s instructional programs needed to improve results for students with disabilities.

 

• In 2008-09, VESID provided its school improvement technical assistance providers with extensive professional development, including but not limited to professional development in such areas as:
• Research-based behavioral supports and interventions for at-risk students
• Adolescent literacy instruction
• Teaching self-regulation skills to students with disabilities
• Preparing school systems to use formative assessment and progress monitoring data to guide instruction
• Coaching and building learning communities as strategies to improve instructional practices

 

• Hold districts accountable for improvement

 

• The quality improvement process requires written documentation of anticipated and actual outcomes from the district’s work with VESID’s technical assistance providers, including:
• • changes to the system, instructional practice and capacity of the district to sustain the change; and
  • changes to student outcomes/ results in the areas targeted for instructional change.

 

 

Conclusion and Next Steps:

 

The data on results for students with disabilities has repeatedly shown that in school districts where the results for general education students are high, students with disabilities generally perform better as well.  In school districts with low graduation and high drop out rates for all students, results for students with disabilities are even poorer.  We also know that many, if not most of the school districts identified under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) are identified because of results of the two subgroups of students with disabilities and English Language Learners (ELLs). 

 

Improvement for students with disabilities therefore relies, in great part, on the capacity of the general education program to provide high quality research-based instructional programs and of the special education programs to provide research-based specially-designed instruction and services so that students with disabilities have meaningful opportunities to participate and progress in the general curriculum.  General education and special education are partners in this work to improve results for students with disabilities.  Many of the actions to improve results described in this report are an outgrowth of collaborative work across the Department, including, but not limited to bringing highly qualified teachers to the schools and promoting research based instructional practices such as response to intervention (RtI), use of formative assessments to inform instruction, and positive behavioral supports and interventions (PBIS) - all of which are initiatives to address general education instruction and supports.

 

At the Regents direction, VESID and EMSC are working jointly to implement the recommendations from the Regents Project Management Group to transition to a unified school improvement framework to support the capacity of school districts to raise student achievement.  The restructuring of the P-12 offices to bring together general education and special education will further strengthen and align the work of the Department and increase our capacity to improve outcomes for all students.