Meeting of the Board of Regents | February 2008

TO:

VESID Committee

FROM:

Rebecca H. Cort 

SUBJECT:

Special Education Annual Performance Report

DATE:

January 29, 2008

STRATEGIC GOAL:

Goals 1 and 2

AUTHORIZATION(S):

1.     Graduation Rate

Baseline data: 2001 total cohort of students with disabilities after four years (as of June 30): 37.9%

2002 total cohort of students with disabilities after four years (as of June 30): 37.5%

2003 total cohort of students with disabilities after four years (as of June 30):  Data are not yet available.

2006-07 target for the 2003 total cohort is 37%

Analysis is pending release of State data.

Using 2005-06 data, in June 2007, SED identified 69 school districts, (New York City being counted as one) having the lowest performance on Indicators 1, 2 and 3, categorized their needs for assistance and targeted improvement activities based on the levels of intervention required.

Directed technical assistance to identified school to improve instructional programs in  literacy, behavioral supports and effective special education services.

2.     Drop-Out Rate

Baseline data: 2001 total cohort of students with disabilities after four years (as of June 30): 25.5%

2002 total cohort of students with disabilities after four years (as of June 30): 22.2%

2003 total cohort of students with disabilities after four years (as of June 30):  Data are not yet available.

2006-07 target for the 2003 total cohort is 19%

Analysis is pending release of State data.

3.     Assessment

Baseline data: 2005-06 school year results for students with disabilities subgroup:

·  Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) - 57.6% of districts made AYP in all required subjects.

·   Participation – 95% and 96% in Grades 3-8 ELA and math, respectively; 90% and 91% in high school ELA and math, respectively.

·   Proficiency – Performance Index scores of 91 and 100 in Grades 3-8 ELA and Math, respectively, and 114 and 124 in high school ELA and math, respectively.

2006-07 school year results:

• AYP – 75.5% of districts (including Charter Schools) made AYP in all required subjects.
• Participation – 96.8% and 96.9% in Grades 3-8 ELA and math, respectively; 92.7% and 94.0% in high school ELA and math, respectively.
• Proficiency – Performance Index scores of 103 and 115 in Grades 3-8 ELA and Math, respectively, and 117 and 127 in high school ELA and math, respectively.

Targets for 2006-07:

AYP: 57% of districts will make

AYP in all required subjects for students with disabilities subgroup.

Participation: 95% at every level.

Score on each Performance Index for students with disabilities subgroup will improve by 5 points.

The State made significant progress and far exceeded its target on the percent of school districts that made AYP in all subjects in which they were required to. The percentage improved from 57.6% to 75.5%.

The State met the 95 percent participation rate target in Grades 3-8 ELA and math and made improvement in high school ELA and math, however did not achieve the target of 95 percent required under NCLB.

The State exceeded its target score on Grades 3-8 ELA and math performance indices, but did not achieve its target of improving by five points on the high school ELA and math performance indices for the students with disabilities subgroup. However, there was improvement of three points on each high school index.

4.   Suspension rate (for more than 10 days out of school in a single school year)

Baseline data: In 2004-05 school year, 20 school districts or 2.9% of all school districts had a significant discrepancy in their suspension rate compared to other school districts. Their rate was 4.0 percent or higher, which is three times or more than the baseline Statewide average suspension rate of 1.34%.

In 2005-06 school year, 17 school districts or 2.5% of all school districts had a rate that was 4.0 percent or higher.

In 2006-07 school year, 16 school districts or 2.3% of all school districts had a rate that was 4.0 percent of higher.

The target for 2006-07 school year was that  0% of school districts will have a suspension rate that is 4.0 percent or higher.

The State did not meet its target, although the number of school districts with a suspension rate that is 4.0% or higher decreased by 1 school district.

Identified districts are required to review (using a State monitoring protocol) and, as appropriate, revise their policies, practices and procedures related to discipline of students with disabilities and report correction of noncompliance to the State.

Revised State regulations relating to behavioral interventions.

State funded Positive Behavioral Interventions and Support (PBIS) project staff provide technical assistance to schools.

Developed "Quality Indicator Review and Resource Guides" to review and guide school improvement of school wide, classroom, small group and individualized behavior supports and services in identified districts.

5.   Least Restrictive Environment – for school-age students

Baseline data in 2004-05 school year:

·   53.6% of students with disabilities were in general education programs for 80% or more of the day.

·   27.3% of students with disabilities were in general education programs for less than 40% of the day.

·   7.0% of students with disabilities were in separate settings (i.e., settings which include only students with disabilities).

Data in 2005-06 school year:

·   54.5% of students with disabilities were in general education programs for 80% or more of the day.

·   25.5% of students with disabilities were in general education programs for less than 40% of the day.

·   6.9% of students with disabilities were in separate settings (i.e., settings which include only students with disabilities).

Data in 2006-07 school year*:

·   53.1% of students with disabilities were in general education programs for 80% or more of the day.

·   24.6% of students with disabilities were in general education programs for less than 40% of the day.

·   6.8% of students with disabilities were in separate settings (i.e., settings which include only students with disabilities).

*USED revised the categories for reporting least restrictive environment (LRE) settings data. Students with disabilities who are home schooled, parentally placed in nonpublic schools or incarcerated were reported in their own categories. Previously these students were reported “in general education programs for 80% or more of the school day.”

The 2006-07 targets were:

• More than 55% of students in general education programs for 80% or more of the day;
• Less than 26% of students in general education programs for less than 40% of the day; and
• Less than 6.5% of students in separate settings.

The State did not make its target in the third LRE category.

The State met its target in the second LRE category listed above and would have met its target in the first category as well had USED not changed the LRE reporting categories.

The State will revise its targets for this indicator for 2007-08 through 2010-11 school years, to reflect the change in LRE reporting categories.

Targeted technical assistance, professional development, quality assurance reviews and regional space planning.

Revised regulations on the provision of consultant teacher and resource room services and added integrated co-teaching services to promote delivery of special education services in the general education classrooms.

Monitor regional data on placements of students with disabilities in separate sites and provide funding support to specific regions for initiatives to reduce such placements.

6.   Least Restrictive Environment – preschool students

USED revised the preschool LRE reporting categories in 2006-07. The new categories are under review and until further information is available, states have been asked not to include this indicator in the 2006 APR.

7.   Preschool Outcomes*

*In the 2006-07 school year, 87 school districts reported progress data on preschool children with disabilities who participated in preschool special education programs for at least six months prior to leaving preschool special education during that school year.

Progress data - 2006-07 school year:

• Positive social emotional skills (including social relationships)
• • Percent of preschool children who did not improve functioning: 3.2%
  • Percent of preschool children who improved, but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-aged peers: 14.5%
  • Percent of preschool children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it: 24.6%
  • Percent of preschool children who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers: 28.0%
  • Percent of preschool children who maintained functioning at a level  comparable to same aged peers: 29.6%
• Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills
• • Percent of preschool children who did not improve functioning: 2.3%
  • Percent of preschool children who improved, but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-aged peers: 15.7%
  • Percent of preschool children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it: 26.2%
  • Percent of preschool children who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers: 31.2%
  • Percent of preschool children who maintained functioning at a level  comparable to same aged peers: 24.6%

• Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs
• • Percent of preschool children who did not improve functioning: 3.1%
  • Percent of preschool children who improved, but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-aged peers: 13.5%
  • Percent of preschool children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it: 19.8%
  • Percent of preschool children who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers: 27.5%
  • Percent of preschool children who maintained functioning at a level  comparable to same aged peers: 36.0%

To be established in 2008

Early Childhood Direction Centers technical assistance to families, school districts and preschool providers. 

Longitudinal Study of Preschool Students

USNY Cabinet on Early Childhood Education

Developing standards, performance indicators, curricula and an assessment process for all preschool children (P-16 initiative)

Implement recommendations from Report from the Governor’s Temporary Task Force on Preschool to enhance knowledge and skills of Committee on Preschool Special Education (CPSE) members, program providers and parents; review continuum of special education services for preschool students, improve process to measure preschool outcomes, and encourage development of universal preschool programs for three and four year old preschool children with disabilities .    

• Parental Involvement*

* Results were based on surveys from 7,956 parents representing 113 schools including NYC as a single district.

Baseline data - 2005-06 school year:

86.9% of parents with a child receiving special education services reported that schools facilitated parent involvement as a means of improving services and results for students with disabilities.

2006-07 school year:

86.9% of parents with a child receiving special education services reported that schools facilitated parent involvement as a means of improving services and results for students with disabilities.

Target for the 2006-07 school year was 87%.

Results in 2006-07 were exactly the same as in 2005-06.  State did not reach its target, which was to improve performance by 0.1 percentage point.

VESID funds three parent centers located in NYC, Long Island and Western NY.  VESID plans to expand parent centers to other regions of the State within the next two years.

Parents' Guide to Special Education is being revised

VESID facilitated quarterly meetings with the Parent Learning Community in 2006-07

9.    Disproportionality in Special Education by Race/Ethnicity

2004-05 school year data: 1.2% of school districts in the State (8 school districts) were found to have significant disproportionate over-identification of students with disabilities as a result of inappropriate special education policies, practices and procedures.

2005-06 school year data: Seven school districts’ data were significantly disproportionate.  Six of these school districts reported having inappropriate special education policies, practices and procedures. The State will do a verification review of one school district’s report of 100 percent compliance. School districts have one year from notification to make corrections to their policies, practices and procedures. 

2006-07 school year data: Five school district’s data were significantly disproportionate. These school districts will be notified this school year and required to conduct the self review monitoring protocol. They will report results of their review to the State by August 31, 2008.

USED has required the State to identify under-representation in special education, by race/ethnicity. The State is researching criteria to identify under-representation in order to identify a manageable number of school districts. 

Target is 0% of school districts  with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services that is the result of inappropriate identification.

The State continues to work toward achieving its target by ensuring school districts with disproportionate data have their policies, practices and procedures for identification of students reviewed and, when necessary, corrected.

All districts whose data indicates significant disproportionality must use 15% of its IDEA Part B funds to address the problem leading to the disproportionality. 

SED requires districts to use a State-developed monitoring protocol to review its policies, practices and procedures, and requires districts with inappropriate policies, procedures and practices to take corrective actions and publicly report the corrections.

VESID contracts with New York University (Metro Center) to assist the districts in addressing issues of disproportionality in special education.  This project was expanded this year to provide technical assistance to support additional districts identified with disproportionality and to enhance the regional knowledge and skills to work with school districts on disproportionality issues.   

10. Disproportionality in Classifications* by Race Ethnicity

*by disability categories of learning disability, emotional disturbance, mental retardation, speech and language impairment, autism and other health impairment.

 2004-05 school year data: 1.8% of school districts in the State (12 school districts) were found to have significant disproportionate over identification of students in specific disability as a result of inappropriate special education policies, practices and procedures.

2005-06 school year data: 1% of school districts in the State (7 school districts) were found to have significant disproportionate over identification of students by specific disability as a result of inappropriate special education policies, practices and procedures.

2006-07 school year data: 12 school districts' data were significantly disproportionate. These school districts will be notified this school year and required to conduct the self review monitoring protocol. They will report results of their review to the State by August 31, 2008.

USED has required the State to identify under-representation in special education, by race/ethnicity. The State is researching criteria to identify under-representation in order to identify a manageable number of school districts. 

Target is 0% of school districts  with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in  specific disability category  that is the result of inappropriate identification

Same as Indicator #9

11. Child Find

Evaluations within State required timelines.

New Baseline Data in 2006-07 school year: 64.2% of students received their initial evaluations within State required timelines.

·       78.4% for school-age students

·       44.2% for preschool children

Target for every year is 100%.

The State modified its calculation method to be more consistent with the method required by USED. Data from last year are not comparable.

Districts with less than 100% compliance are required to take corrective actions to ensure all evaluations are completed within the State required timelines.  The data submitted included reasons for delays in meeting the timelines.  These reasons are being analyzed to inform policy and State improvement activities.

12. Early Childhood Transition

(new indicator)

Baseline data - 2005-06 school year: 86.5% of children in the State who were referred by early intervention (EI) (Part C) prior to age 3 and who were found eligible for preschool special education (Part B), had an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthday, after accounting for all the legitimate reasons for delays in determination of eligibility and implementation of IEPs. 

2006-07 school year data: 73.8%

Target for every year is 100%. 

The State did not meet its target. Changes were made to the data collection instrument, which permitted a more precise measure. It is possible that last year’s result was somewhat inflated.

Districts with less than 100% compliance will be required to take corrective actions to ensure all evaluations are completed within the State required timelines.  The data submitted included reasons for delays in meeting the timelines.  These reasons are being analyzed to inform policy and State improvement activities.

13. Secondary Transition*

* In 2006-07 school year, a monitoring review was conducted of 3,376 IEPs from a representative sample of 1/6 of the school districts in the State (109 school districts, including NYC counted as one school district).

Baseline data - 2005-06 school year: 32.2% of youth aged 15 and above had an IEP that included coordinated, measurable, annual IEP goals and transition services that will reasonably enable the student to meet the post-secondary goals.

2006-07 school year: 45.8%

Target for every year is 100%.

Even though the State did not meet its target, there was significant improvement from 32.2 percent to 45.8 percent.

Schools reporting less than 100% compliance are required to take corrective action. 

Transition Coordination Sites are working with schools on improvement activities.  Examples include:

- collaborative review and planning process for school districts suing TransQUAL Online Tool

- improving connections with vocational rehabilitation services

- job coach training

- facilitated development of community-based work programs

- transition planning workshops for students

Model Transition Project funded in 60 consortia of school districts throughout the State to build capacity for in-school career preparation and transition to adult living, working and education. 

14. Post-School Outcomes*

*Based on federal measures of the percent of youth who had IEPs, are no longer in secondary school and who have been competitively employed, enrolled in some type of postsecondary school, or both, within one year of leaving school.

  

2,917 students with disabilities exited school during the 2005-06 school year from a representative sample of 107 school districts.  1,908 students responded to the survey.

Baseline data – 2006-07.

Of 2,917 students who exited school in the 2005-06 school year, 1,908 responded to the State’s interview survey of post school outcomes.  Of the responders

• 29% reported they were competitively employed (547 students)
• 17% reported they were enrolled in some post-secondary school, education or training program only (318 students)
• 46% reported they were both competitively employed and enrolled in some postsecondary school, education, or training program (882 students)

92 percent of students who responded to the State’s survey interviews reported they were competitively employed and/or enrolled in some type of postsecondary school within one year of leaving, even if for just one day.

Students who dropped out of school and minority students from upstate school districts were significantly underrepresented in the pool of student responders.

Model Transition Project funded in 60 consortia of school districts throughout the State to build capacity for in-school career preparation and transition to adult living, working and education. 

Improved access to and participation in Career and Technical Education (CTE) Programs for students with disabilities.

Steps will be taken to improve response rates from under represented groups.

• General Supervision System (including monitoring, complaints, hearings, etc.) identifies and corrects noncompliance as soon as possible but in no case later than one year from identification.

In 2004-05, 81.20% of compliance issues were corrected within one year.

In 2005-06, 83.71% of compliance issues were corrected within one year.

In 2006-07 91.41% of compliance issues were corrected in one year.

Target for every year is 100%.

In 2006-07, there was significant improvement in correcting noncompliance within one year.

The web-based Comprehensive Special Education Information System (CSEIS) was implemented in January of 2007.

Electronic status reports, and timely notice of upcoming due dates, for districts' correction of noncompliance allowed staff to more easily track the status of noncompliance.

16. Resolution of State Complaints

2004-05:  94.8% of written signed complaints were fully processed within the 60-day timeline or approved extension.

2005-06: 95.3% of written signed complaints fully processed within the 60-day timeline or approved extension.

2006-07: 82.8% of written signed complaints fully processed within the 60-day timeline or approved extension.

Target for every year is 100%. 

The State did not make progress toward the target.

Developing revised State complaint procedures and training; improve data tracking of complaint resolution; address regional staffing shortages.

17. Timeliness of Impartial Hearings*

* 45-days for school age impartial hearing

* 30-days for preschool impartial hearings

2004-05: 83.5% of fully adjudicated due process hearing requests were fully adjudicated within the required timeline or a timeline that is properly extended by the hearing officer at the request of either party.

2005-06: 83.4% of fully adjudicated due process hearing requests were fully adjudicated within the required timeline or a timeline that is properly extended by the hearing officer at the request of either party.

2006-07: 79.6% of adjudicated due process hearing requests were completed within the required timeline or a timeline that is properly extended by the hearing officer at the request of either party.

Target for every year is 100%.

The State did not make progress toward the target.

VESID’s increased monitoring has reduced the number of late decisions from 201 in 2005-06 to 165 in 2006-07.  However the total number of decisions has also decreased, negatively affecting the percentage of timely hearings.

Continue to monitor data on timeliness and target its training efforts on a limited number of hearing officers.

Two-day training sessions for all impartial hearing officers scheduled in 2008.

18. Resolution Sessions

2005-06: Based on data collected for one quarter of the school year, 17.7% of hearing requests that went to resolution sessions were resolved through resolution session settlement agreements.

2006-07: 10.36 % of percent of hearing requests that went to resolution sessions were resolved through resolution session settlement agreements.

Target for 2006-07 is one percentage point increase. 

2006-07 is the first full year of data collection for resolution session.  The State's regulations adding resolution session were first adopted in 2006.

19. Mediation

In 2004-05, 95.5% of mediations held resulted in mediation agreements.

In 2005-06, 95.0% of mediations held resulted in mediation agreements.

In 2006-07: 90.64% of mediations held resulted in mediation agreements.

Target for 2006-07 is 95%.

The State did not make progress toward the target.

It was anticipated that as the use of resolution sessions increases as a means to resolve disputes prior to an impartial hearing, the number of disputes resolved through mediation would decrease.

The contract for mediation is being revised to provide for additional training for mediators to improve their knowledge of special education issues.

VESID published a sample form to assist parents to request mediation prior to a request for an impartial hearing.

20. State Reported Data (618 and SPP and APR) are timely and accurate.

2005-06 school year data:

The State had delays in submitted data for Indicators 1, 2, and 3.

2006-07 school year data:

The State has delays in submitting data for indicators 1 and 2. A new rubric provided by USED results in the State’s self assessment score of 92.2 percent of data being complete, accurate and timely.

The State's target is that 100% of State reported data, including 618 data and APRs, are submitted on or before due dates and are accurate.

The State did not meet its target, but made progress.

The collection of almost all of the required special education data will convert to the Student Information Repository System (SIRS). This is a major systems change, which in the short run may diminish the quality of special education data, however, in the long run has promise to greatly enhance our ability to have more accurate and  timely data and in a format to permit in more depth analysis.