1005emscvesidd2

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

TO:	EMSC – VESID Committee
FROM:	Rebecca H. Cort
SUBJECT:	Special Education State Performance Plan
DATE:	October 6, 2005
STRATEGIC GOAL:	Goals 1 and 2
AUTHORIZATION(S):

SUMMARY

Issue for Discussion

Discussion of the State Performance Plan and Annual Performance Report required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) 2004.

Reason(s) for Consideration

Required by federal statute and regulation.

Proposed Handling

This item provides information to the Board of Regents about new requirements in IDEA relating to State Performance Plans and Annual Performance Reports on educational and functional outcomes for students with disabilities.

Procedural History

Public Law 108-446, (IDEA 2004) added new requirements for State Performance Plans and Annual Performance Reports which require states to set targets and measure performance on special education priority areas identified by the U.S. Department of Education (USDE). Consistent with the federal statute, the State Education Department (SED) must develop a six-year State Performance Plan that is subject to approval by the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) at USDE. Each year the State must prepare and publish its Annual Performance Report (APR) and report publicly on each local educational agency’s (LEA) performance on the targets.

Background Information

The State Performance Plan is designed to evaluate the State's efforts to implement the requirements and purposes of IDEA and describe how the State will improve its implementation. USDE has established three monitoring priorities that must be addressed in the State’s Performance Plan:

1. Free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment;

2. Disproportionality; and

3. Effective general supervision.

There are 20 indicators relating to the priority areas for which the State must report on baseline data, establish measurable and rigorous targets for a six-year period and identify specific strategies and resources to improve performance on each indicator. The new requirements in IDEA relating to State Performance Plans and Annual Performance Reports have significant implications to the State and to LEAs for data collection, analysis and reporting, establishing measurable and rigorous targets and implementing both improvement strategies and possible sanctions.

Desired Outcome

The Board of Regents should provide input on addressing the issues identified in the attached report relating to the development of the State Performance Plan as well as on the proposed next steps for completing the Plan.

Timetable for Implementation

The State Performance Plan must be submitted for approval to OSEP at USDE by December 2, 2005. The first Annual Performance Report will be due on February 1, 2007.

Attachment

SPECIAL EDUCATION STATE PERFORMANCE PLAN REQUIREMENTS

Public Law 108-446, (IDEA 2004) added new requirements for State Performance Plans and Annual Performance Reports which require states to set targets and measure performance on special education priority areas identified by the U.S. Department of Education (USDE). Consistent with the federal statute, the State Education Department (SED) must develop a six-year State Performance Plan that is subject to approval by the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) at USDE. Each year the State must prepare and publish its Annual Performance Report (APR) and report publicly on each local educational agency’s (LEA) performance on the targets.

USDE has established three monitoring priorities that must be addressed in the State Performance Plan: free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment, disproportionality, and effective general supervision. There are 20 indicators relating to the priority areas. (See Attachment A.) Indicators are statements that are used to help quantify and/or qualify a monitoring priority. For each of the indicators, the State must establish measurable and rigorous targets for improvement over a six-year period of time. Attached is a list of the monitoring priorities and indicators that must be included in the State’s Performance Plan. These are the areas that will be the focus of the State’s data collection and reporting, special education monitoring and school improvement efforts over the next six years.

· Data Collection and Analysis

For most indicators, OSEP has identified the measures and baseline year we must use to evaluate State and LEA progress towards achieving our targets. New York has established mechanisms to collect the required data for some indicators; however, the State will need to establish new data collection mechanisms for many other indicators. The new mechanisms may be through sampling, monitoring or statewide data collection systems. If the State uses sampling or monitoring as its data source, the State must select a representative sample of the State and sample on the performance of each LEA on each of the indicators at least once every six years.

· Measurable and Rigorous Targets

For each of the indicators, measurable and rigorous targets must be established for each year of the six-year period. The targets must be established with broad stakeholder input, and specify the challenging levels of improved performance to be reached within a particular timeframe.

· Improvement Strategies

All targets must be supported by an action plan that includes strategies describing how the targets will be achieved. Improvement strategies must be specific and reasonably designed to assist the State in meeting targets. The Office of Vocational and Educational Services for Individuals with Disabilities (VESID) is engaged in a prioritization process to identify specific improvement strategies directly relating to the indicators and to realign its resources accordingly. The requirements of the State Performance Plan add a new urgency to completing this process.

· Broad Stakeholder Input

The State Performance Plan, including its targets and improvement strategies, must be developed with broad stakeholder input. During the month of October, we will be working with various stakeholder groups to prepare New York’s State Performance Plan, including the following representative groups:

o Special Education Training and Resource Center Staff Development Specialists and Regional Resource Centers;

o Parents and Parent Organizations;

o Commissioner’s Advisory Panel for Special Education;

o Conference on the Big 5 School Districts;

o Representatives of the NYC Department of Education;

o Committee on Special Education Chairpersons – Capital Region; and

o Broad stakeholder organizations (e.g., unions, school boards, district superintendents, superintendents, professional organizations, approved private schools, and representatives from the Office of Elementary, Middle, Secondary and Continuing Education (EMSC)).

· Public Availability of the State Performance Plan

Upon submission to OSEP, the State must make its State Performance Plan available to the public, including posting on the Department’s website, distribution to the media and distribution through public agencies.

Annual Performance Report

The Annual Performance Report, the first of which will be due on February 1, 2007, must:

o provide data on the actual performance against the targets established in the State Performance Plan;

o include a discussion of improvement activities completed and explanation of progress or slippage;

o provide any revisions to approved targets, improvement activities, timelines or resources with justifications; and

o identify how the State will report annually to the public on its performance and on the performance of each LEA on the targets in the State Performance Plan.

In addition, the Annual Performance Report must include baseline data, targets and improvement strategies for indicators that OSEP identified as “new indicators” (i.e., indicators for which we do not have 2004-05 baseline data). This means that for each of these new indicators, we must establish our data source and begin collecting data in the upcoming school year.

The State must report annually to the public on the performance of the State and each LEA on the targets in the State Performance Plan. Performance reports must also be made available on the Department’s web site and through the media.

Enforcement

There are enforcement actions, and potential sanctions, directly linked to the State’s Performance Plan. IDEA requires USDE to monitor states and requires states to monitor the LEAs using quantifiable indicators in each priority area, and using qualitative indicators as necessary to adequately measure performance. IDEA identifies the enforcement actions that USDE must take with the State, and that the State must take with LEAs. The need for enforcement actions must be based on the information provided by the State in the State’s Performance Plan, information obtained through monitoring visits and any other public information made available. IDEA establishes three levels of enforcement action, including identification of LEAs needing assistance, intervention or substantial intervention in implementing the IDEA requirements, and the enforcement actions associated with each level.

Issues and Next Steps

VESID is committed to ensuring an accurate, valid and reliable system of accountability to improve results for students with disabilities. We embrace IDEA’s emphasis on accountability and the use of public reporting as a means to effect improved results for students with disabilities. Our State’s special education improvement actions will be reinforced and expanded through broad data collection, reporting and targeted improvement strategies to improve education results and functional outcomes for students with disabilities.

However, there are challenges we must address to develop and implement a high quality State Performance Plan within the very tight timelines required by USDE. The implications for SED, preschool programs, school districts and our funded networks throughout this State are significant and require a collaborative effort and the availability of resources across many units of the Department. The major issues include the following:

· We need to immediately identify and implement new processes for data collection, reporting and analysis for those new indicators where we have no current reporting mechanisms or baseline data. There are nine new indicators. We must identify the processes to measure these indicators by the time we submit our State Performance Plan in December 2005 and be prepared to report baseline data for the 2005-06 school year in our Annual Performance Report due in February 2007. If we use sampling, we must sample each school district in the State at least once during the six-year period of the State Performance Plan. The following four indicators present unique challenges:

Parent Involvement: This indicator requires us to annually survey and report data on the percent of parents with a child receiving special education services reporting that schools facilitated their involvement as a means of improving services and results for children with disabilities.

Disproportionality: These indicators require us to annually report (1) the percent of school districts identified with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services that is the result of inappropriate identification and (2) the percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories resulting from inappropriate identification. VESID must revise its monitoring process to incorporate a review of a school district’s policies and procedures prior to identifying a school district as having disproportionality.

Preschool Outcomes: This indicator requires us to annually report data on the percent of preschool children with individualized education programs (IEPs) who demonstrate improved positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships); improved acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/communication and early literacy); and improved use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs. For each of these areas, we must report on the percent of preschool children who reach or maintain functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers and the percent of children who did and did not demonstrate improvement.

Post-School Outcomes: This indicator requires us to report data on 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 high school.

· The development and implementation of new data collection instruments and procedures now, for the 2005-06 school year, constitute a substantial new responsibility for both SED and school districts. In order to help ensure data quality, it will be necessary to make available extensive technical assistance and training. In addition, we must identify those data elements for all students with disabilities that should be incorporated into the individual student record system and expedite the process for including these data in future years.

· The need for targeted compliance and improvement strategies requires VESID to prioritize our activities and realign our staff and fiscal resources to ensure capacity to implement the required data collection, analysis, reporting, and monitoring as well as improvement activities. VESID’s Special Education personnel are actively involved in a strategic planning process to identify essential improvement strategies directly linked to improving outcomes and realigning resources to meet these new demands. Our resources are challenged to meet the new requirements in IDEA, including the State Performance Plan requirements, and to continue our current activities. We will need to continue to maximize the contribution of our funded networks and joint EMSC/VESID school improvement activities.

· The requirement for public reporting will be challenging, as the report for each LEA must include reports of performance on 14 different indicators, and each of the indicators will require explanation. We will benchmark with other states in this process, and explore ways to streamline this reporting process with other Department public reports such as school district report cards.

· The setting of performance targets that reflect reasonable but challenging expectations across many indicators, some without current reliable trend information, is complex and can be threatening to some stakeholders, especially given the possible repercussions from the USDE if there is a failure to meet those targets. We must identify both our six-year goal and the rate of expected annual progress toward that goal.

Timetable for Implementation

The timetable for development of the State Performance Plan and Annual Performance Report is outlined below.

Outcome	Timetable
Identify and analyze baseline data for indicators that must have 2004-05 baseline data.	September 2005
Identify data sources for indicators that must have 2005-06 baseline data.	September 2005
Obtain broad stakeholder input in establishing six-year targets and improvement activities.	October 2005
Submit State Performance Plan to USDE for approval	December 1, 2005
Make State Performance Plan publicly available	December 2005
Collect baseline data for new indicators	2005-06 school year
Prepare Annual Performance Report	December 2005 – January 2007
Annual Performance Report due to OSEP	February 1, 2007
Public reporting on performance of State and each LEA on meeting the targets	Winter - Spring 2007

Attachment

Attachment A: Part B State Performance Plan

Monitoring Priorities and Indicators[1]

* Starred items are new indicators for which baseline data will be reported for the 2005-06 school year. For these indicators, baselines will be reported in February 2007 in the APR and targets will be established for a five-year period. For all other indicators, the State must report baseline data for the 2004-05 school year.

Priority: Free Appropriate Public Education in the Least Restrictive Environment

1) Percent of youth with individual 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.

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.

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

(a) Percent of districts meeting the State’s annual yearly progress (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.

4) Rates of suspension and expulsion:

(a) Percent of districts identified by the State as having a significant discrepancy in the rate 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.

5) Percent of children with IEPs ages 6 through 21:

(a) Removed from regular class less than 21 percent of the day;

(b) Removed from regular class greater than 60 percent of the day; or

6) Percent of preschool children with IEPs who receive special education and related services in settings with typically developing peers (e.g., early childhood settings, home, and part-time early childhood/part-time early childhood special education settings).

7) *Percent of preschool children with IEPs who demonstrate improved:

(a) Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships);

(b) Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/communication and early literacy); and

8) *Percent of parents with a child receiving special education services who report that schools facilitated parent involvement as a means of improving services and results for children with disabilities.

Priority: Disproportionality

9) *Percent of districts identified with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services that is the result of inappropriate identification.

10) *Percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories that is the result of inappropriate identification.

Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B

Child Find

11) *Percent of children with parental consent to evaluate, who were evaluated and eligibility determined within 60 days.

Effective Transitions

12) Percent of children referred by Part C (Early Intervention Services) prior to age three (3), who are found eligible for Part B, and who have IEPs developed and implemented by their third birthdays.

13) *Percent of youth aged 16 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.

14) *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 high school.

General Supervision

For the following indicators, the State must report data on its progress toward meeting the targets, but is not required to report on the local educational agency’s (LEA’s) progress.

15) 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.

16) Percent of signed written complaints with reports issued that were resolved within 60-day timeline or a timeline extended for exceptional circumstances with respect to a particular complaint.

17) Percent of fully adjudicated due process hearing requests that were fully adjudicated within the 45-day timeline or a timeline that is properly extended by the hearing officer at the request of either party.

18) *Percent of hearing requests that went to resolution sessions that were resolved through resolution session settlement agreements.

19) Percent of mediations held that resulted in mediation agreements.

20) State reported data (618) and State Performance Plan and Annual Performance Report are timely and accurate.

[1] OSEP has identified the monitoring priorities and indicators and in some cases the measurement and targets for which all states and local educational agencies will be held accountable. These indicators cannot be revised by states.

EMSC – VESID Committee