|
Table
FAPE.II |
Cluster Area IV:
Free Appropriate Public Education in the Least
Restrictive Environment |
|
|
Question: |
Do all children with disabilities
receive a free appropriate public education in the least
restrictive environment that promotes a high quality education and
prepares them for employment and independent living? |
|
|
Probe
FAPE.II: |
Are high
school graduation rates, and drop-out rates, for children with disabilities
comparable to graduation rates and drop-out rates for nondisabled children? |
|
|
State Goal:* |
All students
will meet high standards for academic performance and personal
behavior and demonstrate the knowledge and skills required by a
dynamic world.
-
Students
receiving special education services will meet high educational
standards.
-
Students with
disabilities will be integrated with their nondisabled peers
throughout their educational experience.
-
Individuals
with disabilities will participate successfully in postsecondary
education.
|
|
|
Performance Indicator(s): |
- Increase the percentage of
students earning Regents, Local or High School Equivalency
diplomas.
- Decrease the percentage of
students dropping out.
|
|
- Background/Trend Data
(for reporting period
July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2003. Use Attachments 2 and 3
when completing this cell.):
Data definition of
Need/Resource Capacity categories of school districts: (See
Appendix 38).
- Data on diploma rates for
students with disabilities: (See Appendix 39).
- Data on diploma rates for
students with disabilities by N/RC: (See
Appendix 40).
- Data on diploma rates for
students with disabilities by N/RC and other groupings of
school districts: (See Appendix
22a).
- Data on dropout rates for
all students and students with disabilities: (See
Appendix 41).
- Data on dropout rates of
students with disabilities by N/RC: (See
Appendix 42).
- Data on dropout rates of
students with disabilities by N/RC and other groupings of
school districts: (See Appendix
43b).
- Data on dropout rates of
students with disabilities in High N/RC districts compared
to other school districts: (See
Appendix 43a).
|
- Targets
(for reporting period
July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2003):
- 80 percent of students
receiving special education services who complete secondary
education will exit with a Regents, Local or High School
Equivalency Diploma.
- Decrease the percent of
students receiving special education services who drop out
before exiting with a Regents, Local, High School
Equivalency, Individualized Education Program Diploma or
Local Certificate.
|
- Explanation of Progress
or Slippage
(for reporting period
July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2003):
- A greater percentage of
students with disabilities (13.5 percent) earned the Regent
diploma in 2002-03, compared to 11.1 percent in 2001-02, and
4.4 percent in 1995-96.
- Students with disabilities
in the wealthy districts (Low Need districts) have surpassed
the target of 80 percent of students with disabilities will
earn a high school diploma. However, in NYC schools only
49.1 percent of students with disabilities earned high
school diplomas in 2000-03, a decline from 51.5 percent in
the previous year.
- A slightly greater percent
of the 1999 cohort of high school students with disabilities
achieved a passing grade on the Mathematics examination
required for high school graduation (65.4 percent) compared
to the 1998 cohort. Also, there were significantly more
students with disabilities included in the 1999 cohort
(16,878) compared to the 1998 cohort (13,795). Results
reported for the 1999 cohort will be revised to reflect
August 2003 assessment results in the next Annual
Performance Report.
- A smaller percentage of the
1999 cohort of students with disabilities achieved a passing
score on the English Regents examination required for
graduation (61.0 percent) compared to the 1998 cohort (64.2
percent). The 1999 cohort data will be revised next year to
reflect August 2003 assessment results.
- New York City’s drop-out
rate for students with disabilities improved in 2002-03 (9.6
percent) compared to 2001-02 (10.8 percent), however it was
more than twice the drop out rate in the large 4 cities
combined.
- High Need school districts
have a larger drop out rate (7.5 percent) compared to other
school districts (2.6 percent).
High school graduation rates
are computed for all students as well as for students with
disabilities on the basis of percentage of each cohort of
students that meet all graduation requirements within four
years of entry into the cohort year (9th grade).
See the following web sites regarding graduation requirements:
Students with disabilities and
students identified as disabled under Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act may meet high school graduation
requirements by using the safety net. See the following links:
High school graduation rates are also computed separately for
students with disabilities to measure the types of high school
credentials that is achieved by students with disabilities who
complete high school or attain the maximum age for educational
services (age 21). In this calculation, students with
disabilities who drop out are not included in the calculation.
Dropout rates of students with disabilities represented in
this section use a similar denominator compared to the
Statewide dropout rate for all students, as explained below.
The Statewide dropout rate includes students with and without
disabilities.
Explanation of denominators for Statewide dropout rate and
students with disabilities dropout rate:
Statewide Dropout Rate:
The number of students who drop out during one school-year,
divided by the enrollment on the first Wednesday in October of
students in grades 9-12 and a portion of the ungraded
enrollment that is attributable to grades 9-12. Students who
move and are not known to be continuing in another program are
counted as dropped out.
Students with Disabilities Dropout Rate: The number of
students with disabilities who drop out during one school
year, divided by the enrollment of students with disabilities,
ages 14-21, on December 1. Students who move and are not known
to be continuing in another educational program are counted as
dropped out. Please note that prior to the 2002-03
school-year, students with disabilities who moved and were not
known to be continuing were not counted as dropped out.
However, the trend data provided for this section reflects a
change in our methodology which makes the dropout rate
computation for students with disabilities comparable to the
dropout rate for all students.
Urban Initiatives
While not designed specifically for one probe area, the
majority of strategies and interventions identified and
summarized in the Executive Summary for
Cluster IV (FAPE/LRE) and for Cluster I (General Supervision) are intended to address
graduation rates and dropout rates. These same strategies are
also intended to improve overall performance of students with
disabilities on State tests, improve access to the general
curriculum and address disproportionality. Overall data on
graduation rates has been trending upward since 1999-2000.
This upward trend is in conjunction with more rigorous
curriculum standards and State testing programs. The major
issues of concern continue to be the urban areas associated
with New York’s Big Five Cities where graduation rates are
lower than the rest of the State and dropout rates are higher
than the rest of the State.
Focused Reviews
(See Cluster I, General Supervision, Table GS.I, II, III -
(Performance Indicators #’s 1, 2 and 3).
|
- Projected Targets
(for next reporting
period July 1, 2003 through June 30, 2004):
-
80 percent of students receiving
special education services who complete secondary education
will exit with a Regents, Local or High School Equivalency
Diploma.
-
Decrease the percent of students
receiving special education services who drop out before
exiting with a Regents, Local, High School Equivalency,
Individualized Education Program Diploma or Local
Certificate.
|
- Future Activities
- Projected Timelines and
Resources
(for next reporting
period July 1, 2003 through June 30, 2004 and on going):
VESID will revise its strategic
plan and associated key performance indicators, targets and
benchmarks as part of a continuous improvement process and
will reflect the new plan in the next edition of this report.
Urban Initiatives
NYSED’s urban initiative, which was developed as a
collaborative effort between the NYSED’s Elementary, Middle
and Secondary and Continuing Education (EMCS) Offices, VESID
Offices and the Big Four Cities was initiated in 2003-04. The
approach utilizes a data-driven strategic planning model to
develop annual improvement plans for the Big Four Cities. Key
stakeholders and leadership personnel from the cities and the
SED then identify resources under the respective jurisdictions
that can be directed toward implementation of the strategic
plan. Personnel representing the various offices and networks
associated with the resource allocation plan are brought
together to develop coordinated tactical plans. The strength
of the approach used in the urban initiative is that all of
the technical assistance and professional development programs
and providers are beginning to coordinate efforts within the
cities. In the past, each program and technical assistance
provider had it’s own agenda and plan for action, often
competing for time and recognition within the urban areas.
Focused Reviews
One of the specialized reviews to be piloted by VESID’s
Special Education Quality Assurance (SEQA) system focuses on
student exiting/transition. School districts experiencing a
higher drop out and/or lower graduation rate for students with
disabilities will be targeted for this type of review. As this
specialized review incorporates a data driven collaborative
process focused on outcomes and timely corrective action,
positive trends with this particular issue are anticipated.
(See Cluster I, General Supervision, Table GS.I, II, III -
(Performance Indicators #’s 1, 2 and 3).
|
|
Top
of Page |
