Problem Area 5, Survey H

Chart H provides the reasons, cited by school districts, for having an overrepresentation, based on race/ethnicity, in the identification of students as students with disabilities, and/or in the identification of students with particular disabilities.

Click here for Detailed View of Chart H

In Survey E, the most frequently cited reasons for overrepresentation, based on race ethnicity, in the identification of students as students with disabilities, or in the identification of students with particular disabilities among the 203 school districts were:

• Reason I: Upon completing appropriate evaluations and applying definitions prescribed in Section 200.1 of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education, the district has determined that there is a higher incidence of disability across all disability categories among the racial/ethnic group(s) cited in the attached notice was cited by 28 percent or 56 of the responding school districts. This reason was cited as the primary reason by 44 school districts.

• Reason H: Parent satisfaction with special education was cited by 26 percent or 53 of the responding school districts. This reason was cited as the primary reason by 22 school districts.

• Reason J: Upon competing appropriate evaluations and applying definitions prescribed in Section 200.1 of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education, the district has determined there is a greater incidence of a particular disability (e.g., emotionally disturbed, mental retardation, learning disabled, speech impaired) among the racial/ethnic groups cited in Attachment B-Part 1 and was cited by 20 percent or 41 of the responding school districts. This reason was cited as the primary reason by 18 school districts.

• Reason F: The location of a group home facility or facility for homeless families is within the school district catchment area and was cited by 19 percent or 38 of the responding school districts. This reason was cited as the primary reason by 14 school districts.

• Reason D: Lack of availability of general education programs such as Educationally Related Support Services, speech and language improvement services, bilingual education and remedial programs was cited by 11 percent or 22 of the responding school districts. This reason was cited as the primary reason by 11 school districts.

"Other" reasons and comments were provided by 55 percent or 111 of the responding school districts and are summarized, as follows:

• Twenty-eight school districts, in which White students were overrepresented in special education or were disproportionately identified by a particular disability, indicated that identification was a result of their population being predominantly Caucasian. Some of these school districts indicated that poor socioeconomic conditions of the students and their families, contributed to the identification of these students as students with disabilities. Similarly, some school districts with high percentages of minority students, indicated their identification was not appropriate, due to their predominantly minority enrollment.

• Nineteen school districts indicated that the existence of group homes, or foster care students residing within the districts having high percentages of students from minority, impoverished backgrounds contributed to the overrepresentation of minorities in special education.

• Eighteen school districts indicated that students moving into their districts were already classified as having disabilities. Also, 11 school districts indicated that high mobility rates of students (transient nature of the population) contributed to their identification as students with disabilities.

• Eleven school districts indicated that poor socioeconomic conditions of families contributed to their classification as students with disabilities.

• Five school districts commented that classification was necessary due to students' low academic skills or lack of basic skills that could not be remediated within the general education setting.

Problem Area 6: Disproportionate representation, based on race/ethnicity, in the placement of preschool students with disabilities in separate settings (settings that include only preschool students with disabilities).

The Department used the Chi-Square formula to identify school districts that placed a greater percentage of preschool students with disabilities of any racial/ethnic group in separate settings, compared to the school district's rate of placing all preschool students with disabilities in separate settings. In order for a school district to be identified as having significant disproportion, the Chi-Square result had to be significant and there had to be at least ten students in every expected value of the Chi-Square formula. As a result of the Chi-Square calculations, six school districts were identified as having some disproportion for one or more racial/ethnic groups.

Six school districts completed Survey F; five of the six completed Survey H. Survey F asked school districts to provide reasons for the disproportion, based on race/ethnicity, in placement of preschool students with disabilities in separate settings.

Districts were asked for information on selected special education processes. Survey H asked 3 questions related to steps undertaken since 1997-98 to address disproportion issues and the involvement of the school district, if any, with the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights. A summary of school district survey responses follows.

Problem Area 6, Survey H

Chart I provides the reasons cited by school districts for having disproportionate representation in placement, based on race/ethnicity, of preschool students in separate settings. Lack of availability of approved preschool programs that include nondisabled students and are within a commutable distance from students' homes (Reason A) was cited by five school districts. This reason was the primary reason cited by four of the six districts identified.

Click here for Detailed View of Chart I

Problem 7: Disproportionate representation, based on race/ethnicity, in the placement of school-age students with disabilities in more restrictive settings.

Each school district’s data regarding race/ethnicity and placement in the following settings was analyzed:

• General education setting in which students with disabilities attend general education classes for 80% to 100% of the school day;

• General education setting in which students with disabilities attend general education classes for less than 40% of the school day; and

• Separate education settings that are attended by students with disabilities only for more than 50 percent of the day.

The Department used the Chi-Square formula to identify school districts that had significant disproportion, based on race/ethnicity, in the three areas explained above. In order for a school district to be identified as having significant disproportion, the Chi-Square result had to be significant and there had to be at least ten students in every expected value of the Chi-Square formula.

As a result of the Chi-Square calculations, 103 school districts were identified as having some disproportion for one or more racial/ethnic groups in one or more of the three placement types explained above.

Ninety-five of 103 school districts completed Survey G; 86 of the 95 districts completed Survey H. Survey G asked school districts to provide reasons for:

• The disproportionate placement, based on race and ethnicity, of school-age students with disabilities in more restrictive settings.

Districts were asked for information on selected special education processes. Survey H asked 3 questions related to steps undertaken since 1997-98 to address disproportion issues and the involvement of the school district, if any, with the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights. A summary of school district survey responses follows.

Problem Area 7, Survey G

Chart J provides the reasons identified by school districts for having disproportion, based on race/ethnicity, in the placement of school-age students with disabilities in more restrictive settings.

Click here for Detailed View of Chart J

The most frequently cited reasons among the 95 school districts identified for the disproportionate placement, based on race/ethnicity, in the placement of school-age students with disabilities in more restrictive setting were as follows:

• Reason B: Insufficient support services to maintain students in general education was cited by 28 percent or 27 of the responding school districts. This reason was cited as the primary reason by 21 school districts.

• Reasons A: Insufficient space or facilities available was cited by 18 percent or 17 of the responding school districts. This reason was cited as the primary reason by eight school districts.

• Reasons C: Local feeder patterns (e.g. magnet or neighborhood school) that result in clustering of students of like race/ethnicity characteristics and was cited by 16 percent or 15 of the responding school districts. Also, this reason was cited as the primary reason by 11 school districts.

"Other" reasons and comments were provided by 58 percent or 55 of the responding school districts and are summarized, as follows:

• Thirteen school districts indicated that the existence of group homes or foster care students residing within the districts having high percentages of students from minority, impoverished backgrounds contributed to the overrepresentation of minorities in special education.

• Nine school districts indicated that they had students with severe behavioral, medical, social, physical and/or academic needs, requiring more restrictive placements.

• Nine school districts indicated that students moving into their district with IEPs requiring more restrictive placements contributed to their disproportion.

• Eight school districts indicated that they had completed appropriate evaluations and followed all applicable regulations and made placements based on students' educational needs.

Based on voluntary comments provided by school districts, the following are steps that some school districts have taken to address Chapter 405 problems.

Problem 1: High classification Rate

• Instituting secondary-level child study teams to remediate students' needs prior to referral for special education.

Problem 2: Low Preschool Declassification Rate

• Data entry problems have been corrected.

Problem 3: Low School-Age Declassification Rate

• Increasing use of Section 504 to provide some accommodations, allowing for some declassification and lowering referrals to special education.

• Improving the provision of student support services after declassification, allowing declassification to be successful.

• Corrected data collection and reporting procedures.

Problem 4: High Percentage of students with disabilities in separate education settings

• School districts have reduced their "separate setting" rate since 1998-99.

• A high school district serving students beginning at age 12 is attempting to design placement options to serve students in less restrictive environments.

• Improvement in reporting data accurately will result in lower rates in subsequent years.

Problem 5: Disproportionate representation, based on race/ethnicity, in the identification of students as students with disabilities, or in their identification by a particular disability.

• In-service training is being planned for staff regarding nondiscriminatory assessments and cultural and language differences in students and their implication for both assessment and the proper interpretation of assessment results.

• District is implementing procedures to report race/ethnicity consistently on various SED reports.

Problem 6: Disproportionate representation, based on race/ethnicity, in the placement of preschool students in separate settings.

• More integrated preschool service models are being developed in the region.

Problem 7: Disproportionate representation, based on race/ethnicity in the placement of school-age students in more restrictive settings.

• A district has taken over programs to be operated in general education buildings that were formerly operated by BOCES in separate settings.

• Improvement in reporting data accurately will result in better data in subsequent years.

• More BOCES programs are being offered in integrated sites than before.

• One school district noted that a separate site school has closed since 1997-98, with students transferring to general education buildings. This will positively impact future data.

The Department provides technical assistance to school districts statewide serving students with and without disabilities. The Department identifies districts and targets resources based on continued analysis of student performance data. During the 1999-00 school year, VESID continued to provide technical assistance to school districts statewide to assist them in developing effective strategies to improve results. VESID provided technical assistance through the Special Education Training and Resource Center (SETRC) network, Quality Assurance review process, and the training programs and technical assistance projects described below. Many of the staff development training programs and technical assistance projects have been implemented over the last several years with positive results, while others are newly developed and in the beginning stages of implementation with only preliminary results available.

SETRC is a professional development network composed of forty-two projects statewide that has provided technical assistance, since 1980, to personnel working with preschool and school-age children with disabilities. SETRC’s role was significantly redirected in 1997-98 in response to special education reform initiatives and strategic planning activities intended to improve student results. Within this model, the Department identifies districts based on need. SETRC training specialists assist personnel in these districts to develop plans for professional development encompassing data analysis, needs identification, plan development, long-term implementation and support, and evaluation of results. The major intent of this approach focuses SETRC’s technical assistance efforts on instruction and achievement within the classroom or other learning environments as a primary means for addressing student performance with an emphasis on shared accountability between the school and SETRC for improved results.

For the 1997-98 and 1998-99 school years, the SETRC network reported positive feedback to the services it provided to districts. Over 94 percent of recipients of SETRC services indicated that training focused on educational standards and support of integration, and that the training activities addressed current issues. The Department continues to assess the impact of SETRC’s redirection by evaluating the effect of technical assistance on improving the targeted districts’ data.

Since 1994-95, VESID has made fundamental conceptual and procedural changes in the manner in which school districts and preschool special education programs are monitored. The monitoring has been transformed into a data-driven and collaborative process of Quality Assurance. Conceptually, a system that previously focused upon procedural compliance now focuses on program effectiveness and student results. Schools are identified for review and resources targeted following a review of key criteria, drawn from VESID’s Strategic Plan, consistent with the data requirements in Chapter 405, that include district-specific data on reading and mathematics test scores, numbers and types of diplomas awarded, dropout rate, classification rate, integration in general education classrooms, placements in separate site settings and overrepresentation of minorities. The Quality Assurance review process involves collaborative program reviews with school district staff, parents, VESID and SETRC staff working together with the goal to make programs more effective and improve outcomes for students. As a result of the program review process, the review team identifies any areas of noncompliance and the required corrective action. For the 1999-00 school year, 76 reviews were conducted in preschool and school-age programs statewide in addition to the follow-up on the reviews that were completed in the previous year.

Staff Development Training Programs

Practical Strategies for the IEP

This one-day training was designed to provide school districts with tools to develop and implement effective Individual Education Programs (IEP) for students with disabilities that provide appropriate education programs in the least restrictive environment. The training program was designed for both general and special educators and administrators. Districts with needs in the area of least restrictive environment were encouraged to attend. The training was held statewide during the 1999-2000 school year and approximately 1,600 participated representing 350 school districts. All training materials have been provided to the SETRC network for continued technical assistance to school districts.

Building Effective Student-Centered Teams (B.E.S.T.) Training

This new training was developed through the collaborative efforts of VESID and the NYS Office of the Advocate for Persons with Disabilities. The one-day training was designed to support school district personnel, including parents, involved in a teaming process, such as a Child Study Team, Committee on Preschool Special Education and Committee on Special Education, or other building-level student-focused teams. Ten training sessions will be conducted this fall targeting 80 school districts statewide identified with a need for improving the teaming process. The training provides participants with an opportunity to learn about, develop and practice strategies for effective team practices. Preliminary results of the evaluations of the first seven training sessions indicate positive feedback of this training initiative. In January 2001, all training materials will be provided to the SETRC network for continued technical assistance to school districts.

Effective Instructional Practices for Student with Disabilities

VESID has identified 17 schools with effective practices in instructional programs for students with disabilities. Selected schools received grants to share with other schools the instructional practices they have implemented to improve educational achievement and ensure the success of students with disabilities. These practices focus on:

• Supporting students as they transition to less restrictive settings

• Collaboration between general and special educators

• Systems of positive behavioral supports

• Curriculum modifications

• Supplemental instructional programs

• Innovative scheduling

• Innovative delivery of related services

• Peer support and cooperative learning strategies

• Thematic instruction

This fall, VESID hosted four regional conferences at which eight or nine of the identified schools presented workshops on how to implement their effective instructional practices. Funds have been given to each of the presenting schools to provide technical assistance and information to other schools to replicate the instructional practices.

7^th Annual Conference on Inclusive Schools and Communities for Children and Youth

In May 2000, VESID sponsored its seventh annual two-day conference attended by over 1,000 practitioners, parents, researchers, advocates, federal, State and local education officials. The theme of the conference was higher standards, school reform and inclusive practices and focused on preschool, school-age, higher education, preservice changes and community programs. The conference highlighted "Best Practice" programs from across the State as well as nationally recognized speakers on inclusive schooling.

Prevention/Prereferral

Whole-school approaches and prereferral interventions can reduce the need to classify children as having disabilities in order to address their learning needs. Since 1995, VESID has provided technical assistance to school districts on prevention and support services in general education. Districts with high rates of classification are targeted for technical assistance.

• A two-day training program—Prevention and Support Services in General Education: Instructional Support Teams. This training program, developed in 1997, continues to be delivered to school districts statewide through the SETRC network.

• Identification and replication of schools with effective practices in prevention and prereferral interventions. Over a four-year period, grants were provided to schools identified with effective practices and to schools wishing to replicate these practices. The Department conducted regional conferences to promote the replication of the effective practices statewide.

Special Education Space Requirements Plans

New York State statute and regulation requires each District Superintendent to submit a Special Education Space Requirements Plan. These submissions were first required effective February 1, 1989 and are due February 1^st of every fifth year thereafter. The purpose of such plan is to:

• determine the need for additional facilities space for all special education programs in the geographic area served by the BOCES to ensure the provision of appropriate long-term instructional space; and

• expand opportunities for students with disabilities to be educated in sites that promote integration with nondisabled students, while reducing the number of classrooms at separate sites that are exclusively attended by students with disabilities.

A key function of the planning committee of each BOCES region and New York City is to evaluate the status of special education placements in comparison to the Regents policy of decreasing the percentage of school-age students with disabilities educated in separate settings from 10.2 percent in 1996-97 as compared to the national figure of approximately 4.3 percent. The Department determined targets for BOCES regions based on data reported to the Department concerning special class placements of school-age students in integrated and separate sites.(Footnote 6) The targets, ranging from .8 to 13.7 percent, indicate the projected maximum percentage of students with disabilities in separate site placements for each BOCES region to be achieved by December 1, 2003 that reflects a projected shift of approximately 8,500 students with disabilities from separate to integrated sites. VESID staff continue to work collaboratively with each BOCES region and New York City to assist in accomplishing the goals of the Special Education Space Requirements Plan.

For Special Education Space Requirements Plan due February 1, 1999, VESID established procedures for monitoring the progress of each BOCES region in meeting its annual targets based on the annual progress reports to be submitted by the District Superintendent. Previously, BOCES and New York City were not required to report on the progress of meeting or exceeding the targets for their region. This new model represents a fundamental change in the manner in which each BOCES region and New York City oversee and report on the progress of meeting their targets on an annual basis. The first annual Progress Report, due May 1, 2000, included an analysis of the first year of implementing the Special Education Space Requirements Plan. The Progress Report involved an analysis of 1998-99 PD data in relation to the Special Education Space Requirements Plan to assess the success of each BOCES and New York City in meeting the target percentage reductions in separate site placements. Achievements included:

• The number of regions with public and private special education placements at separate sites at or below the national average of 4.3 percent increased from 11 regions (28 percent) in 1996 to 21 regions (54 percent) in 1999.

• Thirty of the 39 regions (77 percent), including New York City, have already met or exceeded their five-year target levels of integration as of 12/1/99.

• All 38 BOCES regions and New York City project to meet or exceed their five-year target levels of integration as of 12/1/03.

• As of 12/1/03, 26 regions (67 percent) project public and private special education placements at separate sites at or below the national average of 4.3 percent.

• Increased understanding that the movement of students with disabilities into integrated settings is a regional issue requiring collaboration by all component school districts.

BOCES Symposium

The first BOCES Symposium was held on November 30, 1999 at the William’s Lake Hotel in Rosendale, New York. Thirteen BOCES teams participated, with seven BOCES presenting topics related to effective practices that promote achievement and integration. Examples of topics presented were "Successful Strategies to Integrating BOCES Special Education Classes in Regular School Settings" and "Differentiating Instruction to Help All Students Achieve." BOCES Teams of 4-6 people included the District or Assistant Superintendent, BOCES Special Education Director, Special Education Director of a School District, and a General Education Administrator for BOCES or a School District. Department coordinators, supervisors, and Regional Associates also participated.

Results of the evaluation survey indicated overwhelming support of the symposium.

• Participants indicated they planned to incorporate many of the ideas presented.

• All 38 District Superintendents received a summary of the symposium that included highlights of the seven presentations and contact information for follow-up and an overview of evaluation surveys.

A second BOCES symposium is scheduled for the spring of 2001 since the first event was extremely successful in facilitating communications among BOCES related to promising practices. The purpose of the second symposium is to continue the theme of supporting the successful implementation of the Special Education Space Requirements Plans by highlighting BOCES or school district effective practices that support integration and/or achievement of students with disabilities. This symposium provides a collaborative forum for highlighting progress statewide and sharing practices related to increased achievement and integration. Many of the participants of the first symposium indicated that they planned to incorporate many of the ideas presented and this second event ensures that such effective practices continue to be shared and replicated.

Bilingual Special Education Resource Network

• During 1998-99, the Bilingual Special Education Resource Network expanded bilingual special education training resources by establishing a bilingual trainer at the Eastern Suffolk BOCES. Services were previously provided to this region by one trainer who also covered the entire upstate area.

• The Bilingual Special Education Resource Network also reported that seven bilingual speech language pathology training programs have been registered at universities to prepare personnel to provide bilingual speech services.

• The total number of participants in the Intensive Teacher Institute in Bilingual Special Education that provides tuition assistance for teacher certification candidates reached 205 in 1998-1999. An increased effort in New York City resulted in a total of 73 candidates for certification as bilingual special education teachers from Community School Districts 6,7,9 and 75.

• In 1998, VESID established the Bilingual Psychological and Educational Assessment Support Center at Brooklyn and Queens Colleges in the City University of New York. The Center develops training materials focusing on improving the assessment of English language learners as well as sessions for school psychologists and other professions.

The Department continues to analyze the Chapter 405 survey data and is developing a methodology to target school districts for technical assistance based on this analysis. Based on survey results, different levels of technical assistance will be provided to school districts, ranging from individual intervention, group regional training, and self-review. Selected school districts may be required to develop and implement a Corrective Action Plan specific to their identified Chapter 405 problem area(s). In addition to this targeted technical assistance plan, the Department’s recommendations and next steps regarding Chapter 405 are to:

• Develop a process to provide training to targeted school districts on how to analyze their data, share it with respective stakeholders, and formulate corrective action plans to address the issues:

• Advocate for an increase in Educationally Related Support Services (ERSS) funding, as part of the Department's State Aid proposal, to decrease the need for referral to special education for students having learning difficulties and to increase the declassification rate of students from special education by ensuring that they can be served in a more supportive general education environment.

• During the 2000-01 school year, VESID and EMSC will implement a joint initiative to conduct regional professional development programs to promote complete and accurate special education data reporting, with a specific focus on Chapter 405 provisions.

• Share the Chapter 405 Report with Institutions of Higher Education to enable them to adequately prepare new teachers to work with at-risk students and develop strategies to support these students in general education classrooms.

• Provide Prevention/Prereferral training to targeted school districts.

• Continue to work with BOCES and New York City on the Special Education Space Requirements Plan to decrease the number of students with disabilities educated in separate site settings to ensure that an increasing number of students with disabilities are educated in their own school districts. The Department will continue to monitor progress of each BOCES region and New York City in meeting its annual targets by collecting and analyzing data and reviewing annual progress reports.

• Sponsor a second BOCES Symposium in spring 2001 to continue the theme of supporting the successful implementation of the Special Education Space Requirements Plans by highlighting BOCES or school district effective practices that support integration and/or achievement of students with disabilities. This second event ensures that such effective practices continue to be shared and replicated statewide.

• Provide guidance to school districts on the effects of cultural and language differences on student assessment, appropriate interpretation of results, and the identification of appropriate instructional interventions.

• Provide training to Department special education staff and the Life Long Services Network staff on disproportionality issues, including how to remedy discriminatory practices that lead to disproportionate representation, enhance their knowledge base to enable them to provide more effective technical assistance, and information on effective approaches for preventing and correcting disproportionate representation.

• Department staff will review policies, procedures and practices in those school districts having significant overrepresentation, based on race/ethnicity in the identification of children as children with disabilities, or the placement in particular educational settings, to ensure that the requirements of IDEA are met.

• Provide regional training programs for school districts to ensure accurate data collection and reporting.

• Propose legislation to amend Chapter 405 of the Laws of 1999 to require data verification, surveys, and a report to the Governor and Legislators every two or four years. These activities on an annual basis create a substantial burden at both the State and local levels. The current data collection and reporting requirements do not allow sufficient time to provide technical assistance and assess its impact.

In 1989, section 4410 of the Education Law was enacted transferring responsibility for the provision of special education services to eligible preschool students with disabilities from the Family Courts to school districts. Since then, the program has grown from approximately 18,000 to almost 60,000 preschool students with disabilities. Data in 1993-94 indicated nonintegrated settings (i.e., a special education setting, hospital or separate school) were used to provide services to 73.4 percent of the preschool students with disabilities. This highlighted a growing concern that segregated settings do not provide opportunities for interaction of preschool students with disabilities with their nondisabled peers.

This concern was reinforced by the Board of Regents in 1995-96 when they adopted an agenda of goals to reform the preschool special education program, as follows:

• An increase in the provision of services in integrated settings and an increase in the number of students receiving related services in natural environments.

• Review of overall cost per child based on level of specific need and reduction of transportation costs.

• Assistance to center-based programs to enable them to redirect their resources, diversify programs and phase out large segregated facilities.

• Restructure the programmatic and fiscal responsibilities for the program to guarantee a more integrated approach to the roles of the various State and local government agencies, recognizing that the State has primary funding responsibility.

Also during 1995-96, Chapter 474 was enacted and required preschool special education programs to develop business plans to redirect resources to reduce the reliance on programs and settings which served only preschool students with disabilities. The 1997-98 data reflect the successful implementation of the business plan initiative. The percentage of preschool students served in integrated settings increased from 37.2 percent to 45.1 percent. In the 1998-1999 school year, the percent of preschool students served in integrated settings continued to increase to 52.2 percent. Chart K depicts the progress over a five-year period from 1993-1998. The current emphasis on serving preschool students with disabilities provides the opportunity for the development of age-appropriate skills and is consistent with IDEA requirements for the provision of services in the least restrictive setting.

Click here for Detailed View of Chart K

Chapter 405 of the Laws of 1999 required the Department to address seven areas related to the provision of special education services to preschool students with disabilities. Each of the seven areas is listed below with the Department’s response.

Pursuant to section 4410 of the Education Law, an agency must submit an application requesting approval to operate a preschool special education program. The application is submitted to the Department and clearly delineates the program model(s) the agency seeks to operate. Preschool special education program models include evaluation programs, special education itinerant teacher services (SEIT), special classes (SC) or special classes in an integrated setting (SCIS). Approved preschool providers seeking to increase capacity must submit applications to request program expansion. Expansion may include adding a new site or an additional class.

All applications are reviewed using criteria established in section 4410 of the Education Law and Part 200 Regulations of the Commissioner of Education. Applications must address an unmet need in the region. Providers who submit incomplete applications, or those that require further clarification, are requested to address the issues of concern. These applications are considered pending until the issues are resolved in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. On average, program applications are processed in eight weeks, assuming that appropriate material has been submitted, including the documentation of need for new or expanded special class programs. It is incumbent upon providers to submit additional information or clarification to the Department in a timely manner to facilitate the completion of the application review process. During the 1999-2000 school year, the Department received a total of 63 applications. Forty-nine were for new programs and 14 were for program expansion.

Table A below outlines, by county, the 49 requests for approval to operate a new preschool education program. Twenty-eight applications were approved. The Department has notified 21 applicants that further information must be submitted before their applications can be considered for approval. This includes two applications for special class programs that are required to provide specific documentation of the need for these new programs. This requirement stems from the statutory provision which indicates that the expansion of segregated programs that do not provide regular opportunities for preschool students with disabilities to interact with their nondisabled peers, can only occur if there is a demonstrated need. During this process, the Committee on Preschool Special Education (CPSE) ensures that none of these students are unserved.

Table A: Applications for New Programs 1999-2000