Introduction

Part I
    Current Status
    Impact of Technical Assistance
    Ongoing Technical Assistance   
    Ongoing Capacity Building
    Next Steps

Part II
    Preschool
    Next Steps

Appendices

Appendix 1    
    Description of Technical Assistance Levels and CSPD
    Requirement For Chapter 405 Districts - 2002

Appendix 2
    Chapter 405 Technical Assistance Resources - 2002

Appendix 3
    State Maps

Appendix 4
    Methodology for Identification of Chapter 405 Problem Areas- 2002

Appendix 5
    Preschool Program Quality Indicators

Within Chapter 405 of the Laws of 1999 are specific provisions that require the Education Department to identify school districts with high rates of identification of students as students with disabilities, low rates of declassification of students with disabilities, high rates of placement of students with disabilities in separate sites and significant disproportion, based on race and ethnicity, in identification and placement in particular settings of students with disabilities. The Department must then work with the identified school districts to verify such rates, determine underlying causes and, if necessary, may require the development of a corrective action plan to implement policies, practices and procedures to improve results in the identified problem areas.

The seven "problem areas" addressed in Chapter 405 are:

1. high rate of identification of students as students with disabilities.

2. low declassification rate of preschool students with disabilities.

3. low declassification rate of school-age students with disabilities.

4. high rate of placing school-age students with disabilities (ages 6-21) in separate education settings.

5. disproportion, based on race/ethnicity, in the identification of students as students with disabilities, or in the identification of students having a particular disability.

6. disproportion, based on race/ethnicity, in the placement of preschool students with disabilities in separate education settings.¹

7. disproportion, based on race/ethnicity, in the placement of students with disabilities in more restrictive settings.²

This report is prepared to comply with Chapter 405 and provide information on activities that occurred during 2001. The first portion of this report focuses on the steps the Education Department has undertaken to address the requirements in Chapter 405 specifically relating to the provision of technical assistance. Chapter 405 states, "the department shall provide technical assistance to such school districts ….to assist them in developing effective strategies to improve such results including alternative placement models; models for effective preventive services; coordinated use of financial resources; improved evaluation practices and appropriate declassification practices."

The efforts described herein highlight the ongoing collaboration between the Department’s Offices of Elementary, Middle, Secondary and Continuing Education (EMSC) and Vocational and Educational Services for Individuals with Disabilities (VESID) to provide support and technical assistance to schools with problem areas identified through the Chapter 405 process. The issue of disproportionality in the identification and placement of students with disabilities, based on race or ethnicity, has continued to be a focus this year. The Department has continued to develop its understanding of the issue and develop an approach for New York State. In addition, work has continued to address the issue of placement of students with disabilities in separate sites. Significant progress has been made through the Boards of Cooperative Education Services space planning process.

This report also provides updated information on the activities of the Department relative to gathering information on the program performance and effectiveness of programs serving preschool students with disabilities.

Chapter 405 of the Laws of 1999 requires the Department to examine special education data from all school districts in relation to a number of key areas, including:

1. high rate of identification of students as students with disabilities.

2. low declassification rate of preschool students with disabilities.

3. low declassification rate of school-age students with disabilities.

4. high rate of placing school-age students with disabilities (ages 6-21) in separate education settings.

5. disproportion, based on race/ethnicity, in the identification of students as students with disabilities, or in the identification of students having a particular disability.

6. disproportion, based on race/ethnicity, in the placement of preschool students with disabilities in separate education settings.
7. disproportion, based on race/ethnicity, in the placement of students with disabilities in more restrictive settings.

Initially, 364 districts were identified as having one or more of the issues outlined above. During 2000, the Department surveyed the 364 identified districts to verify data associated with the problem areas, determine underlying causes and identify actions taken by districts to address the Chapter 405 problem area. Based on additional data analysis and review of survey results, different levels of technical assistance/intervention were assigned to school districts, ranging from targeted, group regional training and self-review.

In March 2001, the Department notified the 364 identified districts of the technical assistance plan. The level of technical assistance to be provided and the requirements associated with resolution of the Chapter 405 problem areas were explained (see Appendix 1 – Description of Technical Assistance Levels and CSPD Requirement for Chapter 405 Districts - 2002). The notification memorandum also included a resource list to assist identified districts in the development, implementation and evaluation of the Comprehensive System of Personnel Development (CSPD) plan to address each Chapter 405 problem area (see Appendix 2 – Chapter 405 Technical Assistance Resources – 2002).

The CSPD plan was selected as the vehicle for identified districts to address systemic problems associated with Chapter 405. The development of the CSPD plan is based on a thorough analysis of district and building data to determine needs; identify specific goals and outcomes in regard to student achievement, district performance and disproportionality; and identify benchmarks representing appropriate progress toward achieving identified goals. The CSPD plan is updated annually and is required as part of the Consolidated Application for federal funds allocated pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The purpose of the CSPD plan is to effect systems change at the local level and improve performance in regard to VESID Key Performance Measures.

VESID provided technical assistance to address the Chapter 405 problem areas through the Special Education Training and Resource Center (SETRC) network, Regional School Support Centers (RSSC), Quality Assurance review process and regional training programs and technical assistance. The three levels of intervention for school districts identified for Chapter 405 issues included:

Targeted Technical Assistance: There were 13 districts identified for this level of intervention. In October 2001, the VESID Chapter 405 workgroup, in conjunction with the RSSCs, SETRC network, and Quality Assurance regional staff, reviewed the CSPD plans of the 13 targeted districts. VESID notified the District Superintendents and School Superintendents of the targeted districts of the results of the review and whether the CSPD plan was accepted or if modifications were necessary to address the Chapter 405 problem areas. Modifications were due February 2002 for a second joint review. All targeted districts have an approved plan in place and continue to receive technical assistance for both the planning process and professional development through the RSSC and SETRC networks.

Regional Technical Assistance: There were 85 districts identified for Chapter 405 problem areas that can potentially be addressed through training and information dissemination. The districts were required to address resolution of the problem(s) in their CSPD plan and participate in regional training programs sponsored by the Department or through local sources. A sampling of the types of training provided at the regional level include: pre-referral and intervention strategies, co-teaching models, systematic ways of examining data, reassessing assessment, team building and parent training.

Self-Review: There were 266 districts identified for this level of intervention. Similar to Regional Technical Assistance, the district addressed the resolution of the problem(s) in the CSPD plan and implemented the plan with local and regional resources. The attainment of goals associated with the problem area(s) were to be documented as the CSPD plan is annually updated and revised with the SETRC representative.

The Department’s experience with high need districts in other areas and a review of the literature affirm that the issues involved in disproportionality require three to five years for a robust response to interventions because of the need for systemic rather than peripheral change within the district and community. However, it is possible to examine progress in districts after one year of intervention. An analysis of 2000-2001 data, which will be the basis for identifying school districts with Chapter 405 issues during the 2002-2003 school year, reveals the following progress:

• There was a decrease in the number of school districts that place more than 15 percent of students with disabilities in separate educational settings (from 117 districts to 76 districts).
• There was a decrease in the number of school districts with disproportionate placement of minority students in more restrictive settings (from 103 districts to 89 districts).
• There was a reduction in the extent to which Black and Hispanic students are over-represented in special education. The overrepresentation of Black students in special education decreased to 4.5 percentage points above the percentage of Black students in the total enrollment, compared to 5.6 percentage points above their enrollment percentage in 1998-99. The overrepresentation of Hispanic students decreased to 2.6 percentage above the percentage of Hispanic students in the total enrollment compared to 2.8 percentage points above their enrollment percentage in 1999-2000.

Click here for detailed view of this chart

New York State statute and regulation require 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 the plan is to determine the need for additional facilities space for all special education programs in the geographic area served by the BOCES. The Special Education Space Requirements Plan must result in sufficient and appropriate instructional space to ensure that students with disabilities are educated in age-appropriate settings and, to the maximum extent appropriate, with non-disabled students. The plan must provide a framework for the allocation of instructional space throughout the region which supports the requirement that the removal of students from the regular education environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the disability is such that even with the use of supplementary aids and services, education cannot be achieved satisfactorily.

In March 2002, the District Superintendents of the 38 BOCES and the Chancellor of the City of New York submitted their third annual Special Education Space Requirements Plan Progress Reports. This included the completion of a regional survey, which updated the number of school-age students with disabilities awaiting placement as of March 1, 2002 due to lack of availability of appropriate settings. The purpose of this report was to evaluate the success of each BOCES and the Big Five Cities (Yonkers, Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse and New York City) in meeting the benchmark percentage reductions of students with disabilities placed in separate site settings. Results of the report showed:

• Thirty-four of the 39 regions (87 percent), including New York City, have exceeded their benchmark percentages of integration, compared to 31 regions (79 percent) last year. (see Appendix 3 – State Maps)
• All regions project to meet their benchmark for December 2003.
• The regional survey information indicated that there were14 regions with 25 or more students with disabilities awaiting placement in an appropriate program, a 5 percent decrease from last year, although still an area of concern. (see Appendix 3 – State Maps)

A review of the results in the 2002 Progress Report indicated students awaiting placement remains a significant problem. Therefore, in an effort to further implement the capacity building and improvement initiatives reflected in the five-year Special Education Space Requirements Plan, the Department redirected IDEA discretionary funds for the period July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003. Such funds were targeted to ensure appropriate programs for students awaiting placement due to lack of availability of appropriate settings. A request for proposals was issued by VESID to address two priorities:

1. school-age students with disabilities with extensive management needs for whom appropriate services are not available; and
2. school-age students with autism for whom a continuum of quality, research-based educational programs is not available in all regions.

The grant proposals requested funds for program development and/or redesign consistent with the region’s Special Education Space Requirements Plan for the five-year period 1999-2003. Continuation awards may be available for up to two additional years following this initial period for ongoing support of the implementation of new and/or expanded programs, pending the continued availability of funds.

Ongoing Technical Assistance

VESID will continue to provide technical assistance to address the Chapter 405 problem areas through the SETRC network, RSSC's, Quality Assurance review process and the training programs and technical assistance projects described below.

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. The issues identified through Chapter 405 are included in the review process. Conceptually, a system that previously addressed only procedural compliance now focuses on program effectiveness and student results, emphasizes the district’s key performance indicator data, and facilitates the input of parents in regard to the provision of special education services. Procedurally, a system that depended upon Department site reviews now involves the district and the Department collaborating in the Quality Assurance Review process. 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 2001-02 school year, a total of 43 reviews were conducted in preschool and school-age programs statewide in addition to 42 follow up reviews to reviews conducted in the previous year. For the 2001-02 school year, Performance Reviews were added to the Quality Assurance Review System that also included Collaborative and Verification Reviews. Performance Reviews ensure that federal and State requirements are implemented and that protections guaranteed to students with disabilities and their parents are enforced, but their abbreviated format and timelines allow for VESID’s increased presence in a greater number of school districts each year. Approximately 15 school district Performance Reviews are included in the overall review schedule for the 2002-03 school year.

During the 2001-02 school year, The Department completed the development of two focused review protocols to pilot during the 2002-03 school year. The Least Restrictive Environment protocol is designed to address high separate placement rates by a school district, while the Achievement protocol addresses low achievement by students with disabilities. The focused review process will culminate in identifying corrective actions and improvement strategies that address the identified compliance and programmatic issues impacting student outcomes in the focus area. In addition, the district must set benchmarks to reflect efforts made by the district, over a specified period of time, to resolve the identified issues that will result in improved outcomes for students with disabilities.

VESID's Office of Special Education Quality Assurance (SEQA) has implemented a database designed to record and track information related to Quality Assurance Reviews and Complaint Investigations. The system allows staff to access Quality Assurance data related to each school district's and private program's most recent compliance findings. QAIS also has the capability of automatically producing the Compliance Assurance Plans to be included in a district's final report or complaint findings letter. In addition, the system tracks the timeliness of a district's submission of all required documentation of corrective action.

The QAIS includes the information provided by districts in response to the Chapter 405 surveys regarding classification, placement and disproportionality issues. SEQA will use these data to help prioritize districts for quality assurance reviews and additional technical assistance to ensure that Chapter 405 problem areas are addressed.

In September 2000, the RSSC Program was established though a collaborative effort of VESID and EMSC to coordinate efforts and resources across a variety of initiatives to improve educational results in targeted districts. The RSSCs are one of several coordinated initiatives to "Close the Gap" in educational performance through delivery of sustained school support services. Other efforts address reading and math instruction and leadership. The RSSCs are funded through five sources (IDEA Part B, Title I, Goals 2000, Comprehensive School Reform Act, and Effective Schools) with the objective to organize and coordinate efforts represented by those programs on behalf of schools and districts in need of improvement. In addition to supporting the SETRC efforts in the targeted districts, each of the ten RSSC programs developed regional training plans for districts in their region identified for regional technical assistance. The plans, received October 1, 2001, identify regional training needs to address Chapter 405 problem areas. The RSSC programs will coordinate training programs to address specific regional needs.

Beginning in the 2000-2001 school year, VESID has provided two year professional development grants to high need/low resource districts identified as experiencing difficulty in attaining success on several of the VESID Key Performance Indicators, including disproportionality in identification and placement. Two districts from each Joint Management Team area, an additional five districts on Long Island, seven Community School Districts in New York City, and the Big Four city districts (Yonkers, Buffalo, Rochester and Syracuse) were funded. Districts awarded these grants must convene a group of stakeholders to conduct a root cause analysis of the problem areas, prioritize issues, develop goals and objectives, and plan professional development interventions. Districts must partner with a parent organization and an Institution of Higher Education in planning and implementation. Disproportionality issues have been addressed either directly or indirectly in many of the plans developed by districts.

In 2001, New York State was awarded an IDEA State Improvement Grant (SIG). VESID used the grant to add three regional State Improvement Grant Teams (Upstate, Downstate and Long Island, and New York City). These teams consist of four individuals with content area training and expertise. One individual per team is expected to have expertise in cultural diversity and/or bilingual issues. The team members are producing professional development modules, one of which will address issues of disproportionality. Districts work with their SETRC and RSSC field personnel to determine which team members will provide support; several districts have planned to use the services of the Team member with expertise in disproportionality.

In 2002, New York State was awarded a SIG Supplemental Grant. One of the goals of this supplement addresses disproportionality, with the emphasis placed on ethnic rather than bilingual minority issues. A workgroup will be assembled to provide direction to the implementation of the disproportionality component of the Grant. The workgroup tasks include identifying and making available information about effective practices in decreasing disproportionality of students who are minorities, particularly in the area of positive behavioral supports. In the remaining four years of the State Improvement Grant, small grants ($5000 a year for two years) will be made available to two cohorts of six districts to support them in implementing and evaluating effective practices. Institutions of Higher Education personnel who are members of the Task Force on Quality Inclusive Education in the State and who have disproportionality as a research interest are being solicited to assure that the evaluation of these interventions is robust, thus adding to a very limited number of studies that look at student outcomes in evaluating interventions aimed at disproportionality. Districts’ activities and their outcomes will be spotlighted on the State Improvement Grant web page currently under development to make it possible for districts not funded by the grant to take advantage of the experience.

Special Education Training and Resource Center Network

SETRC is a professional development network, funded by VESID through IDEA discretionary funds, composed of 42 projects statewide that provide technical assistance to personnel working with preschool and school-age children with disabilities. SETRC training specialists work directly with Chapter 405 identified districts to 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. Beginning with the 2002-03 school year, the SETRCs have access to funding to address the State priority of ensuring that districts identified as needing technical assistance have the knowledge and skills to address Chapter 405 problem areas. The funds must be used for district staff development. Plans for the use of the funds must be consistent with the Regional Chapter 405 Plan and root cause analysis of Chapter 405 problem areas in the identified districts.

In December of 2002, the Department will notify school districts whose 2000-2001 data indicate they were significantly above the statewide average for one or more Chapter 405 problem areas or had significant disproportion, based on race/ethnicity, in identification and placement in particular educational settings of students with disabilities. School districts with potential Chapter 405 problem areas will be assigned a level of technical assistance based on the data and may begin immediately working with the RSSC/SETRC network to address the issues in their CSPD.

This second notification will be based on the same methodology that was used in the initial notification with the exception of the following: 1. School districts are not identified for issues of disproportionality involving "White" students; 2. The benchmark for placing students with disabilities in separate educational settings was lowered from ten percent to six percent. For a full explanation of the methodology, see Appendix 4 – Methodoloogy for Identification of Chapter 405 Problem Areas – 2002.

The State Education Department has continued to actively develop internal capacity within EMSC and VESID to provide technical assistance to school districts in addressing problem areas identified in Chapter 405 of the Laws of 1999. The Department had worked closely with multiple federal partners to ensure access to the most current and innovative approaches to address the issues of classification, separate site placement and disproportionality.

Department staff have met regularly with a variety of partners including the Office of Special Education Programs, United States Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights, National Association of State Directors of Special Education and Northeast Regional Resource Center to receive technical assistance. NERRC is a federally funded technical assistance center that provides support to State Education Agencies to improve their systems of early intervention, special education and transition services through the development and implementation of policies, programs and practices to enhance educational results for children and youth with disabilities.

The Department continues to research the area of disproportionality. In December 2002, a discussion on "Addressing Racial and Ethnic Disproportionality in Special Education" is scheduled to be presented to the Board of Regents. The material developed for the discussion explores the link among poverty of students, achievement in high need school districts, special education placement patterns in these districts, access to general education curriculum and the cumulative effects of these factors on student achievement. In New York State, the largest numbers of racially and ethnically diverse students are concentrated in high need school districts. Since all Big Five Cities and 78 percent of urban/suburban poor districts have issues relating to disproportionality and 83 percent of these same districts have been identified for lower performance, there appears to be a strong correlation among disproportionality, poverty and poor performance.

VESID has developed a series of nine papers to provide technical assistance to school district personnel on issues related to bilingual special education. The Work Papers are meant to be an introduction to topical issues, include a two-page overview of the issues, and are accompanied by an additional document to supplement the topic and provide citations for future investigation.

The Department’s capacity for addressing disproportionality will be further developed through a Request for Proposal (RFP) that will be issued this winter which will solicit applications for a funding award to operate a Technical Assistance Center on Disproportionality. The center will work with targeted school districts to reduce disproportionality. SETRC and RSSC staff will partner with the center to continue to develop their skills in the area of disproportionality. The center will evaluate the effectiveness of its training and technical assistance efforts in reducing disproportionality and will report its progress to the Department quarterly.

It is expected that the RFP will be issued in December 2002 and the selection made in the first quarter of 2003. The center will focus on factors that are within the control of the school districts, such as:

• Alignment of curriculum with the New State Learning Standards K-12 and across grade levels;
• Provision of academic and other support services;
• Improving effectiveness of school-based support teams in individual student problem solving and planning;
• Improving skill levels of education staff in the area of cultural competence;
• Improving partnerships with families to support their engagement; and
• Eliminating discriminatory policies and procedures in the districts and schools.

The Department will continue to support the Chapter 405 workgroup in collaboration with RSSCs, SETRCs, and Quality Assurance regional staff to provide capacity building opportunities, regional/local technical assistance and review of districts' plans to ensure that the identified school districts have addressed the Chapter 405 problem areas as required. In addition, the Department’s recommendations and next steps regarding Chapter 405 are to:

• Provide training to targeted school districts on how to modify the CSPD plan so it results in analysis of data, identification of root causes, development of measurable goals and objectives and development of an implementation and evaluation plan to ensure that the Chapter 405 problem areas are addressed.
• Develop two new focused review protocols in Special Education Quality Assurance. One of these protocols will address the areas of over-classification and disproportionality.
• 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.
• Continue to provide technical assistance and regional training programs for school districts to ensure accurate data collection and reporting. The Department will continue to use the Chi-square methodology to determine disproportionality based on race/ethnicity to review school district patterns of identification and placement of students with disabilities. Other methodologies suggested by the National Science Academy will be reviewed and implemented, if appropriate, to provide a more comprehensive analysis of school district race/ethnicity data.
• 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 three 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.
• Select a contractor to implement the technical assistance center based upon the responses to the Request for Proposals to be let in December 2002. The technical assistance center will assist the Department in addressing the requirements of Chapter 405 of the Laws of 1999 by providing technical assistance to targeted school districts and SETRC and RSSC staff on disproportionality issues.
• Conduct a second notification to districts with potential issues as identified in Chapter 405. This notification will be based on a review of the 2000-2001 data and is scheduled to occur in December 2002.
• Continue to work with BOCES and the New York City Department of Education through the Special Education Space Requirements Plan process to decrease the number of students who have been placed in separate site settings and to increase the number of students who are educated in their own school districts. The Department will:
• Establish benchmarks in the 2004-2009 Special Education Space Requirements Plan in relation to students with disabilities in separate site settings that would result in most regions in the State meeting the national average by the end of 2009.
• Focus increased responsibility on individual school districts to achieve a region’s benchmarks.
• Ensure approvals of state aid for new instructional space for students with disabilities only when proposals are consistent with a region’s space plan.
• Ensure regional plans establish capacity to meet the current and future special education program and service needs, including those students awaiting placement due to lack of availability of appropriate settings, and to serve students in regular school based programs.

This section provides updated information on the Department’s effort to evaluate the impact of the moratorium on any new or expanded preschool special education program that includes only preschool children with disabilities.

As directed by the July 1, 1996 moratorium on the development of special class preschool programs, the Department consistently applies the regional need criteria for program development as outlined in the November 1996 field memorandum Procedures for Program Application and Expansion of In-State Private Schools and Center Based Preschool Programs for Students with Disabilities. The preschool moratorium has been extended pursuant to section 57-a of Part H of Chapter 83 of the Laws of 2002. A center-based special class is defined as a separate setting that includes only preschool students with disabilities. The table below indicates the program approvals and program expansions in the special class category since July 1999.

Preschool Program Expansion
July 1, 1999 – September 30, 2002

Since July 1, 1999, 20 special education itinerant teacher (SEIT) programs have been approved, of which seven are in New York City. SEIT services provide for a certified special education teacher to serve up to 20 preschool students with disabilities in various settings determined by boards of education. These settings provide opportunities for preschool students with disabilities to receive special education programs and services in the least restrictive environment with their preschool peers without disabilities and may include an approved Prekindergarten or Head Start program; the student’s home; a hospital; a State facility; or other child care location.

There has been a 20.5 percentage point increase in the percentage of preschool students with disabilities served in integrated settings from 1996-97 to 2000-01, from 37.2 percent to 57.7 percent. This increase is displayed in the chart below.

During 1999-2000, the Department was notified of seven program closings comprised of seven special classes, three special classes in an integrated setting and three SEIT programs. In 2000-2001, four agencies terminated services, including three special class programs, one special class in an integrated setting and three SEIT programs. To date, in 2002-2003, two agencies reported closing their special class programs, with one closing of the SEIT program.

Programmatic Performance and Cost-effectiveness of Existing Programs

The Department is continuing research to gather data to further evaluate program performance and cost-effectiveness. The Program Quality Indicator Study, referred to as Study I, was completed in the Fall 2002 by MAGI Educational Services, Inc. The study was designed to collect information on the quality of preschool special education programs and identify the educational practices that affect general education placement rates when preschool students enter Kindergarten or school-age programs.

To collect information on the quality of preschool special education programs, the contractor developed a set of program quality indicators based on the research and input from an advisory committee composed of national early childhood experts and individuals representing various New York State stakeholders (see Appendix 5 – Preschool Special Education Program Quality Indicators). Two hundred fifty-eight preschool special education programs participated in a self-survey based on the researched quality indicators. The survey found that a majority (52 percent) of participating programs are above the quality threshold. The quality threshold is reached when at least 60 percent of the quality indicators are implemented. Another large portion (47 percent) of the programs are approaching the threshold. Programs identified as approaching the quality threshold had from 30 to 59 percent of the quality indicators implemented. The programs performed particularly well in the components of partnerships, organization/administration, teaching and learning. The programs fared less well in the areas of personnel and family relationships.

In order to identify the educational practices that affect general education placement rates when preschool students enter kindergarten or school-age programs, the contractor used the information from the program survey described above and a companion survey designed to gather placement information. This portion of the study found that the quality of preschool special education programs is significantly associated with the percentage of students declassified while in preschool. In 2000-01, on average 7.3 percent of preschool children with disabilities were declassified. In high quality programs, however, more than ten percent of preschool children with disabilities were declassified in the same year. The authors of the study concluded that: (1) program quality makes a difference in student outcomes and may result in significant cost savings; (2) strong program management and staffing are vital indicators of effectiveness; and (3) most preschool programs are making clear headway in striving for quality.

A full report of this study will be disseminated early in 2003. Additionally, two publications, Preschool Special Education Program Quality Indicators and Self-Assessment Guide and Preschool Special Education Learning Outcomes, Indicators and Support Services Necessary for Kindergarten Participation will be available to all preschool service providers, parents and others involved in improving learning outcomes for preschool students with disabilities. In addition, a training program for all preschool providers will be conducted in 2003 focusing on the program quality indicators.

MGT of America is under contract with the Department to conduct the preschool longitudinal study, referred to as Study II. The study, in year three of seven, is to determine the long-term effect of preschool special education programs and services on the educational achievement, emotional well-being, social adjustment and placement of school-age students through grade 4 who received special education programs and services during their preschool years. The contractor’s activities are guided by an advisory committee comprised of representatives from preschool and school age stakeholder groups across the State. During year two, the contractor collected baseline data for students in Cohorts 1 and 2. Cohort 1 includes students who entered kindergarten in 2000-2001 after receiving preschool special education. Cohort 2 includes students who entered kindergarten in 2001-2002 after receiving preschool special education. Data collection activities are in process for Cohorts 3 and 4, which include students entering kindergarten in 2001-2002 and 2002-2003, respectively, who did not receive preschool special education, but who are identified as students with disabilities in kindergarten through grade 4. Data collection focuses on student demographic information, service and placement data, teacher observations and parent satisfaction. Information on the study is available at http://nypk.mgtamer.com.

VESID continues to implement the Strategic Work plan on the Education of Students with Autism. During the 2001-2002 year:

• The State Task Force on Autism continued to provide stakeholder input on the appropriateness and effectiveness of the Department’s initiatives for students with autism. The Task Force endorsed VESID’s strategic work plan; discussed the development of a legislative proposal for technical assistance centers; provided specific recommendations on effective practices relating to autism; and supported the development and delivery of courses on autism at the in-service and pre-service levels and in the outreach to pediatricians and family health care providers to promote the early identification of and services to children with autism.
• VESID awarded grants to 17 New York State colleges and universities to develop and deliver courses on autism, including the State University at Albany to develop a certificate program focused on the Education of Children with Autism and Related Disorders. The first of three courses entitled Autism I - Foundation Course was offered in the Fall 2001 at 11 sites throughout New York State (see www.albany.edu.psy/autism/autism.html).
• The New York State Autism Network under the direction of VESID, developed Autism Program Quality Indicators (APQI) based on a review of the literature, input and review by regional advisory groups and national experts. The APQI are being used extensively throughout New York State and nationally.
• In February 2002, the Department issued a "Nomination Request for Effective Instructional Programs for School-Age Students with Autism." Nominations were sought for school-age educational programs that provide quality researched-based effective instructional practices for students with autism and that promote learning towards the New York State learning standards. The purpose of this initiative is to award grant funds to selected programs to support the replication of such practices throughout the State. Ten to 15 schools will be selected through the review of the written application and the site review to apply for grant funds. Selected schools will be expected to use grant funds to support activities related to working with other schools to replicate the effective programs and practices for students with autism.
• The Department disseminated the brochure Identifying Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder - Information for Physicians and Primary Health Care Providers to promote the need for early identification of children with autism spectrum disorders and the provision of appropriate education programs and services to support their learning and development.

The study on the Availability and Effectiveness of Preschool Programs for Children with Autism in New York State, as directed by Chapter 405 was conducted from December 2000 through March 2002. It was funded through a grant to the University of Albany, New York Autism Network (NYAN). The study was in in response to the growing concern over the "apparent escalation in the number of children being identified with autism," and for appropriate services to be available to meet the needs of these students, particularly those of preschoolers with the need for early and intense services. Preliminary results are outlined below.

A number of methods were used to assess the availability and quality of services. Surveys were collected from 308 State-approved preschool programs, 609 Committee on Preschool Special Education Chairpersons and 383 parents. Programs serving five or more preschoolers with autism completed a self-assessment using the APQI. Twenty-nine site-visits were conducted of a sample of programs, stratified across region, program size and program model.

In examining the question of availability of services for preschool children with autism, the following items were reviewed: number of programs that participated in the study, programs’ current operating capacity, number of additional students that could have been served, program self-identified level of expertise, and the theoretical orientation of the program. Study results suggest that while the overall distribution of special education programs is consistent with that of the population, selected areas of the State are reporting limited capacity to serve additional students with autism. The research team found that study results confirmed that both program directors and CPSE Chairpersons statewide are witnessing a proportional increase in the number of children with autism over historical levels. While there is some available capacity to serve those children, this is subject to significant regional variability, in that there are areas of the State where preschool programs are approaching capacity.

Program effectiveness was evaluated through the administration of the APQI. Results of the current study suggest that, overall, special education preschool programs were viewed favorably in meeting the educational needs of preschoolers with autism. Preschool programs were consistently rated high with respect to instructional methods and activities, instructional environment and curriculum. Programs were rated less favorably in terms of providing students with opportunities for inclusion, enlisting family involvement and linking families with supportive community agencies. These trends were found across all respondents.

The study’s final report is in review and will be issued in early 2003. The Department will use the study’s findings to develop strategies to increase the availability and effectiveness of services for preschool students with autism.

The Department will continue its work in the following areas related to the Chapter 405 Report:

• Continue to implement existing procedures for program approval and expansion based upon documentation of need and implementation of the quality assurance process to ensure program effectiveness;
• Disseminate the full report of the study on the quality of preschool special education programs and educational practices that affect general education placement rates when preschool students enter kindergarten or school-age programs. Two additional publications, Preschool Special Education Program Quality Indicators and Self-Assessment Guide and Preschool Special Education Learning Outcomes, Indicators for Support Services Necessary for Kindergarten Participation will be made available to preschool service providers, parents and others involved in educating preschool students with disabilities;
• A training program will be made available to preschool program providers regarding the program quality indicators and inclusion of the preschool learning standards in the instructional programs for preschool students with disabilities; and
• Disseminate the findings of the final Report on the Availability and Effectiveness of Preschool Programs for Children with Autism in New York State and work with the State Task Force on Autism to develop region specific strategies to increase the availability and effectiveness of services for preschool students with autism in New York State.

Footnotes:
¹ Separate education setting is a special school or educational center that includes only students with disabilities (or a home, hospital or other non-school facility) wherein a student receives special education for more than 50 percent of each day or week. If the student is "home-schooled" by parent choice, the student is not considered to be in a separate education setting.

² More restrictive settings are those settings in which students with disabilities are provided special education services and are removed from regular classrooms for the greatest part of the school day or week. Students with disabilities who are educated in separate education settings or are removed from regular classes for 60 percent or more of the day are considered to be in more restrictive settings.

APPENDICES

Appendix 1 
Description of Technical Assistance Levels and CSPD Requirements For Chapter 405 Districts - 2002

Appendix 2
Chapter 405 Technical Assistance Resources - 2002

Appendix 3
State Maps

Appendix 4
Methodology for Identification of Chapter 405 Problem Areas-2002

Appendix 5
Preschool Special Education Program Quality Indicators

Appendix 1

Three types of technical assistance are available from the State Education Department to contribute toward the resolution of identified issues and the associated Comprehensive System of Personnel Development (CSPD) planning process requirements.

School districts with one or more Chapter 405 problems in either the initial identification in April 2000 or in the second notification in December 2002 are assigned one of the following types of technical assistance:

1. Targeted Technical Assistance—intended for districts with identified Chapter 405 problem areas that will be provided with supports to assist them in identifying significant policy and procedural changes to resolve the problem(s). The district is required to address each problem area through existing planning processes (i.e., CSPD plan) and to submit the plan for review. A separate Corrective Action Plan may be required following review of the CSPD plan. The Department will provide targeted technical assistance for both the planning process and professional development through the Regional School Support Center (RSSC) and Special Education Training and Resource Center (SETRC) networks.
2. Regional Technical Assistance—intended for districts with identified Chapter 405 problem areas that can potentially be addressed through training and information dissemination. The district is required to address resolution of the problem(s) in the CSPD plan and participate in regional training programs sponsored by the Department or through local sources. A copy of the plan is to be submitted to the Department. Additional information on regional training initiatives will be provided in the future.
3. Self-Review—intended for districts with Chapter 405 problem areas that can and should be resolved at the local level. Similar to above, the district is required to address the resolution of the problem(s) in the CSPD plan and to implement the plan with local and regional resources. The attainment of goals associated with the problem area(s) should be documented as the CSPD plan is annually updated and revised with the SETRC representative.

VESID is aware of the many planning requirements for districts and continues to partner with the Department’s Office of Elementary, Middle, Secondary, and Continuing Education (EMSC) to consolidate and coordinate those processes. The appropriate vehicle to address systemic problems associated with Chapter 405 continues to be the CSPD plan that is updated annually. As noted in Part 100 and Part 200 Regulations of the Commissioner of Education, the CSPD plan can be incorporated into the Professional Development Plan (PDP), Comprehensive District Education plan (CDEP), or both. The statewide SETRC network is responsible for providing technical assistance to local districts on the CSPD planning process and can provide districts with the appropriate forms and procedures.

The purpose of the CSPD plan is to effect systems change at the local level and improve performance in regards to VESID Key Performance Measures. The CSPD plan is based on a thorough analysis of district and building data to determine needs; identify specific goals and outcomes in regard to student achievement, district performance, and disproportionality; and identify benchmarks representing appropriate progress toward achieving the goals.

The CSPD plan is due annually to the SETRC serving the region in which the district is located. SETRC addresses are enclosed.

For districts identified as requiring Targeted or Regional Technical Assistance, a copy of the CSPD must also be submitted to the Regional Special Education Quality Assurance Office, c/o the Regional Associate assigned to the district, and to the RSSC. Special Education Quality Assurance Regional Office and RSSC addresses are enclosed.

Please refer to Attachment E, Chapter 405 Technical Assistance Resources-2002. These resources may assist identified districts in the development, implementation, and evaluation of the CSPD plan to address each Chapter 405 problem area.

Office of Vocational and Educational Services for Individuals with Disabilities
New York State Education Department, Albany, New York 12234
Phone (518) 486-7462
Lparis@mail.nysed.gov
Fdemay@mail.nysed.gov
*R – Regional Professional Development Specialist

Appendix 2

The following resources may assist districts identified under Chapter 405 of the Laws of 1999 in the development, implementation and evaluation of the Comprehensive System of Personnel Development (CSPD) plan to address each Chapter 405 problem area.

Assessing the Needs of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Preschool Children, 1997, videotape developed by VESID, available through local SETRC Office.

Assessing the Needs of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse School-Aged Children, 1997, videotape developed by VESID, available through local SETRC Office.

Babyak, A., Luze, G. and Kamps, D. (2000). The Good Student Game: Behavior Management for Diverse Classrooms. Intervention in School and Clinic, Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 216-223.

Cantu´, N. (July 2000) The Use of High Stakes Tests when Making High Stakes Decisions for Students: U.S. Department of Civil Rights, (This article is also available at www.ed.gov/offices/OCR/testing).

Friedman, L., Assessment Tool for CSPD Teams: Determining Readiness for Results-Focused Change (Contact Lfriedman@wswheboces.org).

Garcia, S. and Ortiz, A. (1988) Preventing Inappropriate Referrals of Language Minority Students to Special Education, National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education (This article is also available at www.ncbe.gwu.edu/ncbepubs/classics/focus/05referral.htm).

Hassel, E. (1999) Professional Development: Learning from the Best: A Toolkit for Schools and Districts Based on Model Professional Development Award Winners; North Central Regional Educational Laboratory (This article is also available at www.ncrel.org).

Kamps, D., Kravits, T., Rauch, J., Kamps, J. and Chung (2000). A Prevention Program for Students with or At Risk of ED: Moderating Effects of Variation in Treatment and Classroom Structure. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 141-154.

Lupi, M. and Rivera, G. (2000). The Prereferral Intervention Process 
(Contact mlupi@shiva.hunter.cuny.edu).

Reidy, R.J. (November 2000) Report of the 7-Share Initiative, Schuyler-Chemung-Tioga BOCES.

Salend, S.J. (2001) Creating Inclusive Classrooms: Effective and Reflective Practices; 4^th Edition, Merrill Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458.

Heumann, J. and Warlick, K. (2001); Prevention Research and the IDEA Discipline Provisions: A Guide for School Administrators. United States Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs (This article is also available at www.ed.gov/offices/OSERS/OSEP).

Salend, S.J. (2001) Creating Inclusive Classrooms: Effective and Reflective Practices; 4^th Edition, Merrill Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458.

Books, Articles, ERIC Documents, Websites

Artiles, A.J., Harry, B., Reschly, D.J., & Chinn, P.C. (2001) Over-Identification of Students of Color in Special Education: A Critical Overview. Alliance Project of Peabody College: Vanderbilt University.

Association of University Centers on Disabilities http://www.aucd.org/councils/multicultural/multicult_resources.htm

Burnette, J. (1988) Reducing the Disproportionate Representation of Minority Students in Special Education (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. 417501).

Cornell Migrant Program, 8461 Ridge Road, PO Box 181, Alton, NY 14413 - phone (315) 483-4092 – fax (315) 483-4040 – contact persons: Betty Garcia-Mathewson bag7@cornell.edu and Kathy Castania ksf1@cornell.edu

Cummins, J. (2000) Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters LTD

Daniel J. L., & Orfield, G. (2002) Racial Inequity in Special Education. Civil Rights Project: Harvard Education Press

Darder, A. (1995) Culture and Power in the classroom. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey

Delpit, L. The Silenced Dialogue: Power and Pedagogy in Educating Other People’s Children. Harvard Educational Review "Disproportionate Representation in Special Education: Implications for Teacher Education Programs" by Bynoe, Duhaney & Salend www.newpaltz.edu/migrant/Itep.html

Diaz-Rico, L. T. and Weed, K. Z. (2002) The Cultural, Language, and Academic Development Handbook: A Complete K-12 Reference Guide. Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA 02116.

Echevarria, J., and Graves, A. (1998). Sheltered Content Instruction: Teaching English-language Learners with Diverse Abilities, Allyn and Bacon, Needham Heights, MA 02194.

Equity Assistance Center, New York University, 82 Washington Square East-Suite 72, New York, NY 10003. (212) 998-5116

ESCORT Center (2001) The Help! Kit: A resource Guide for Secondary Teachers of Migrant English Language Learners. Available online (www.escort.org) and by request for one hardcopy per individual educator making the request.

ESCORT Center (2001) Help! They Don’t Speak English Starter Kit for Elementary Teachers. Available online (www.escort.org) and by request for one hardcopy per individual educator making the request.

Fong, R., a d Furuto, S., eds. (2001). Culturally Competent Practice: Skills, Interventions, and Evaluations. Allyn and Bacon, Needham, MA 02116.

Gaining Ground Newsletter, Council of Chief State School Officers (www.ccsso.org).

Garcia, S. and Ortiz, A. (1988) Preventing Inappropriate Referrals of Language Minority Students to Special Education, National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education (This article is also available at www.ncbe.gwu.edu/ncbepubs/classics/focus/05referral.htm).

Gerston, R. and Baker, S. (2000) What We Know About Effective Instructional Practices for English-Language Learners, Exceptional Children, Vol. 66, No. 4, pp. 454-470.

Gonzalez, V., Brusca-Vega, R., and Yawkey, T. (1997) Assessment and Instruction of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students With or At Risk of Learning Problems. Allyn and Bacon, Needham Heights, MA 02116.

Green, J. W. (1992). Cultural Awareness in the Human Services, 3^rd Edition. Allyn and Bacon, Needham, MA 02116

Haberman, M. (1995) Star Teachers of Children in Poverty: Indianapolis, IN: Kappa Delta Pi. (Also on reserve)*

Hollins, E.R. (1996) Culture in school learning: Revealing the deep meaning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum

Howard, Gary R. (1999) We Can’t Teach What We Don’t Know: White Teachers, Multiracial Schools: New York: Teachers College Press. (Also on Reserve) *

Ladner, M., & Hammons, C. (2201) Special but unequal: Race and special education. In C.E. Finn, A.J. Rotherham, & C.R. Hokanson (Eds). Rethinking special education for a new century (pp. 85-110). Washington, DC.: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.

Lash, D. (2000) Race, Language and Special Education in NYC, Metropolitan Parent Center, Sinergia, Inc., New York (This article is also available at www.sinergiany.org).

Lachat, M.A. (2000) Standards, Equity and Cultural Diversity, Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Laboratory at Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island (This article is also available at www.lab.brown.edu).

Lewis, A. (2001) Add It Up: Using research to Improve Education for Low-Income and Minority Students. http://www.prrac.org/additup.pdf

Lindsey, R.B., Robins, K. N., and Terrell, R.D. (1999) Cultural Proficiency: A Manual for School Leaders. Corwin Press, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320.

Markowitz, J., Garcia, S. and Eichelberger, J. (1997). Addressing Disproportionate Representation of Students from Racial and Ethnic Minority Groups in Special Education: A Resource Document, National Association of State Directors of Special Education for U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs National Association of School Psychologist (This article is also available at www.naspweb.org).

Meier. K.J. & Stewart, J. (1991) The politics of Hispanic education. Albany, NY: State Universty of New York Press

Meyer & Patton (2001) On the Nexus of race, Disability, and Overrepresentation: What Do We Know? Where Do We Go? National Institute for Urban School Improvement www.edc.org/urban/race.pdf

National Association of State Boards of Education (2002). A More Perfect Union: Building an Education System that Embraces All Children. http://www.nasbe.org/NASBE_Bookstore/More_NASBE.html

National Conference for Community and Justice http://www.nccjctwma.org/programs.htm

Nieto S. (2000) Affirming Diversity (3^rd Ed): New York City: Longman.

Payne, Ruby (1998) A Framework for Understanding Poverty: Highlands, Texas: RFT.

Quinn, M.T. & Jacob, E. (2001). Adding Culture to the Tools of School Pychologists. www.nasponline.org/publications/cq281culture.html

Research Connections in Special Education (Fall 2000). Improving Results for Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students; Promising Practices that Support Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students with Disabilities, U.S. Office of Special Education Programs (This article is also available at www.ed.gov/offices/osers/osep).

Salend, S. J. (2001) Creating Inclusive Classrooms: Effective and Reflective Practices; 4^th Edition; Merrill Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458.

Soto, L.D. (1997) Language, culture and power. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

The Civil Rights Project. http://www.law.harvard.edu/civilrights/ (click on publications)

The Tolerance Project of the Southern Poverty Law Center. http://www.tolerance.org/

Vaughn, S., Bos, C.S., and Schumm, J. S. (2000) Teaching Exceptional, Diverse, and At-Risk Students in the General Education Classroom, 2^nd Edition. Allyn and Bacon, Needham, MA 02116.

Application and Program Requirements for Targeted Districts Under IDEA State Improvement Plan, January 2001

Certification and Licensing of Bilingual Special Education Professionals, June 1997

Discipline Procedures for Students with Disabilities, January 2001.

Guidance on Functional Behavioral Assessments for Students with Disabilities, July 1998.

Guidelines on Implementation of Specially Designed Reading Instruction to Students with Disabilities and Clarification About "Lack of Instruction" in Determining Eligibility for Special Education, May 1999.

Guidelines for Services for Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Preschool Students with Disabilities Ages 3-5, March 1997.

Increasing Integrated Opportunities for Preschool Children with Disabilities, March 1997.

Inclusive School and Communities Conference Sponsored by VESID, May 22-23,2001. 

Least Restrictive Environment Implementation Policy Paper, May 1998.

New York State Education Law, September 2000, Article 89, Albany, New York.

New York State Systems Partnership for Statement Change 2001 (www.systemschange.syr.edu).

Psychologist/Interpreter Work Standards for Conducting Bilingual Evaluations, June 1997.

Regulations of the Commissioner of Education - Part 200, Students with Disabilities and Part 201, Procedural Safeguards for Students with Disabilities, March 2000.

Selected Schools and Effective Practices in Instructional Programs for Students with Disabilities - Encouraging the Replication of Effective Practices in Instructional Programs for Students with Disabilities, March 2000.

National Resources

Association of Service Providers Implementing IDEA Reforms in Education (ASPIIRE) http://ideapractices.org.

Center of Minority Research in Special Education (COMRISE) http://curry.edschool.Virginia.edu/go/comrise.

Center for Effective Collaboration and Practice (CECP) http://www.air-dc.org/cecp/cecp.html.

Council for Children with Behavioral Disorders (CCBD) http://www.ccbd.net.

Council for Exceptional Children (www.cec.org).

Cultural Relevance in Teaching, The Knowledge Loom (http://knowledgeloom.org).

International Reading Organization (IRA) http://www.reading.org.

National Alliance of Black School Education (NASBE) http://www.nabse.org

National Association of Bilingual Education (NABE) http://www.nabe.org.

National Association of School Psychologists (NASP) http://www.naspweb.org.

National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) http://www.coled.umn.edu/nceo/.

National Indian Education Association (NIEA) http://www.niea.org.

OSEP Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports http://www.pbis.org/

Quality Education for Minorities Network (QEM) http://qemnetwork.qem.org.

The Northeast and Islands Regional Education Laboratory, the Education Alliance at Brown University (www.lab.brown.edu).

A Pilot Project: Enhanced Mental Health Services in the Miner Elementary School

Assessment of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students for Special Education Eligibility, ERIC/OSEP Digest E604 (December 2000)

Critical Behaviors and Strategies for Teaching Culturally Diverse Students, ERIC/OSEP Digest E584 (November 1999)

Digest of the report of National Academy of Science Study 1982

Five Strategies to Reduce Overrepresentation of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students in Special Education, ERIC/OSEP Digest E596 (August 2000)

Instructional Strategies Reflecting Cultural Respect, ERIC/OSEP Mini Bib EB 23 (October 1998)

Introducing School-Based Mental Health Assistance in the District of Columbia Public Schools: A Proposed Action Plan

"Miner School Project Demonstrates Enhanced Mental Health Outcomes Through Collaboration of CMHS, Schools and Community, "The Mental Health Quarterly, Summer 1999

Nationwide Search for Promising Practices Positively Impacting Disproportionality

Reducing the Disproportionate Representation of Minority Students in Special Education, ERIC/OSEP Digest E566 (March 1998)

Research Connections in Special Education, Number 7 (Fall 2000)

Social Skills and Behavioral Intervention for Culturally Diverse Students, ERIC/ OSEP Mini Bib EB 24 (October 1998)

Appendix 3

Click here for detailed image of this map

Appendix 4

Problem Area #1: High rate of identification of students as students with disabilities- The statewide average classification rate in 2000-01 was 11.9 percent. School districts with at least 75 school-age students with disabilities and with a classification rate of 15 percent or higher have been identified as having a high rate. The school district special education classification rate for 2000-01 was calculated as follows:

12/1/00, PD-1 form, Section A, Line 10 (all students with disabilities for whom the public school district has Committee on Special Education responsibility), divided by the addition of the following elements from the Fall 2000, BEDS enrollment forms: K-12 enrollment, including students with disabilities in "ungraded" elementary and "ungraded" secondary; students in equivalent attendance programs; incarcerated students; students with disabilities attending other public school districts; students in BOCES, approved private schools, 4201 schools, and State-operated schools; students attending non-public schools as a result of parent choice; and students who are "home-schooled", multiplied by 100.

Problem Area #2: Low declassification rate for preschool students with disabilities- The statewide average declassification rate for preschool students with disabilities in 2000-01 was 19.5 percent. School districts with 20 or more preschool children with disabilities and at least 75 school-age students with disabilities and with preschool declassification rates of 5 percent or lower have been identified as having a low rate. The 2000-01 declassification rate for preschool students was calculated as follows:

2000-01, PD-5 form, Section A, Column A total, plus Column B total, divided by PD-1 form, Section C, Line 1, Column 1, multiplied by 100.

Problem Area #3: Low declassification rate for school-age students with disabilities- The statewide average declassification rate for school-age students with disabilities in 2000-01 was 3.7 percent. School districts with at least 75 school-age students with disabilities and with school-age declassification rates of 1.5 percent or lower have been identified as having a low school-age declassification rate. The 2000-01 declassification rate for school-age students was calculated as follows:

2000-01, PD-5 form, Section A, Column C total, plus Column D total, plus, for students ages 14-21, Line 7 total for each disability, divided by 12/1/00 PD-1 form, Section A, Line 10, multiplied by 100.

Problem Area # 4: High rate of placing school-age students with disabilities (ages 6-21) in separate education settings- The statewide average rate of school-age students with disabilities in separate education settings was 7.7 percent in 2000-01. The median rate in NYS was 3.9 percent; this means that half of the school districts had rates that were 3.9 percent or lower and half of the school districts had rates that were higher than 3.9 percent. The 2000-2001 national rate was 4.2 percent. School districts with at least 75 school-age students with disabilities and a rate of 6.0 percent or higher have been identified as having a high rate. The 2000-01 rate for placing school-age students in separate education settings was calculated as follows:

12/1/00, PD-4 form, Section C, Table 2 total for students ages 6-21 in all disability categories, divided by PD-4 form, Section C, Table 1 plus Table 2 total for ages 6-21 in all disability categories, multiplied by 100.

For many years, New York State has collected race/ethnicity data for all students enrolled in public schools. These data are reported on the BEDS-School Data Form as of the first Wednesday in October each year. New York State collects race/ethnicity data for students with disabilities, as of December 1, by disability category and by placement type on the PD-4 Form. 2000-01 data from these two forms are the basis for determining all disproportions in special education. Data provided by school districts for each racial/ethnic group are compared with total data for each respective school district. School district data are neither compared with data from other school districts nor with any statewide averages in determining disproportionality.

After researching several methodologies, New York State adopted the Chi-Square formula to make determinations regarding significant disproportionality based on race. The Chi-Square formula results are at the 0.5 level of significance, with one degree of freedom. The Chi-Square formula is also used as one formula by the New York State branch of the United States Office of Civil Rights for the purpose of making race/ethnicity disproportionality determinations.

Three additional criteria were applied before identifying school districts as having significant disproportionality:

1. December 1, 2000 count of school-age students with disabilities was at least 75 students,
2. There were at least 10 students in every "expected" value of the Chi-Square formula, and
3. The disproportionality was in a non-White category.

Chi-Square results greater than 3.841 indicate that it is unlikely that the observed values are occurring by chance. The examination of data, using the Chi-Square methodology, to determine significant disproportionality based on race, is only the first step of review. A Chi-Square result exceeding 3.841 does not, in itself, constitute a finding that the school district is in violation of any requirements in IDEA. Such findings can only be made after a review of the policies, procedures and practices used by school districts to identify and place children with disabilities.

Categories of Disproportionality

Attachment C provides the actual data that was used in the Chi-Square calculations, and the Chi-Square results for each of the 50 calculations that were completed for every school district. Also, all Chi-Square formula variables and their description are provided. The five racial/ethnic groups are: American Indian/Alaskan Native; Asian/Pacific Islander; Black, not Hispanic; Hispanic; and White, not Hispanic. The 50 Chi-Square calculations completed by New York State for each school district are as follows:

1. For each of the five racial/ethnic groups, were students disproportionately overrepresented as disabled? (Five Chi-Square results were computed for each school district.) In order to make this determination, the racial/ethnic composition of the school district’s special education students was compared with the racial/ethnic composition of the school district’s total enrollment.
2. For each of the five racial/ethnic groups, were students disproportionately overrepresented in the following disability categories: emotional disturbance; learning disability; mental retardation; speech impairment; or "other" than the preceding impairments? (Twenty-five Chi-Square results were computed for each school district.) In order to make these determinations, the percentage of students in each racial/ethnic group identified with the particular disability category was compared with the total percentage of all students with disabilities in the school district identified with the particular disability.
3. For each of the five racial/ethnic groups, were students with disabilities disproportionately underrepresented in regular class (placement in which students with disabilities spend 80 percent or more of their school day in general education classes), disproportionately overrepresented in special class (placement in which students with disabilities spend less than 40 percent of their day in general education classes), or disproportionately overrepresented in separate educational settings (placement in which students with disabilities are in buildings that are attended only by students with disabilities)? (Fifteen Chi-Square results were computed for each school district.) In order to make these determinations, the percentage of each racial/ethnic group placed in each placement category was compared with the percentage of all students with disabilities in the district placed in each placement category.
4. For each of the five racial/ethnic groups, were preschool students with disabilities disproportionately overrepresented in separate settings? Students provided special education services in settings which include only other children with disabilities are c