(Click here for Word or PDF Format for printing)

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 - Deputy Commissioner Gloeckler Letter of August 2003

Appendix 6 - CSPD Field Memorandum – September 2003

Appendix 7 - Requirements for Districts Identified Under Chapter 405 of the Laws of 1999 Field Memorandum – September 2003

Appendix 8 - Targeted District Narrative Report – 2003-2004

Appendix 9 Regents Item: Update on Initiatives to Close Performance Gap

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 provides information on activities that occurred since the last Chapter 405 report was submitted in December 2002. This would include activities that occurred during the second half of the 2002-2003 school year and the first half of the 2003-2004 school year. The first portion of this report focuses on activities of the Education Department 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 (BOCES) 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; and
    

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

In December of 2002, the Department conducted a second Chapter 405 notification of school districts with one or more of the above issues based on review of their 2000-2001 school year data. Appendix 4 describes the criteria used to identify school districts in December 2002. Compared to the initial notification in April 2000, the following major changes were made to the criteria for notification:

• School districts with lower rates of placing students with disabilities in separate settings were notified in December 2002 compared to April 2000. The rate was lowered from 10 percent and above to 6 percent and above. This resulted in significantly more school districts being notified for this issue.

• The Department did not notify school districts in December 2002 if they had disproportionality issues involving White students.

• Only school districts that had a minimum December 1, 2000 enrollment of 75 school-age students with disabilities were identified for any issue.

The second notification provided school districts a summary of their data and the type of technical assistance they were assigned in both notifications, if they were involved in both notifications. The Department provided specific directions to the following three groups of school districts regarding their respective responsibilities related to the notification:

• School districts that were identified in April 2000, but, did not have any issues in the December 2002 notification. There were 97 such school districts.

• School districts that were identified in April 2000 for one or more issues and continued to be identified for one or more issues in the December 2002 notification, but not necessarily for the same issues. There were 267 such school districts.

• School districts that were not identified in April 2000, but had one or more issues in the December 2002 notification. There were 86 such school districts.

After completing data verification procedures and making the necessary adjustments, 364 school districts were identified in the first notification in April 2000 and 353 school districts were identified in December 2002. The Department required all school districts that were identified for the first time or that were identified for new issues to complete specific surveys which provide the Department with the school districts’ beliefs about why each issue exists in their district. The Department uses school district survey responses to engage school personnel in conversations regarding root causes of Chapter 405 issues as a part of the technical assistance procedures.

All 353 school districts identified in December 2002 were assigned to one of three levels of technical assistance based on the criteria below. (See Appendix 1 – Description of Technical Assistance Levels and CSPD Requirement for Chapter 405 Districts - 2002):

• Targeted Technical Assistance: The Department continues to provide extensive technical assistance to the thirteen targeted districts from the previous notification. These thirteen school districts continued to have Chapter 405 issues in December 2002.

• Regional Technical Assistance: Based on a numerical calculation that took into account the number of issues and the amount of discrepancy between the criteria for identification and school district’s actual data on each issue, 89 school districts were identified for this type of technical assistance.

• Self Review: The remaining 251 school districts not identified for Targeted technical assistance and not identified for Regional technical assistance were identified for this type of assistance.

In November 2002, the Department prepared a joint EMSC and VESID report to the Board of Regents on the issue of disproportionality in special education and invited a national expert, Daniel Reshley from the Peabody School of Education at Vanderbilt University to participate in a discussion with the Board of Regents on this topic. This report recognized that the issues of disproportionality are national education issues and must be addressed by the entire educational community and not by special education offices alone. This presentation further strengthened the Department’s resolve towards designing cooperative inter-office strategies to effect change.

The Comprehensive System of Personnel Development (CSPD) plan was selected as the vehicle for identified districts to address systemic problems associated with Chapter 405. (see Appendices 6 and 7) 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; the issues in these districts were considered to be systemic in nature and not resolvable through technical assistance and regionally-provided training alone. 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 89 districts identified for Chapter 405 problem areas that can potentially be addressed through regionally-provided 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 251 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 support of 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, data indicate some progress each year, as follows:

• There was a decrease in the number of school districts that placed more than 15 percent of students with disabilities in separate educational settings (from 117 districts in 1999-00 to 76 districts in 2000-01 to 27 districts in 2001-02).

• There was a decrease in the number of school districts with disproportionate placement of minority students in more restrictive settings (from 103 districts in 1997-98 to 89 districts in 2000-01). Disproportionality calculations were not performed using 2001-02 data.

• There has been a reduction in the extent to which Black and Hispanic students are over-represented in special education for the last three years. The overrepresentation of Black students in special education has decreased from 4.7 to 4.5 to 4.4 percentage points above the percentage of Black students in the total enrollment in 1999-00, 2000-01 and 2001-02, respectively. Similarly, the overrepresentation of Hispanic students has decreased from 2.8 to 2.6 to 2.4 percentage points above the percentage of Hispanic students in the total enrollment in 1999-00, 2000-01 and 2001-02, respectively.

The percentage point gap by which Black and Hispanic students are
over represented in special education compared to
their total enrollment continues to narrow.

New York State statute and regulation require each District Superintendent of Schools of each Board of Cooperative Educational Services (BOCES) 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 next Special Education Space Requirements Plan is due February 1, 2004. 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.

As a result of the significant progress achieved throughout New York State during the last five-year Special Education Space Requirements Plan, over 11,000 fewer students with disabilities are reported as placed in separate educational settings as compared to five years ago. In addition, many regions of the State now exceed the national average in placing students in integrated facilities. These efforts ensure that students with disabilities statewide have greater meaningful access to the general education curriculum, increased opportunities to be integrated with nondisabled peers, and increased opportunities for independence.

However, too many students with disabilities continue to have limited or no access to their nondisabled peers throughout the school day. The New York State Board of Regents has determined that the percentage of school-age students with disabilities educated in separate educational settings, while greatly improved, should still be significantly decreased in certain regions to be at least comparable to the current national average of 4.2 percent. In addition, the United States Department of Education (USDOE) has identified New York State as the second ranked state in the nation for placing a high percentage of students with disabilities in separate educational settings. The USDOE will continue to target New York for intensive corrective action on this issue. The next five-year benchmark for those regions that project to be above the national average at the end of the current 1999-2003 Special Education Space Requirements Plan will be 4.2 percent. Each region at or below the national average will establish its own benchmark and efforts in those regions will be expected to be maintained to continue to maximize the percentage of students with disabilities educated with their nondisabled peers over the next five year period.

In June 2003, the District Superintendents of the 38 BOCES and the Chancellor of the City of New York submitted their fourth 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 Progress Report was to evaluate the success of each BOCES region (that includes Yonkers, Buffalo, Rochester and Syracuse) and NYC in meeting the benchmark percentage reductions of students with disabilities placed in separate site settings. Results of the report showed:

• Thirty-one of the 39 regions (79 percent), including NYC, have exceeded their benchmark percentages of integration. (see Appendix 3 – State Maps)

• All regions project to meet their benchmark for December 2003.

• The regional survey information indicated that there were 11 regions with 25 or more students with disabilities awaiting placement in an appropriate program, a decrease of three regions from the previous year, although still an area of concern. (see Appendix 3 – State Maps)

The Department redirected IDEA discretionary funds for the period July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003 to address the students awaiting a change in placement. Such funds were targeted to ensure appropriate programs for students awaiting placement due to lack of availability of appropriate settings. VESID issued a request for proposals in January 2002 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 1999-2003 Special Education Space Requirements Plan. Twenty-three of the 38 BOCES (61 percent) submitted grant applications. Fourteen BOCES received grant awards, ranging from $100,000-$200,000, based on a competitive review process by an inter-agency team from offices within the State Education Department and the Office of Mental Health.

The grant activities for Year 1, July 1, 2002-June 30, 2003, were used to develop services to target approximately 700 students with disabilities extraordinarily challenged by autism and severe emotional disturbance. These students were previously placed on home instruction or placed in inappropriate placements. The grants provided extensive staff development activities, primarily in the area of positive behavioral interventions. Of special note is that seven of the grants developed programs in collaboration with local mental-health agencies and three developed partnerships with Universities to provide on-site consultation and support in the area of behavior management. VESID supported grantees with monthly audioconferences to enable the program leaders to network with each other and with an expert in the field of positive behavioral interventions. All fourteen BOCES received continuation awards for Year 2, ranging from $50,000-$100,000. Continuation awards will be available for one more year, pending availability of funds and the success of the applicant in meeting the goals and objectives in the second year of the project.

The NYC Special Education Quality Assurance Regional Office issued a grant application request for the development of new programs and/or redesign of existing programs that serve NYC school-age students with disabilities. VESID has authorized Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) discretionary funds for this project. The primary goal of this request for applications is to provide services to those students with disabilities identified by the NYC Department of Education as awaiting school placements due to the lack of available services. Funds were awarded to two NYC community school districts, one Chapter 853 school and two special act school districts.

In addition, discretionary funds were awarded to NYC Department of Education, District 75, for the 2002-03 school year to continue to implement the capacity building and improvement initiatives for students with disabilities. The funds provided comprehensive staff development to support schools serving students with autism attending District 75 programs. As indicated in the proposal, four staff developers will be hired and function as a borough based resource to provide on-site professional development regarding instructional interventions for students with autism to school administrators, teachers, related service providers and parents.

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

SETRC is a professional development network funded by VESID through IDEA discretionary funds and composed of 42 projects statewide that provide technical assistance to personnel working with preschool and school age children with disabilities. The SETRC model is one of systems change, in which SETRC Professional Development Specialists’ (PDSs) efforts are directed primarily to high need, low resource districts/buildings in need of improvement. Within that group of districts, each SETRC project further targets a limited number of districts or buildings for intensive support, including coaching and on-going analysis of the root causes of district issues, identifying solutions, and implementation and evaluation of effect. State targeted 405 districts/buildings automatically become SETRC targeted districts/buildings, and the disproportionality issues for which they were targeted are subjected to root cause analysis and problem solving, with the final product being the CSPD Plan including goals, objectives, and activities that address those issues. SETRC Professional Development Specialists work closely with RSSC Special Education Specialists and SEQA Regional Associates in supporting districts/buildings through this process.

During 2002-2003, SETRC projects with 405 Targeted Districts and large concentrations of Regionally Targeted districts were given mini-grants to support additional professional development related to disproportionality. Of the 42 SETRC centers, 26 programs with Chapter 405 targeted and regional districts or schools in their service areas were given allocations which ranged from $3,000 to $74,500. The total amount allocated for these amendments was $342,000. The funds were used for district staff development consistent with the Regional Chapter 405 plans. As a result of the distribution of these funds, training was provided to identified districts on topics including cultural sensitivity, differentiated learning strategies, pre-referral strategies, behavior intervention strategies, engaging parents and community members, and instructional support teams.

An illustrative example of how SETRC provides support is the Buffalo CSD. In Buffalo, SETRC assisted the district to address a high rate of identification of students with disabilities and disproportionate representation of African American students within the population identified as emotionally disturbed or mentally retarded. A root cause analysis determined a need for training of Committee on Special Education (CSE) staff in distinguishing causal factors related to cultural and social disadvantage and those related to intrinsic disability. As a result, 125 CSE staff members including supervisors, psychologists, social workers, and related services professionals received 12 hours of training on topics such as understanding poverty and applying learning structures through classroom strategies. The SETRC team reported positive responses to the training, with 95% of the respondents indicating that the training would change the ways they made decisions regarding eligibility for special education. Buffalo SETRC also worked with Instructional Support Service Teams to develop more formalized pre-referral strategies. They reported that, as an unexpected gain, district wide data collection and analysis has become much more sophisticated and serves as a focal point for discussions as opposed to conjecture about where problems originate.

Within the SETRC network are two sub-networks comprising Regional Training PDSs and Bilingual SETRC. Regional PDSs, working in each RSSC region, support districts by providing compliance-related professional development and knowledge of laws and regulations relating to identification, placement, and service provision. This information is critical to help districts address disproportionality. Bilingual SETRC PDSs, working in each of the Big Five City districts, and at large on Long Island and in the Upstate region, provide both compliance related and instructionally related professional development for districts. Bilingual SETRC PDSs are instrumental in assisting districts to understand the difference between the identification of students as English language learners and as students with a disability. They also have helped districts identify evaluators with appropriate certificate extensions for evaluating children who are non-native English speakers. In addition, they provide districts with professional development on cutting edge instructional and behavioral strategies for English language learners with disabilities, and on culturally competent interaction with students and families. Bilingual SETRC PDSs have also provided a natural link for collaboration among special education resources and general education resources such as the Bilingual Education Technical Assistance Center (BETAC).

Regional School Support Center Network

In September 2000, the RSSC Network was established though a collaborative effort of the Offices 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. From 2000 - 2003, RSSCs were 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. The RSSCs were designed specifically to provide intensive onsite technical assistance, in partnership with SETRC, to Targeted Chapter 405 districts. RSSCs also are responsible for collaborating with SETRC on strategies to address Regional Technical Assistance districts.

RSSCs are directly engaged to build capacity in low performing schools. One Center is operated in NYC by the Teacher Center. Beginning in 2003-04, six RSSCs will operate in addition to the Center located in NYC. One hundred percent of RSSC resources will be directed to building capacity and improving education performance in schools/districts identified based on the System of Accountability for Student Success (SASS); and to improving the performance of students with disabilities in school districts prioritized based on VESID Key Performance Indicators. Approximately $6.5 million has been allocated by EMSC and VESID to support Centers located outside NYC during each of the 2003-2008 school years. An allocation for the NYC RSSC has not yet been finalized.

Each Center's comprehensive set of services is directed to the identification and/or diagnosis of root causes of conditions inhibiting student performance, and the development of appropriate interventions through comprehensive planning, coordination of network resources, technical assistance and professional development. This information is documented for each RSSC client school/district in status reports submitted to the Department on a tri-annual basis.

IDEA State Improvement Grant (SIG)

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 NYC, 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, (coached by SETRC and/or RSSC specialists), develop goals and objectives, and plan professional development interventions. Districts must partner with a parent organization and an Institution of Higher Education (IHE) 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 SIG. VESID used the grant to add three regional State Improvement Grant Teams (Upstate, Downstate/Long Island, and NYC). The Upstate and Downstate/Long Island SIG Teams each consist of four specialists in areas associated with key root causes contributing to poor performance for students with disabilities. (NYC has chosen to provide the same service with existing personnel through the United Federation of Teachers Teacher Center). One member of each Team has expertise in bilingual education and cultural competency. These individuals, in collaboration with the SETRC and RSSC personnel from the districts’ regions, have worked with SIG districts and other targeted, unfunded districts, to address issues that have resulted in disproportionality.

One example of the impact of their involvement is Peekskill, where disproportionate identification and placement of ELL students has been an ongoing issue. Through work with Downstate/Long Island SIG Team Bilingual Specialists, the district extended their root cause analysis in disproportionality, resulting in district commitment to a Dual Language classroom approach to education for ELL students. The SIG Team continues to work with the district to support educators as they plan and implement appropriate instruction for ELL and ethnically/culturally different students. Districts work with their SETRC and RSSC field personnel to determine which team members will provide support; several districts have or are planning to use the services of the Team member with expertise in disproportionality. In addition, the Teams are producing professional development modules which will address issues of disproportionality.

In 2002 NYS was awarded a SIG Supplemental Grant. One of the goals of this supplement addresses disproportionality, with special emphasis on ethnic rather than language minority issues. New York State will enhance the impact of this support by identifying and engaging a specialist with particular interest and expertise in multicultural issues. This individual, with demonstrated ability to provide professional development and job embedded support to districts on these issues, will:

1. develop a presentation on research-based instructional/management strategies that have been shown to result in improvement in disproportionality;

2. identify areas of concern in which little robust research exists and, working with districts/buildings, SETRCs, RSSCs, and IHEs, provides support for action research to test the outcomes of promising but unevaluated strategies;

3. contact the individuals named by field technical assistance network personnel as having interest/expertise in multicultural issues, discuss with them their interest in becoming part of a resource network, and identify a core group who can provide capacity and act as a "brain trust" in multicultural disproportionality issues; and

4. work with the awardees of the 405 technical assistance contract for capacity building, including acting as a liaison between them and other members of the field TA networks when necessary.

Upon identification of a technical assistance provider (see Page 18, Disproportionality), mini-grants will be made available to SIG Districts/Buildings that are interested in working with the TA provider. These mini-grants of $5000 a year for two years will support the district in identification, implementation and evaluation of effective practices. Mini-grant awardees also will provide an opportunity for other districts to observe the intervention in practice.

Partnership Agreements

The Department has entered into special agreements with six school districts in order to close the achievement gap for all students in those districts. Partnership Agreements are being developed with the city school districts of Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, and Yonkers. A Performance Plan has also been developed with the Wyandanch Union Free School District and the Roosevelt Union Free School District. These special agreements provide a framework for the type of collaboration and support SED and its funded networks intend to provide to the districts. The agreements represent or are a reflection of prioritized needs and goals included in each district’s strategic plan. Included in those plans are Chapter 405 issues for which the districts have been cited. Operational plans will be developed by the collective providers of services (SETRC, RSSC, BETAC, etc.) to identify, implement, and evaluate specific activities designed to achieve the outcomes specified in the agreements.

Quality Assurance Review Process

Since 1994-95, VESID’s Special Education Quality Assurance (SEQA) Unit 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 efforts with school district staff, parents, VESID and SETRC staff working together utilizing review protocols that focus on specific areas of need. Consequently, this approach is referred to as Focused Reviews. Nationally, both the Federal Office of Special Education Programs and many other state education agencies have begun to move toward a focused monitoring process. As a result of the Focused Review process, the team identifies any areas of noncompliance and the required corrective action.

During 2002-03 two protocols were utilized. The Least Restrictive Environment protocol was designed to address high separate placement rates by a school district, while the Achievement protocol addresses low achievement by students with disabilities. The process also includes a Parent Forum designed to solicit feedback on parents’ perceptions of special education within their districts. The culminating activity of a focused review is the identification of 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.

During the 2002-03 year, a third protocol was developed on Student Exiting/Transition to complement the Least Restrictive Environment and Achievement protocols. All three protocols include elements to evaluate the district, where applicable, for the significant disproportion of identification and placement of students in special education based on race and/or ethnicity.

For the 2002-03 school year, a total of 131 reviews were conducted in preschool and school-age programs statewide in addition to 156 follow up reviews to reviews conducted in the previous year. This included two of the 13 Chapter 405 districts as identified for Targeted Technical Assistance. Special Education Quality Assurance Reviews ensure that federal and State requirements are implemented and that protections guaranteed to students with disabilities and their parents are enforced.

New York City

The New York City Department of Education (NYCDOE) is taking significant steps in examining school districts’ Chapter 405 disproportionality data and analyzing root causes of identified issues. Meetings were conducted with each NYC Community school district superintendent and strategies were developed to address problem areas. The NYCDOE has contracted with the New York University (NYU) Metro Center for Urban Education to develop and present a staff development program that deals with disproportionality in referral and placement for students in targeted districts. The Metro Center team is engaged in assisting Community School Districts 6 and 24 in addressing the overrepresentation of English Language Learners who are receiving special education services. The goal is to have Metro Center train a school team so that the team will provide turnkey training to other staff members at the end of the year.

In addition, discretionary funds are allocated through the federal SIG and through the NYC SETRC to support a collaboration between different divisions of the NYCDOE for the purpose of addressing disproportionate representation of minority groups referred and recommended for special education services. The District Comprehensive Educational Plan (DCEP) document was amended requiring superintendents to review data and propose interventions to address disproportionality. The linkages established with VESID, EMSC, SETRC, RSSC and NYU Equity Assistance Center are assisting districts in identifying and implementing effective strategies.

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.

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.

Assistance from national associations and the federal government

Department staff meet 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 (NERRC) 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.

Department staff participated in a meeting hosted by NERRC on disproportionality issues in October 2002. They presented on the topic of Department efforts to address disproportionality as required by Chapter 405 of the Laws of 1999. This forum provided an opportunity to share and discuss common issues with neighboring states as well as with nationally recognized experts in this field.

Department staff participated in a national disproportionality calculations task force, convened by the USDOE in January 2003 to provide recommendations regarding the consistent calculation of disproportionality determinations across the states. The Department is awaiting USDOE’s response to the task force’s recommendations.

Department staff also participated in a national task force, convened by the USDOE in March 2003 to provide recommendations regarding definitions that are used to collect data from states regarding placement of students with disabilities in various educational settings. The Department is also awaiting USDOE’s response to the task force’s recommendations.

OSEP has modified its biennial performance report requirements to an annual reporting requirement. This report requests states to provide goals and objectives established for students with disabilities, a description of data trends, and strategies the state will use to improve results in identified areas based on the State’s needs assessment. This report also requires states to provide Statewide data on disproportionality, based on race/ethnicity in identification and placement of students with disabilities.

Urban Forums

The Department, in partnership with the Big Four Urban School Districts, developed four Urban Forums. The Urban Forums are part of a larger Urban Initiative designed to provide dynamic, practical tools to enhance student performance in meeting the State’s learning standards among the Big Four upstate urban districts: Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse and Yonkers. In 2002-03, Urban Forums were held on Technology Planning and Management; Fiscal Planning and Multi-Year Budgeting; Promoting Academic Success - Curriculum Alignment and Strategies to Improve English Language Arts and Mathematics Results; and Supporting Positive Youth Development. The Urban Forums were designed to foster the development of a Big Four learning community in a dynamic and nurturing learning environment through dialogue, and examination of data and emerging best practices. Topics were presented through study circles and roundtables and enabled participants to leave the Urban Forum with tangible ideas to foster success within the school community.

As indicated on page 11, New York’s Supplemental State Improvement Grant includes a component that is intended to improve overall State capacity to address ethnic disproprotionality. The grant supports the identification of instate expertise to facilitate and develop a standing workgroup on ethnic disproportionality. This workgroup will become the core of a technical assistance effort in the State to provide in-depth skills for utilization at the local district level. It is anticipated that the workgroup will expand as the State gains important experience dealing with ethnic disproportionality through district planning and professional development activities. To provide practical, hands-on experience for the workgroup, a pilot group of targeted districts will receive mini-grants of $5000 each to support planning and implementation of local projects to address ethnic disproportionality.

Institutions of Higher Education with teacher education programs who are members of the VESID funded Higher Education Task Force for Quality Inclusive Schooling at Syracuse University will be invited to join in with this strategy. The Department expects that faculty with an interest in this area will apply for financial support from the Higher Education Support Center to conduct research and become involved in this initiative.

It is expected that staff will be assigned, schools will be targeted and funds will be allocated in support of this initiative by spring 2004.

Disproportionality

In order to increase capacity for addressing disproportionality, the Department issued a Request for Proposal in December 2002 to solicit applications for a funding award to operate a Technical Assistance Center on Disproportionality. The Department has identified a vendor and is developing the contract. Once the award is final, 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.

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.

Next Steps

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.

• Implement three focused review protocols in Special Education Quality Assurance. Each protocol will include elements designed to evaluate districts for the significant disproportion of identification and placement of students in special education based on race and/or ethnicity.

• 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.

• Continue to advocate for 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.

• Finalize the vendor contract to implement the technical assistance center to 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.

• Anticipate conducting a third notification to school districts with potential issues as identified in Chapter 405, using 2002-2003 school year data, during the latter part of the 2003-04 school year or early in the 2004-2005 school year. The criteria to be used in the third notification will be reviewed and revised as may be necessary to ensure identification of school districts that are significantly disparate from the Statewide average or from established goals on each issue. The Department is awaiting recommendations from a data analysis grant which may result in revising the State’s methodology for assigning different levels of technical assistance to school districts for issues involving disproportionality, based on race/ethnicity. Preliminary results from the data analysis grant indicate that after computing the chi-square calculation to initially identify school districts with potential issues regarding disproportionality, we may use the "Relative Risk" computation to differentiate school districts for different levels of technical assistance.

• Set aside IDEA discretionary funds for 2004-05 to support those regions where significant changes must occur to achieve the benchmarks of the next five-year Special Education Space Requirements Plan. Pending availability of these IDEA funds and final determination of distribution method, it is the Department’s intention to award these funds to selected regions of the State with the highest percentage of students with disabilities placed in separate educational settings.

• Continue to work closely with EMSC to carry out the special Partnership Agreements with Buffalo CSD, Rochester CSD, Syracuse CSD, Yonkers CSD, Roosevelt UFSD, and Wyandanch UFSD. Chapter 405 issues will continue to be a focus of Department resources as well as the other prioritized needs and goals contained in the agreements.

• Conduct joint reviews of the ten Regional District Comprehensive Educational Plans (RDCEP) by the NYC staff from the Offices of Elementary, Middle, Secondary and Continuing Education and Vocational and Educational Services for Individuals with Disabilities. In addition, three NYC Instructional Divisions will be selected to work collaboratively with the New York University Equity Assistance Center to develop a team for turnkey training for school personnel on Chapter 405 issues.

This section provides updated information on the Department’s effort to evaluate the impact of the former moratorium on any new or expanded preschool special education programs that include only preschool children with disabilities. A summary is provided regarding a number of activities undertaken by the Department to address the availability of preschool special education programs in the least restrictive environment.

Effective June 30, 2003, the legislative requirement that established the moratorium on the development of preschool special class programs "sunsetted," and is no longer in effect. The Department continues to apply the regional need criteria for program development as outlined in the January 2000 field memorandum Procedures for Application and Approval of Any New or Expanded Programs in Settings Which Include Only Preschool Children with Disabilities. A center-based special class is defined as a separate setting that includes only preschool students with disabilities. The table below indicates the number of program approvals and program expansions in the special class category submitted between October 1, 2002 – September 30, 2003.

Preschool Program Expansion
October 1, 2002 – September 30, 2003

From October 1, 2002 – September 30, 2003, 10 Special Education Itinerant Teacher (SEIT) programs had been approved, of which four are in NYC. SEIT programs, also identified as Special Education Itinerant Services (SEIS), have a certified special education teacher serving 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.

During 2002-2003, the Department was notified of ten program closings including of two multidisciplinary evaluation programs, two special classes, two special classes in an integrated setting and four SEIT programs.

There has been a 25.5 percent increase, from 32.3 to 57.8 percent, in preschool students with disabilities served in integrated settings from 1995-96 to 2001-02. This increase is displayed in the chart below.

During the 2002-2003 year, the Department streamlined the preschool application process to improve consistency in the review process across the regions of the state. A revised initial application and forms for program modification were developed, with a standardized checklist for each document to guide the review process. Plans are in place to make the application and modification request forms available online in the future.

The Department has gathered 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.

This portion of the study found that the quality of preschool special education programs is significantly associated with the percentage of students with disabilities declassified while in preschool. In 2000-01, an average of 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 Research Bulletin describing the study and its findings was disseminated in fall 2002. 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 were published and made available to all preschool service providers, parents and others involved in improving learning outcomes for preschool students with disabilities (see Appendix 5 – Deputy Commissioner Gloeckler letter of August 2003). In addition, a training program for preschool providers will be conducted in 2003 focusing on the program quality indicators.

MGT of America is under contract with the Department to conduct a preschool longitudinal study, referred to as Study II. The study, in year four 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. 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.

The year two progress report for 2001-2002 was made available to the Department and is under review. This report provides demographic and baseline data. The study’s advisory committee is scheduled to meet November 2003.

The Department provided a training program "From the Beginning" through a contract with QUESTAR III BOCES for preschool special education providers. The objective of the training program was to better prepare special educators to provide instructional activities to support the greater participation of students with disabilities in a regular education curriculum with their non-disabled age appropriate peers. Part 1 of the training addresses the application of the New York State learning standards to the instructional activities for preschool students with disabilities. Part 2 focused on the preschool program quality indicators. To date, approximately 800 participants received training through this program. Further information regarding "From the Beginning" is available online at http://www.questar.org/preschoolse/.

VESID continues to implement the Strategic Work Plan on the Education of Students with Autism. While much is now known about autism and the benefits of early identification and appropriate education, widespread practice of effective educational interventions has been slow to follow. In New York State, some significant efforts have been made in recent years to address the unique needs of children with autism through the following Department sponsored initiatives:

• The New York State Autism Network, under the direction of the Department, 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, nationally and internationally.

• 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. (see http://www.albany.edu/psy/autism/autism.html.

• From July 1, 2003 to June 20, 2004, the Department awarded grant funds to five school-age programs to replicate demonstrated, research-based, effective instructional practices for students with autism that promote learning based on the New York State learning standards. These include positive behavioral supports and strategies, inclusion programs, instructional approaches to teach social skills, instructional approaches and teaching methods, family involvement and support, parent counseling and training programs, transition and generalization strategies, and/or programs and services to promote transition to adult services.

• The Department has awarded grants to the NYC Board of Education and to other regions of the state where there were identified needs to expand the continuum and quality of services available to students with autism. As a result of these grants, a continuum of quality, research-based educational programs for school-aged students with autism have been developed in regions where such programs were not previously available.

• The Department continues to disseminate 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. This brochure is available online at http://www.vesid.nysed.gov/specialed/home.html.

• The Department is preparing a report on the availability and effectiveness of approved programs providing special education to preschool children with autism. The information in the report was obtained through a study conducted by the New York Autism Network (NYAN) under the direction of the State University at Albany. When viewed from a statewide perspective, there appears to be sufficient availability of preschool programs for children with autism. However, select areas of the State are reporting limited capacity to serve additional students with autism and the growing trend in the numbers of identified children with autism is expected to significantly impact the availability of programs in the future. A combination of many factors (e.g., program model, instructional approach and expertise) affect program availability for preschool children with autism. The findings regarding program effectiveness, based on the demonstration that programs address important components of educational practices, suggest that special education programs in New York State that serve large numbers of preschool students with autism are meeting the educational needs of these students in key programmatic areas. However, select areas of need were identified to improve effectiveness in the areas of family involvement and support, community collaboration and opportunities for inclusion. One particular model of service or instructional approach was not found to be notably more effective than another on the dimensions measured by the Autism Program Quality Indicators (APQIs).

The Department will continue its work in the following preschool 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;

• Continue to make professional development materials 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 Report on the Availability and Effectiveness of Preschool Programs for Children with Autism in New York State: A Report to the Governor and Legislature. The Department will continue to assess regional need and the continuum of services for preschool students in the least restrictive environment.

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.

Technical Assistance Levels

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 require 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 regionally-provided 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 Comprehensive System of Personnel Development plan that is updated annually. As noted in Part 100 and Part 200 regulations, 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 Regional School Support Center. Special Education Quality Assurance Regional Office and RSCC 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.

NO	REGION	BOCES LEA	EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
1	Eastern	QUESTAR III	Debbie Brown Phone – (518) 477-2431 Fax – (518) 477-6873
2	Long Island	Eastern Suffolk	Edward Zero Phone – (631) 218-4123 Fax – (631) 218-4127
3	Lower Hudson Valley	Dutchess	Kirsten Ruglis Phone – (845) 486-4840, ext. 3129 Fax – (845) 483-3946
4	Mid-State	Onondaga-Cortland-Madison	Marge Meggesto Phone – (315) 431-8542 Fax – (315) 434-9347
5	Mid-West	Monroe I	Elaine McAdam Phone – (585) 271-3352 Fax – (585) 271-3373
6	Western New York	Erie I	Carolyn Steele Phone – (716) 630-4203 Fax – (716) 630-4205
7	NYC	NYC Board of Education	Aminda Gentile Phone – (212) 475-3737 Fax – (212) 475-9049

 

10/9/03

SPECIAL EDUCATION TRAINING AND RESOURCE CENTERS
IN NEW YORK STATE TRAINING NETWORK

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
Dryan@mail.nysed.gov
*R – Regional Professional Development Specialist

Broome-Delaware-Tioga BOCES SETRC 435 Upper Glenwood Road Binghamton, New York 13905-1699 (607) 763-3362 or 763-3303 Fax: (607) 763-3474 Richard Fedor rfedor@btboces.org	Buffalo City SETRC 85 Military Road Buffalo, New York 14207 (716) 871-6074 or 871-6075 Fax: (716) 871-6055 Mimi Barnes-Coppola Judi Harris-DiTallo Tamara Pozantides-Bilingual SETRC mbarnescoppola@buffalo.k12.ny.us jditallo@buffalo.k12.ny.us tpozantides@buffalo.k12.ny.us
Capital Region BOCES SETRC Maywood School – 1979 Central Avenue Albany, New York 12205 (518) 456-9069 Fax: (518) 456-7669 Trish Ross Mary Ann Eaton Tross@gw.neric.org MEaton@gw.neric.org Wilma Jozwiak-Coordinator, NYS Statewide SIG Activities Ellen Chernoff-Bilingual SETRC, Upstate Region Wjozwiak@gw.neric.org EChernof@gw.neric.org	Cattaraugus-Allegany-Erie-Wyoming BOCES SETRC 1825 Windfall Road Olean, New York 14760 (716) 376-8224 or (716) 376-8210 Fax: (716) 376-8438 Sandra Monachino Sandy_monachino@cabo.wnyric.org Tim Clarke Tim_Clarke@cabo.wnyric.org
Cayuga-Onondaga BOCES SETRC 5890 South Street Road Auburn, New York 13021 (315) 253-0361 Fax: (315) 255-3859 C. Albert Sabin Kimberly Savage asabin@cayboces.org ksavage@cayboces.org	Clinton-Essex-Warren-Washington BOCES SETRC Box 455 Plattsburgh, New York 12901 (518) 561-0100 Ext. 309 Fax: (518) 561-5624 Lora Parks – R* Michael Loughman laparks@cves.org mloughman@cves.org
Delaware-Chenango BOCES SETRC 6678 County Road 32 Norwich, New York 13815-3554 (607) 335-1320 Fax: (607) 336-8201 Tamie Leslie Dan Sloat Karen Van Wagner – R* (607) 335-1259 lesliet@dcmoboces.com sloatd@dcmoboces.com VanwagnK@dcmoBOCES.com	Dutchess BOCES SETRC 900 Dutchess Turnpike Poughkeepsie, New York 12603 (845) 486-4840 Ext. 3023 Fax: (845) 486-4832 Carol Buyakowski Cecilia Dansereau Rumley cbuyakow@beta.dcboces.org crumley@its.dcBOCES.org
Erie I BOCES SETRC 1050 Maryvale Drive Cheektowaga, New York 14225 (716) 630-4240 Fax: (716) 630-4205 Sue Locke-Scott Sharon Hance slockesc@erie1.wnyric.org Shance@erie1.wnyric.org MaryAnn White - *R Mwhite@erie1.wnyric.org	Erie 2-Chautauqua-Cattaraugus BOCES SETRC LoGuidice Center D Building Fredonia, New York 14063 (716) 672-4371 Ext. 2057/2060 Fax: (716) 672-2368 Michele Boutwell Amy Edgerton mboutwell@e2ccboces.wnyric.org aedgerton@e2ccboces.wnyric.org
Franklin-Essex-Hamilton BOCES SETRC Adirondack Educational Center 711 State Route 3 Saranac Lake, New York 12983 (518) 891-1330 Fax: (518) 891-6043 Dana Retherford dretherf@mail.fehb.org	Genesee Valley BOCES SETRC 80 Munson Street LeRoy, New York 14482 (585) 344-7545 Fax: (585) 344-7538 Jacqueline Czamanske Alissa Mayer jczamanske@gvboces.org amayer@gvboces.org
Hamilton-Fulton-Montgomery BOCES SETRC 14 School Street Broadalbin, New York 12025 (518) 883-6510 Fax: (518) 883-6509 Susan Naple Robert Mark Snaple@superior.net rmark@hfmboces.org	Herkimer-Fulton-Hamilton-Otsego BOCES SETRC 352 Gros Blvd. Herkimer, New York 13350-1499 (315) 867-2082 Fax: (315) 867-2087 Catherine Quackenbush cquackenbu@herkimer-boces.org
Jefferson-Lewis-Hamilton-Herkimer- Oneida  BOCES SETRC Arsenal Street Road 20104 NYS Route 3 Watertown, New York 13601 (315) 779-7132 Fax: (315) 779-7109 1-800-356-4356 Dan McDougal dmcdouga@mail.boces.com	Madison-Oneida BOCES SETRC 4937 Spring Road, PO Box 168 Verona, New York 13478 (315) 361-5544 Fax: (315) 361-5595 Carla Fountain Cfountain@moboces.org Bess Kirnie - *R bkirnie@mohawk.moric.org
Monroe 1 BOCES SETRC 15 Linden Park Fairport, New York 14625 (585) 249-7024 Fax: (585) 218-6267 Cyndi Besig - *R Linda Bordwell Anna Frank cyndi_besig@boces.monroe.edu linda_bordwell@boces.monroe.edu anna_frank@boces.monroe.edu	Monroe 2-Orleans BOCES SETRC 3599 Big Ridge Road Spencerport, New York 14559 (585) 352-2443 Fax: (585) 352-2659 Kathy Garcia kgarcia@monroe2boces.org
Nassau County BOCES SETRC Rosemary Kennedy School 2850 North Jerusalem Road Wantagh, New York 11793 (516) 781-4992 Fax: (516) 221-6176 Linda Denny – R* Naomi Gershman Naomi Glaser ngershma@mail.nasboces.org nglaser@mail.nasboces.org	NYC Central SETRC 52 Chambers Street Room 2-08 New York, New York 10007 (212) 374-0339 Fax: (212) 374-5901 Regina Zacker, Director Rzacker@nycboe.net *See NYC list for all district locations, supervisors, & professional development specialists.
Oneida-Herkimer-Madison BOCES SETRC Box 70-Middle Settlement Road New Hartford, New York 13413 (315) 793-8614 or 793-8686 Fax: (315) 736-4427 Susan Collver scollver@oneida-boces.moric.org	Onondaga-Cortland-Madison BOCES SETRC P.O. Box 4774 Syracuse, New York 13221 (315) 433-2645 Fax: (315) 431-8495 Debbie Grimshaw Joyce Trinkley-Wolfson khoward@ocmboces.org dgrimsha@ocmboces.org jtrinkle@ocmboces.org Karen Howard – R* khoward@ocmboces.org Mid-State Regional SETRC P.O. Box 4774 Syracuse, New York 13221 (315) 431-8563 1-800-429-0497 Fax: (315) 431-8495
Ontario-Seneca-Yates-Cayuga-Wayne BOCES SETRC 22 Teft Street Clifton Springs, New York 14432 (315) 462-5056 Fax: (315) 462-7300 Patricia Anderson Janet LeRoux patsetrc@fltg.net jansetrc@fltg.net	Orange-Ulster BOCES SETRC 53 Gibson Road Goshen, New York 10924 (845) 291-0520 Fax: (845) 291-0528 Carol Bliefernich cbliefernich@ouboces.org Jeanne Herbert – *R Jherbert@ouboces.org
Orleans-Niagara BOCES SETRC Conference Center 4124 Saunders Settlement Road Sanborn, New York 14132 (716) 731-4176 or 1-800-836-7510 Fax: (716) 731-2148 Patricia Kelly, ext. 753 Kathleen Donner, ext. 754 Susan Tomaszewski, ext. 755 pkelly@onboces.org kdonner@onboces.org stomaszewski@onboces.org	Oswego BOCES SETRC County Route 64 Mexico, New York 13114 (315) 963-4320 Fax: (315) 963-4369 Teri Marks tmarks@oswegoboces.org
Otsego-Northern Catskills BOCES SETRC Cyr Center Stamford, New York 12167 (607) 652-1240 Fax: (607) 652-1264 Kimberly Brown Kbrown@mail.oncboces.org	Putnam-No. Westchester BOCES SETRC 200 BOCES Drive Yorktown Heights, New York 10598 (914) 248-2290 Fax: (914) 248-2288 Irene Ross Laurie Levine - *R iross@pnwboces.org llevine@pnwboces.org
Questar III BOCES SETRC 10 Empire State Boulevard Castleton, New York 12033 (518) 477-8771 Fax: (518) 479-3230 Nancy Mills Patti Simonds nmills@questar.org psimonds@questar.org	Rochester City SETRC Central Administrative Offices 131 West Broad Street Rochester, New York 14614 (585) 262-8710 or 262-8711 Fax: (585) 262-8611 Lourdes O’Dell – Bilingual SETRC Linda Blankenhorn linda.blankenhorn@rcsdk12.org lourdes.odell@rcsdk12.org
Rockland BOCES SETRC 65 Parrott Road - Building #10 West Nyack, New York 10994 (845) 627-4726 Fax: (845) 623-3343 Stuart Goldstein sgoldste@rboces.lhric.org	St. Lawrence-Lewis BOCES SETRC Learning Resource Center 7229 State Highway 56 Norwood, New York 13668 (315) 353-6175 Fax: (315) 353-2978 Gerry Swalnick gswalnick@sllboces.org
Schuyler-Chemung-Tioga BOCES SETRC Instructional Support Center 459 Philo Road Elmira, New York 14903 (607) 739-3581 Ext. 2455 Fax: (607) 795-5310 Jean Papandrea jpapandr@mail.sctboces.org	Steuben-Allegany BOCES SETRC Bath High School - Room 438 25 Ellas Avenue Bath, New York 14810 (607) 776-6327 Fax: (607) 776-6398 Amy Beard abeard25@yahoo.com Hildreth Rose - *R VEW Elementary School Bath, New York 14810 (607) 776-3301 ext. 5620 Fax: (607) 324-1525 hrose825@yahoo.com
Eastern Suffolk BOCES SETRC West Hampton Beach Center 215 Old Riverhead Road West Hampton Beach, New York 11978 (631) 288-7186 Fax: (631) 288-5868 Todd Catanzano - *R Rose Reilley Fanny Schneider Marilyn Adsitt Elizabeth C. Silva- Bilingual SETRC- Long Island Region tcatanza@esboces.org rreilley@esboces.org fschneid@esboces.org madsitt@esboces.org esilva@esboces.org	Sullivan BOCES SETRC 6 Wierk Avenue Liberty, New York 12754 (845) 292-0082 ext. 131 Fax: (845) 292-8694 Denise Shaffer dshaffer@scboces.org
Syracuse City SETRC Teacher Center 1153 W. Fayette Street, 2nd Floor Syracuse, New York 13204 (315) 435-4685 Fax: (315) 435-4218 Chris Johns Kirby David Zawadzki Dennis Loftus Cjohns44@scsd.us Dzawad41@scsd.us Dloftu75@scsd.us	Tompkins-Seneca-Tioga BOCES SETRC 555 South Warren Road Ithaca, New York 14850 (607) 257-1551 ext. 276 Fax: (607) 266-0611 Trisha Flaccus Tflaccus@mail.tstboces.org
Ulster BOCES SETRC 175 Route 32 North New Paltz, New York 12561 (845) 255-1402 Ext. 374 Fax: (845) 255-3836 Lucy Barbera Lbarbera@mhric.org	Washington-Saratoga-Warren-Hamilton- Essex BOCES SETRC 1153 Burgoyne Avenue Fort Edward, New York 12828 (518) 746-3820 Fax: (518) 746-3823 Linda Friedman Sally McGuirk lfriedman@wswheboces.org smcguirk@wswheboces.org Kathy Pociluk - *R 27 Gick Road Saratoga Springs, New York 12866 (518) 581-3731/746-3731 Fax: (518) 581-3701/746-3701 kpociluk@wswheboces.org
Westchester 2 BOCES SETRC Instructional Services Department 2 Westchester Plaza Elmsford, New York 10523 (914) 345-8500 Fax: (914) 347-7304 Roger Berman Denise Jaffe Alison Telsey rberman@swboces.org djaffe@swboces.org atelsey@swboces.org	Yonkers City SETRC 1109 North Broadway Yonkers, New York 10701 (914) 376-8689 or 376-8690 Fax: (914) 964-5361 Ellen Small Martha Trujillo Torp-Bilingual SETRC esmall@yonkerspublicschools.org mtorp@yonkerspublicschools.org

 

VESID SPECIAL EDUCATION QUALITY ASSURANCE (SEQA)

WESTERN REGIONAL OFFICE NYS Education Department VESID Special Education Quality Assurance 2A Richmond Avenue Batavia, NY 14020 (585) 344-2002, ext. 420 (585) 343-2422 (fax)	HUDSON VALLEY REGIONAL OFFICE NYS Education Department VESID Special Education Quality Assurance Room 1623 One Commerce Plaza Albany, NY 12234 (518) 473-1185 (518) 486-7693 (fax)
CENTRAL REGIONAL OFFICE NYS Education Department VESID Special Education Quality Assurance State Office Building 333 East Washington Street, Suite 527 Syracuse, NY 13202 (315) 428-3287 (315) 428-3286 (fax)	LONG ISLAND REGIONAL OFFICE NYS Education Department VESID Special Education Quality Assurance The Kellum Educational Center 887 Kellum Street Lindenhurst, NY 11757 (631) 884-8530 (631) 884-8540 (fax)
EASTERN REGIONAL OFFICE NYS Education Department VESID Special Education Quality Assurance Room 1623 One Commerce Plaza Albany, NY 12234 (518) 486-6366 (518) 486-7693 (fax)	NEW YORK CITY OFFICE NYS Education Department VESID Special Education Quality Assurance 55 Hanson Place, Room 545 Brooklyn, NY 11217-1580 (718) 722-4544 (718) 722-2032 (fax)

---

Appendix 2

Chapter 405 Technical Assistance Resources - 2002

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.

Classification/Declassification Rate

Books, Articles, ERIC documents, videotapes and Websites

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.

Placement in Separate Site Settings

Books, Articles, Websites

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.

Disproportionality (Identification and Placement)

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 University 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 Psychologists. 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.

VESID Resources

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. (www.web.nysed.gov/vesid/timely.html)

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).

Additional Resources
(Recommended by the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC)
for additional information on any of these items contact
CEC at (888) CEC-SPED

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

 

---

Appendix 4

Methodology for Identification of Chapter 405 Problem Areas- 2002

Problem Area #1: High rate of identification of students as students with disabilities- The statewide average classification rate in 2000-01 was 11.9%. School districts with at least 75 school-age students with disabilities and with a classification rate of 15% 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.

Problem Areas # 5, 6 and 7 : Significant disproportionality based on race and ethnicity in the identification and placement of students with disabilities.

New York State Method of Determining Disproportionality in Special Education

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.

Significance of Chi-Square Results

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 considered to be in separate settings. These separate settings are described on the PD-4 form as

• Early Childhood Special Education Setting
• Itinerant Services Outside of Home (in Hospital)
• Residential Facility, and
• Separate School

In order to make these determinations, the percentage of each racial/ethnic group provided services in separate settings was compared with the percentage of all preschool students with disabilities provided services in such settings.

---

Appendix 5

 

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

---

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FOR VOCATIONAL AND EDUCATIONAL SERVICES FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES
Tel. (518) 474-2714
Fax (518) 474-8802

August 2003

Dear Colleague:

Recent research on human development demonstrates the importance of early experiences on a child's brain development and future ability to learn. The New York State Education Department has initiated several efforts to guide the provision of quality preschool education programs so that young children can begin school-age programs ready to learn.

The Preschool Quality Indicator Study, conducted under contract with MAGI Educational Services, Inc., included the identification of quality indicators and a study on preschool special education programs approved under Section 4410 of the Education Law that involved participation by parents, preschool special education programs and school districts in surveys and site visits. The study led to the development of three documents designed to assist educators, parents and others in the development and implementation of quality preschool special education programs and services in New York State.

• The Learning Outcomes and Indicators for Kindergarten Participation describes student performance indicators according to major areas of development such as language and communication skills.

• The Program Self-assessment and Quality Improvement Guide provides quality indicators according to major program areas, such as administration, personnel, and family relationships. The Guide is designed to assist providers in identifying their program's areas of strength as well as areas in need of improvement related to program quality.

• The Special Education Quality Indicator Research Bulletin provides information on the survey of approved preschool special education programs and services and identifies educational practices that affect general education placement rates when preschool students enter kindergarten or school-age programs.

These documents are available on the web at:http://www.vesid.nysed.gov/specialed/publications/home.html I encourage you to download them and use them actively as references. These tools will help in identifying quality programs as well as areas for program improvement with the goal of assuring that preschool students are prepared to enter and participate in Kindergarten and school-age programs.

Sincerely,

Lawrence C. Gloeckler

---

Appendix 6

September 2003

To:	BOCES District Superintendents
	Superintendents of Public Schools
	Superintendents of Big Four Cities
	SETRC Professional Development Specialists and Program Directors
	Executive Directors of Regional School Support Centers
From:	Lawrence C. Gloeckler
Subject:	Comprehensive System of Personnel Development (CSPD) Plan Submission Procedures and Relevant Dates (Click on title for complete memo)

 

---

Appendix 7

September 2003

 

To: Superintendents of Public Schools Identified under Chapter 405 of the Laws of 1999

From:	Rebecca Cort, Statewide Coordinator, Special Education Quality Assurance & Support Services
	Fredric DeMay, Coordinator, Program Development and Support Services
	James Viola, Regional Education Coordinator, Office of Elementary, Middle, Secondary and Continuing Education
Subject:	Requirements for Districts Identified under Chapter 405 of the Laws of 1999 (Click on title for complete memo)

---

Appendix 8

 Targeted District Narrative Report 2003-2004
Year: __ of __

Check one:

__ Sept 30 Complete through Cohort chart columns 1 and 2; LSN collaboration

__ Nov 15 Complete Cohort chart column 3 and analysis; the November Evaluation and follow-up; LSN collaboration

__ March 15 Complete Cohort chart column 4 and analysis; the March Evaluation and follow-up; LSN collaboration

__ June 30 Complete Cohort chart column 5 and analysis; the June Evaluation and follow-up; LSN collaboration

District:

Building:

District Plan Goal 1:

 

Basic District Data:

Include current and longitudinal data from KPIs, School Report Card, Local Assessments

Type of Data	Year ___ -____	Year ___ - ___	01-02	02-03

Data Analysis: Narrative of disaggregated data leading to root cause using multiple measures that include defining cohort(s). Your activities should relate to this data discussion.

 

2003 – 2004 As Is Statement: (beginning of year)

 

2003 – 2004 Desired State: (end of year)

 

Summary of Linkage: SETRCs proposed involvement that provides evidence of support for district change

 

Proposed Involvement:

July 1, 2003 – November 15, 2003

Anticipated Activities	Data to be collected

November 16, 2003 – March 15, 2004

Anticipated Activities	Data to be collected

March 16, 2004 – June 30, 2004

Anticipated Activities	Data to be collected

Teacher Cohort:
May use more than one cohort per goal. If needed copy this page

1 Cohort	2 Baseline Data	3 November Data	4 March Data	5 June Data
Analysis of Data – November
Analysis of Data - March
Analysis of Data – June

Student Cohort:
May use more than one cohort per goal. If needed copy this page

1 Cohort	2 Baseline Data	3 November Data	4 March Data	5 June Data
Analysis of Data – November
Analysis of Data - March
Analysis of Data – June

Evaluation and Follow-up

July 1 – November 15, 2003

Activity/Date/Trainer	Evaluation (include Data)	Follow-up/Building Capacity

 

November 16, 2003 – March 15, 2004
 

Activity/Date/Trainer	Evaluation (include Data)	Follow-up/Building Capacity

March 16, 2004 – June 30, 2004

Activity/Date/Trainer	Evaluation (include Data)	Follow-up/Building Capacity

---

Appendix 9

 

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

TO:	The Honorable the Members of the Board of Regents
FROM:	James A. Kadamus
COMMITTEE:	Full Board
TITLE OF ITEM:	Report on School Improvement
DATE OF SUBMISSION:	September 3, 2003
PROPOSED HANDLING:	Discussion
RATIONALE FOR ITEM:	Update on Initiatives to Close the Performance Gap
STRATEGIC GOAL:	Goals 1, 2 and 3
AUTHORIZATION(S):

SUMMARY:

Closing the performance gap in New York State schools remains a significant challenge, requiring a consistent and sustained approach. The Department’s statewide strategy on school improvement includes: (1) identifying low-performing schools; (2) organizing to assist identified schools and districts; and (3) assisting the field.

The attached report describes the school improvement strategy statewide. Using data and observations, Department staff assist high-need, low-performing schools to implement appropriate remedial intervention services.

The Regents discussion will provide Department staff with insight on how to further refine this strategy and ensure that school improvement efforts are aligned with Board priorities.

Introduction

Analysis of the performance gap that exists in New York State is well documented. Disaggregated student achievement data has made the gap more apparent. It exists in schools where overall student achievement may be acceptable, but students in certain sub-populations are failing. It exists most noticeably in high-need schools.

It is not enough to set standards and measure results. The extent to which local schools and school districts are able to address, or even identify, root causes for low performance is related to local capacity. School districts and schools must have the capacity to help students achieve the standards. A statewide school improvement strategy is necessary to provide a basis for improving communication regarding standards and results; providing guidance regarding effective curricula, instructional and assessment practices; developing and using partnerships for school improvement; setting local priorities; and planning for sustained reforms. The strategy focuses internal and regional resources in schools and districts where they are most needed. Salient aspects of the strategy are described below.

 Identifying Low-Performing Schools

System of Accountability for Student Success (SASS) and Schools Under Registration Review (SURR)

New York’s system of standards, assessments, and accountability is nationally recognized. In the last year, both Education Week’s "Quality Counts" and Princeton Review’s "Testing the Testers" have rated New York first in the nation in their reviews of state accountability systems. In addition, in January 2003, New York was among the first five states in the nation to have its accountability plan for No Child Left Behind approved by the federal government.

New York’s system is not intended to rate or rank schools or districts or hold them up to public derision. Nor is it a system that seeks to impose intrusive or draconian interventions upon a school or district. Instead, the New York system is intended to help policymakers determine how well schools and districts are performing in relation to preparing students to meet standards in key subject areas and then to provide assistance and support to those with the greatest need. The focus is always on helping schools and districts to help themselves, with the recognition that the continued failure to provide adequate educational opportunities to students is unacceptable and must be remedied.

Since 1989, the registration review process has been the primary means used by the State Education Department to strengthen teaching and learning in the lowest performing schools in New York State. This process is designed to improve student performance by correcting situations that impede quality education. Through registration review, the lowest performing schools are identified, warned that their registrations may be revoked, and assisted in improving their educational programs. As a last resort, schools that fail to improve are phased out or closed. Through the end of the 2002-03 school year, 251 schools had been identified for registration review. One hundred seventy of these schools, including 20 during the 2002-03 school year, have been removed from registration review. Of the 170 schools, 135 were removed as a result of improvement in academic performance and 35 were closed or phased out. At the end of the 2002-03 school year, 81 schools remained under registration review.

In May 2000, the Board of Regents approved amendments to Commissioner’s Regulations that implemented a System of Accountability for Student Success (SASS). SASS expanded upon the Department’s program of registration review, which focused on those schools that are farthest from State standards and most in need of assistance. SASS aligned institutional accountability with the new State assessment program and graduation standards, provided for the establishment of Adequate Yearly Progress targets so that schools could demonstrate the progress they were making towards State standards, and further integrated the State and federal accountability programs. SASS also expanded accountability to schools, programs and students for whom there was previously no State accountability system.

As a result of SASS, the Department had in place a mechanism to identify those schools that were below State standards and failing to make Adequate Yearly Progress. In addition, based upon the status of the Title I schools in the district, the Department was also able to identify districts to be placed in improvement status. Using SASS, the Department has been able to place all schools in the State, both Title I and Non-Title I schools, upon a continuum of school accountability.

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act

With the passage of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, SASS is being modified to conform with NCLB. Among the most important changes to SASS, beginning with the 2002-03 school year, are:

• A strong focus on both district and school accountability;

• New accountability requirements for the performance of disaggregated groups of students at the school and district levels;

• New requirements in terms of mandatory participation in State assessments;

• The use of graduation rate and elementary and middle-level science assessments for accountability purposes;

• Revised methodologies for calculating whether schools and districts have made Adequate Yearly Progress and for determining the accountability status of schools and districts; and

• A new continuum of rewards and sanctions for school and district performance.

Taken together, these changes are likely to place greater emphasis on performance at the district level and among disaggregated groups. This, in turn, will require new strategies for data collection and root cause analysis, allocation of resources, and provision of technical assistance and support if districts and schools are to be successful in terms of NCLB accountability.

Organizing to Assist Identified Schools and Districts

Reorganization of the Office of Elementary, Middle, Secondary and Continuing Education (EMSC)

During spring 2003, the Office of EMSC reviewed its organizational structure and processes to ensure that it is positioned to complete the current cycle of education reform and to position Department staff and its partners for the next generation of reform. This review was undertaken recognizing changes that will be required in discharging EMSC responsibilities, including:

• Adopting a conceptual framework for school improvement and professional development (see Attachment 1);

• Applying advances in technology to Grants Administration, Information Dissemination, Data Reporting and Testing;

• Expanding network capabilities through strategic use of State and federal grants;

• Developing partnership agreements with high-need districts that focus work of both Department and district staff; and

• Strengthening connections with Department partners within the University of the State of New York (USNY).

After a comprehensive review, EMSC has recently completed a reorganization of its functions to accomplish:

• Better coherence of work in each Senior Manager area – The mission and responsibilities for each office are clearly defined and support the Department’s strategic plan.

• Greater synergy of people who work together – Staff will collaborate across EMSC, and USNY, to provide strategic technical assistance and support to a common set of prioritized schools/districts.

• Increased focus within each area – Staff have been assigned to offices and teams based on interest and ability, with interpersonal and professional development opportunities to promote personal expertise and organizational efficiency.

• Improvement in major labor intensive processes in EMSC – Key Department/office operations (e.g., application review/approval procedures) are being reviewed to identify revisions which will improve efficiency and make personnel more available for initiatives to close the gap in student achievement.

Refinement of the Regional Network Strategy

Based on the State Accountability System, every school district is assigned placement in one of three tiers. School districts assigned to Tiers 1 and 2 are considered highest priority for the provision of on-site technical assistance by Department personnel, SED-supported networks and our other partners.

Tier 1 school districts have the highest priority. They are the Big Five city school districts, Roosevelt Union Free School District and Wyandanch Union Free School District.

Tier 2 school districts include 55 school districts (excluding those in Tier 1) which have one or more Schools Under Registration Review (SURR), Corrective Action Schools (CA), or Title I Schools in Need of Improvement (SINI).

Tier 3 school districts are the remaining higher performing school districts. Although not prioritized for on-site technical assistance and support, these school districts will receive important information regarding program evaluation, instructional techniques/strategies and analytical information through the Department’s Virtual Learning Space (VLS).

Partnering with regional networks is an important component of the Department’s statewide school improvement strategy. Regional networks bring services closer to schools and draw upon local experts who are familiar with the political and school context. Regional networks may provide general assistance (i.e., improving English language arts and mathematics) or more specialized assistance (i.e., Bilingual Education Technical Assistance Centers, Student Support Centers).

While the work of the Office of School Improvement and Community Services (Regional) is focused on providing sustained, intensive technical assistance to Tiers 1 and 2, some of the activities we engage in will have an impact on the resources available to all schools in New York State.

Regional School Support Center Network

Regional School Support Centers (RSSC) are directly engaged to support low performing schools. One Center is operated in NYC by the Teacher Center. Beginning in 2003-04, six RSSCs will operate in addition to the Center located in NYC. One hundred percent of RSSC resources will be directed to building capacity and improving education performance in identified Tier 1 and 2 school districts, and to improving special education performance in school districts prioritized based on VESID Key Performance Indicators. Approximately $6.5 million has been allocated by EMSC and VESID to support Centers located outside NYC during each of the 2003-2008 school years. An allocation for the NYC RSSC has not yet been finalized.

The NYC RSSC is housed at the Teacher Center in Manhattan (the Teacher Center Professional Development Center). Based on the State Accountability System, this Center provides services to all school districts in the NYC Department of Education. Similar to the RSSCs located in other regions, the Center’s comprehensive set of services is directed to the identification and/or diagnosis of root causes of problems inhibiting student performance, and the development of appropriate interventions through comprehensive planning, coordination of network resources, technical assistance and professional development. This information is documented for each RSSC client school/district in status reports submitted to the Department on a tri-annual basis.

A comprehensive evaluation of the RSSC network was completed in 2002, documenting that the Centers have effectively directed resources to appropriate schools/districts, and have provided strategic services in a data-driven manner. Client schools/districts and District Superintendents have expressed their support of the RSSC network as an important and effective vehicle for promoting improved performance to close the achievement gap.

Other Networks

In order to identify and implement the interventions needed in each targeted school and district, the RSSC specialists and Department school improvement liaisons call upon other statewide networks as necessary. These include such networks as the Bilingual Education Technical Assistance Centers, Adult Education Staff Development Consortia, Career and Technology Education Network, Teacher Centers, Student Support Services Network, BOCES, Special Education Training and Resource Centers and the Middle-Level Support Schools.

Recognizing the specific types of expertise and support available from each network, the regional and NYC Offices of School Improvement and Community Services are establishing program – field office coordination protocols. The first coordination protocol has been established between the Office of Bilingual Education (OBE) and the Offices of NYC School Improvement and Regional School Services. This relationship will ensure that BETAC and OBE personnel are strategically involved in Tier 1 and 2 school districts, and are expressly included in Partnership Agreements.

District Superintendents, as the Commissioner’s regional representatives, will also be involved in working with Tier 1 and 2 schools/districts in order to build capacity and facilitate access to appropriate services for performance improvement. RSSCs will be available to provide technical assistance to BOCES personnel for this service delivery model.

Other Partners

Partnerships support the work of the Department and the networks to improve local capacity in low-performing schools. The RSSCs are expected to reach out to field-based networks, community and State agencies, community-based organizations, faith-based organizations and others who can help. These groups are matched to the needs of targeted schools. Locally based partnerships have the advantage of knowing the political and school context in which low-performing schools operate.

Partnerships are also being strengthened with key organizations and associations to improve academic performance. Such partners include: New York Council of Educational Associations, Association of Mathematics Teachers of New York State, New York State Association of Mathematics Supervisors, New York State Reading Association, New York State English Council, New York State United Teachers, and the National Education Association.

Interagency partners who provide support to improving student performance are VESID, the Center for Educational Leadership, Office of Children and Family Services, Department of Health, Office of Mental Health, Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse, Criminal Justice Services, Centers for Disease Control and institutions of higher education.

The Department, in addition to working with State-funded networks, is collaborating with other groups and organizations to build and strengthen local capacity to initiate and sustain school improvement. For example, Department staff are working closely with the Statewide Network of Middle-Level Education Liaisons, the Statewide Network of Middle-Level Education Support Schools, the New York State Middle School Association, the Staff and Curriculum Development Network (SCDN), and Teacher Centers to provide local schools and districts with both knowledge (i.e., best practice) and the necessary technical assistance to implement the Regents Policy Statement on Middle-Level Education and the Department’s Essential Elements of Standards-Focused Middle-Level Schools and Programs. Using both State-funded networks and its other partners, the Department will continue to identify, document, and disseminate promising practices related to middle grade priority areas (i.e., AIS, literacy and numeracy instruction, positive youth development, etc.).

The Office of NYC School and Community Services has long and well-established collaborations/partnerships with a wide array of service providers and organizations. They include, but are not limited to, the Board of Education of the City of New York; the New York Technical Assistance Center at New York University; the LAB at Brown University; the Upstate RSSCs as well as the Teacher Center Professional Development Program of the United Federation of Teachers.

The regional network is an important strategy in augmenting the Department’s resources to make services and technical assistance available to schools/districts that are not meeting State standards. Through the regional network strategy approach, school districts are provided the information and skill development needed to enhance their own capacity to meet the needs of low-performing schools.

Urban-Focused Initiatives

District Comprehensive Education Plans

A performance-based planning process has been in effect in NYC for several years. In September 1997, the NYC Chancellor required all community school district superintendents to submit an annual, data-driven District Comprehensive Educational Plan (DCEP) as an adjunct to their contract with the Chancellor. The DCEP is designed to assist superintendents in identifying areas of educational and organizational need within their districts and to promote performance-based planning and accountability.

Beginning with the 1998-99 school year, the 32 NYC community school districts, the Chancellor’s District, and six high school superintendencies each developed and submitted a single, cohesive DCEP that incorporated activities from existing federal- and State-funded categorical program applications and aligned categorical and tax levy funding streams to support improved levels of achievement for all students. The most important aspect of the DCEP is its focus on supporting and increasing high performance for all students and student achievement. The DCEP continues to be one of the mechanisms utilized by the Chancellor to review the progress made by each superintendent towards the achievement of district goals and objectives as well as towards higher standards of learning for all students.

In NYC, the DCEP process has been built into the fabric of school reform initiatives. The DCEP has demonstrated effectiveness in:

• Allowing continuity of planning in a massive, decentralized school system;
• The use of strategic planning for the attainment of increased student achievement; and
• The facilitation of a streamlined coordination of district resources.

Because the DCEP also serves as the NYC Board of Education’s vehicle for submission of its consolidated application for many federal grant programs, the State Education Department works closely with the Board of Education to design the format and focus of the document. Each DCEP is reviewed by a joint team of State Education Department and NYC Board of Education staff to ensure it meets the requirements of both organizations. Extensive professional development is provided to district office staff to ensure that they understand how to create DCEPs that support educational reform, appropriately align resources with program needs, and meet the statutory requirements of the funding streams that support the plan.

Partnership Agreements

The Department has made a strong commitment to support Tier 1 school districts. This commitment is documented in the Partnership Agreements which are now in place with the Buffalo, Syracuse, Rochester and Yonkers school districts. These Partnership Agreements are based on major priority need areas contained in each district’s Strategic Plan, indicating expected outcomes, performance indicators, district responsibilities, and services and supports to be provided by the Department and its networks, including external partners such as the School Administrators Association of New York State (SAANYS). In NYC, the District Comprehensive Educational Plans serve the purpose of Partnership Agreements, in that they promote the strategic coordination of funding and services across titles and programs (e.g., special education).

For the Roosevelt and Wyandanch Union Free School Districts, Performance Plans are developed, tracked and revised on a quarterly basis. Similar to Partnership Agreements, Performance Plans list priority areas and support available from the Department and its networks. However, school district actions and responsibilities are prescribed by the Department, and evidence of completion is required of the school districts.

Urban Forums

Based on requests of school district representatives, the Forums are designed to foster the development of an urban school district learning community in a dynamic and nurturing learning environment through dialogue and examination of data and best practices. In 2002-03, Forums were held on Technology Planning and Management; Fiscal Planning and Multi-Year Budgeting; Promoting Academic Success – Curriculum Alignment and Strategies to Improve English Language Arts and Mathematics Results; and Supporting Positive Youth Development. For 2003-04, the Urban Forums will include representatives of the Big Five city school districts and external partners including the New York State School Boards Association and the Conference of the Big Five City School Districts. The topics planned include: Professional Development, Instructional Leadership, Comprehensive Planning and Attendance Improvement.

Mathematics Initiative

During 2002-03, the Department conducted a series of seven statewide, one-day Middle-Level Mathematics Institutes for classroom teachers and persons with building-level responsibilities for intermediate level mathematics. The "by invitation only" sessions were designed specifically for schools which did not meet targets for the State intermediate level mathematics assessment, and included the following:

• Information regarding standards-based mathematics;
• The NYS Mathematics Resource Guide with Core Curriculum, with a focus on intermediate level performance indicators by key idea;
• Test specifications and blueprint for the NYS intermediate level mathematics assessment; and
• Practical classroom strategies and web-based resources to assist students and teachers in preparing for the State intermediate level mathematics assessment.

The Mathematics Institutes will serve as a platform for the 2003-04 Mathematics Initiative, which is expected to span a five-year period. The Initiative may involve the identification of State and regional mathematics experts to provide technical assistance to low-performing districts and schools and partnerships with institutions of higher education. State level experts will work with New York State Education Department staff in developing mathematics content and instructional materials to be used by regional mathematics experts and placed on the New York State Virtual Learning Space for all New York State teachers to access. Regional mathematics coaches, under the direction of the Regional School Support Centers, will work with identified low-performing schools on site. It is expected that this effort will be supported by an NCLB federal Mathematics Science Partnership Grant of over $7 million, and by VESID funds ($900,000 for 2003-04; $1 million for 2004-05). It is planned that the Mathematics Initiative will be implemented with support from external partners including New York State United Teachers (NYSUT), the National Education Association (NEA) and the NYC Teacher Center.

Reading First

Reading First provides significant support to states and districts to apply scientifically-based research, and the proven instructional and assessment methodologies that are consistent with research, to ensure that all children can read at or above grade level by the end of third grade. New York State’s Year I allocation is $68.5 million; Reading First is a six-year grant period. The State is authorized to retain 20 percent ($13.7 million) for the administrative, professional development and technical assistance functions to support Reading First districts in attaining K-3 reading performance improvement. Critical components are: the application of comprehensive and systematic screening; diagnostic and progress monitoring; and outcome assessments in Reading First classrooms. Professional development and technical assistance will be provided to Reading First districts and schools by the Regional School Support Center network, Department staff, the New York State Reading Academy and, the Virtual Learning Space.

Comprehensive School Reform

Regional School Support Center and Department personnel provide technical assistance and support to Tier 1 and 2 schools/districts in the preparation of competitive applications under the Comprehensive School Reform (CSR) program. Successful applicants receive technical and fiscal (average grant award is $150,000 per year) support for a three-year period to improve student achievement through a three-step approach:

1. Completion of a needs assessment/root cause analysis to identify what the school needs to improve and identification of the supports/practices which are already in place.
2. Based on root cause analysis, models which have been demonstrated to be effective through scientific research are reviewed. The review process culminates with the selection of a model that will provide the "best fit" with the school’s comprehensive program.
3. The model is implemented with periodic evaluation and support to ensure fidelity to operational principles.

Dropout Prevention Initiatives

The Offices of School Improvement and Community Services (Regional and NYC) collaborated on a statewide dropout initiative focused on high poverty urban schools. Technical support was provided by the National Dropout Prevention Center at Clemson University to support 13 middle schools across the State. The initiative included structured site visits by teams of Clemson University and Department personnel, and the development, implementation and assessment of school-community specific dropout prevention interventions by Local Action Teams in each school. A statewide symposium was held in May 2003, to showcase findings, observations and best practices. The School Improvement regional liaisons and the Student Support Services network are continuing to work with these schools to systematize progress and evaluate the success of this initiative.

Guidance on Effective Curriculum and Instruction

Virtual Learning Space - the Web Portal project

Through the New York State Virtual Learning Space (NYSVLS), the State learning standards, teacher resources and other curricular and instructional material will be available to administrators, teachers, teacher candidates, parents, students and the public. Materials available at http://usny.nysed.gov/vls.html include:

• Learning standards in each of the seven standard areas
• Performance indicators for each standard area at all levels of education, K-12
• State resource guides with core curricula
• State assessments
• Learning experiences tied to the performance indicators
• Instructional and curricular resources developed by districts and BOCES
• Library, archive, museum and public broadcasting resources

These resources will be integral to the work of technical assistance networks, such as the RSSC. As described previously, Department staff are working with RSSC staff to determine prioritized local needs and to develop plans to meet those needs. Technical assistance will be provided to the high-need districts in using the VLS as a resource to help meet their identified needs for such things as high quality content and lessons aligned with the standards.

This will be accomplished in part through our Regional Network Strategy. While the development of the VLS is the direct responsibility of the Office of Curriculum and Instructional Support, a technology liaison in the Office of School Improvement and Community Services (Regional) has been appointed to facilitate ongoing interaction between the two offices. This interaction will be two-way: it will ensure that the RSSCs and the Big 4 districts have access to the technical assistance they need to use the VLS productively, and the VLS will be appropriately structured to align with the capabilities of, and meet the needs for, technology integration in high-need schools. At the same time, VLS resources will continue to be available to all schools, and on-line support in its use is anticipated in the near future.

Research and Best Practices Identification and Dissemination

The Department is proceeding with contracts for the two new Best Practices vendors, one to identify best practices (Task 1) and the other to disseminate them via the Web portal (Task 2). Once these are established, the Regional Network Strategy team will work with the Office of Curriculum and Instructional Support to ensure that RSSCs and the Big 4 have the technical assistance they need to utilize State and national databases (Task 2) about the research-based effective practices that work in high-need districts. These same databases will be available to all districts through the VLS.

The two highest-ranking Task 2 proposals (from which the winner will be selected) both proposed intensive face-to-face technical assistance with high-need districts, and the Regional Strategy team will ensure that such technical assistance will include seamless linkages with the RSSCs and the Big 4.

New York State Academy for Teaching and Learning (NYSATL)

The New York State Academy for Teaching and Learning has provided ongoing peer review opportunities to teachers at a regional and local level since 1996. The process includes rigorous criteria for alignment of teacher-designed lesson plans with standards and assessments. Many New York State teachers have participated in NYSATL since its inception, and their work has resulted in an extensive set of peer reviewed lessons available on-line [http://www.nysatl.nysed.gov/standards.html] and searchable by standard (content) area, standard number(s), and level.

In addition, the NYSATL initiative has built considerable local capacity, with hundreds of teachers throughout the State being inducted as Academy members through this process. It is now the goal of the Department to transition NYSATL from a Department-sponsored annual event to a series of local events, through the RSSC structure. Each RSSC has an assigned NYSATL representative, who will be responsible for supporting the RSSCs' efforts to offer teachers the NYSATL experience in upcoming years. Office of School Improvement and Community Services (Regional) staff will work closely with the RSSCs to ensure that teachers in target schools have an opportunity to participate in NYSATL with their colleagues and mentors from some of our highest performing schools.

As noted above, all the past lessons approved through NYSATL are available to all teachers and schools through the NYSATL site. The Office of Curriculum and Instructional Support is working with the VLS designers to develop a content workflow process that will be used to add new content to the NYSVLS database, including all necessary quality assurance steps. This process will ensure that past and future submissions, including those from teachers in high-need districts, will make the collective expertise of New York State’s teacher leaders available throughout the State.

Conclusion

This report describes the Department’s school improvement strategy. It is implemented in a focused, coordinated manner by the Regional and NYC school improvement offices, with appropriate support by other Department offices, field-based networks and technology to maximize resources. The statewide school improvement strategy recognizes the variation in types and needs of low-performing schools across the State. The overall goal is to close the gaps in student performance no matter where the school is located in the State.

The Regents discussion will enable Department staff to enhance this strategy and make sure efforts are aligned with Board priorities.

DRAFT CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

STATEWIDE FOCUS
Virtual Learning Space (VLS)/Data/Technology
		Management and Instructional/Curricular Resources On-Line training, e.g., reading, math Tools for Schools – Video Transferring Success/Best Practices Telecommunications infrastructure Data warehouse and unique student ID Collaborative networks
REGIONAL FOCUS
	Support for Big 5: Reading, math initiatives Middle level support Leadership Partnerships with BOCES, SCDN, Higher Education Institutions and others Urban forums		Support for Schools Outside Big 5 Reading, math initiatives Middle level support Leadership Partnerships with BOCES, SCDN, Higher Education Institutions and others Regional Information Centers (RICs) and other Co-Sers
LOCAL: DISTRICT/SCHOOL FOCUS
Comprehensive Planning ü Multi-year strategic plan ü Use of disaggregated data ü Consultation with key stakeholders ü Big 4 Partnership Agreements			Professional Development ü Content support in reading and math ü Changing classroom practice ü Qualified staff ü Continuing education	School Improvement ü Target assistance to low performing schools ü Target assistance to disaggregated groups