New York State Education Department

Annual Performance Report for 2006-07

IDEA Part B State Performance Plan
2005-2010

Office Of Vocational And Educational Services For
Individuals With Disabilities

February 2008

Available in PDF Format for Printing

 

THE UNIVERSITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Regents of The University

Robert M. Bennett, Chancellor, B.A., M.S. .......................................    Tonawanda
Merryl H. Tisch, Vice Chancellor, B.A., M.A., Ed.D. ........................    New York
Saul B. Cohen, B.A., M.A., Ph.D...........................................................    New Rochelle
James C. Dawson, A.A., B.A., M.S., Ph.D. ..........................................    Peru
Anthony S. Bottar, B.A., J.D. ..............................................................    Syracuse
Geraldine D. Chapey, B.A., M.A., Ed.D. .............................................    Belle Harbor
Arnold B. Gardner, B.A., LL.B.............................................................    Buffalo
Harry Phillips, 3rd, B.A., M.S.F.S. ......................................................    Hartsdale
Joseph E. Bowman, Jr., B.A., M.L.S., M.A., M.Ed., Ed.D..................    Albany
James R. Tallon, Jr., B.A., M.A.  ..........................................................    Binghamton
Milton L. Cofield,  B.S., M.B.A., Ph.D. ................................................    Rochester
Roger B. Tilles, B.A., J.D......................................................................    Great Neck
Karen Brooks Hopkins, B.A., M.F.A..................................................    Brooklyn
Natalie M. Gomez-velez, B.A., J.D. .....................................................    Bronx
Charles R. Bendit, B.A. ........................................................................    Manhattan

President of The University and Commissioner of Education
Richard P. Mills

Deputy Commissioner
Office of Vocational and Educational Services for Individuals with Disabilities
Rebecca H. Cort

Statewide Coordinator for Special Education
James P. DeLorenzo

The State Education Department does not discriminate on the basis of age, color, religion, creed, disability, marital status, veteran status, national origin, race, gender, genetic predisposition or carrier status, or sexual orientation in its educational programs, services and activities.  Portions of this publication can be made available in a variety of formats, including braille, large print or audio tape, upon request.  Inquiries concerning this policy of nondiscrimination should be directed to the Department’s Office for Diversity, Ethics, and Access, Room 530, Education Building, Albany, NY 12234. Requests for additional copies of this publication may be made by contacting the Publications Sales Desk, Room 309, Education Building, Albany, NY 12234.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Overview of Development of the Annual Performance Report

Indicator 1: Graduation Rates

Indicator 2: Drop-Out Rates

Indicator 3: Assessment

Indicator 4: Suspension/Expulsion

Indicator 5: Least Restrictive Environment – School Age

Indicator 6: Least Restrictive Environment – Preschool

Indicator 7: Preschool Outcomes

Indicator 8: Parental Involvement

Indicator 9: Disproportionality in Special Education by Race/Ethnicity

Indicator 10: Disproportionality in Identification by Specific Disability by Race/Ethnicity

Indicator 11: Child Find

Indicator 12: Early Childhood Transition

Indicator 13: Secondary Transition

Indicator 14: Post-School Outcomes

Indicator 15: Identification and Correction of Noncompliance

Indicator 16: Complaint Timelines

Indicator 17: Due Process Timelines

Indicator 18: Hearing Requests Resolved by Resolution Session

Indicator 19: Mediation Agreements

Indicator 20: State Reported Data

Appendix A: Required Attachments and SPP Indicators

Appendix B: Miscellaneous Revisions/Edits to State Performance Plan and Annual Performance Report

OVERVIEW

Public Law 108-446, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) 2004, required the State Education Department (SED) to develop and submit a six year State Performance Plan (SPP) to the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) at the U.S. Education Department (USED), spanning the years 2005-2010. OSEP identified three monitoring priorities and 20 indicators relating to the priority areas that must be tracked and reported.  Annually the Annual Performance Report (APR) is required to be submitted as its report to the Secretary of Education and to the public on the State’s performance under the SPP, describing overall progress and slippage in meeting the targets found in the SPP.  This APR is the second report, due February 1, 2008.  It references the SPP dated December 2005, as amended in June 2007.  It covers the academic year 2006-07, referenced in the report as “FFY 2006.”

As required under section 616 of IDEA, the State is making available a public report of each school district's performance on indicators one through fourteen of the indicators against the State's targets. This report is found at http://eservices.nysed.gov/sepubrep/. Data in the individual school district report will be updated annually, following the submission and acceptance of each year’s APR. Plans are underway to add trend data to assist in public understanding of the progress or lack of progress by individual districts.

The three priority areas and their corresponding indicators are as follows:

Priority: Free Appropriate Public Education in the Least Restrictive Environment

  1. Percent of youth with individualized education programs (IEPs) graduating from high school with a regular diploma compared to percent of all youth in the State graduating with a regular diploma.

  2. Percent of youth with IEPs dropping out of high school compared to the percent of all youth in the State dropping out of high school.

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

    • Percent of districts meeting the State’s annual yearly progress (AYP) objectives for progress for disability subgroup.
    • Participation rate for children with IEPs in a regular assessment with no accommodations; regular assessment with accommodations; alternate assessment against grade level standards; alternate assessment against alternate achievement standards.
    • Proficiency rate for children with IEPs against grade level standards and alternate achievement standards.


  4. Rates of suspension and expulsion:

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

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


  7. Percent of preschool children with IEPs who demonstrate improved:

    • positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships);
    • acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/ communication and early literacy); and

    • use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs.



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

Priority:  Disproportionality

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


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

Priority:  Effective General Supervision Part B

Child Find and Effective Transitions (district-level indicators)

  1. Percent of children with parental consent to evaluate, who were evaluated within State required timelines.


  2. Percent of children referred by Part C (Early Intervention Services) prior to age three (3), who are found eligible for Part B, and who have an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthdays. 
  3. Percent of youth aged 15 and above with an IEP that includes coordinated, measurable, annual IEP goals and transition services that will reasonably enable the student to meet the post-secondary goals. 

  4. Percent of youth who had IEPs, are no longer in secondary school and who have been competitively employed, enrolled in some type of postsecondary school, or both, within one year of leaving high school.

General Supervision (state-level indicators)

  1. General supervision system (including monitoring, complaints, hearings, etc.) identifies and corrects noncompliance as soon as possible but in no case later than one year from identification. 


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


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


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

  5. Percent of mediations held that resulted in mediation agreements. 



  6.  State reported data (618) and SPP and APR are timely and accurate. 

Overview of Annual Performance Report Development

The process for developing New York State’s (NYS) Part B SPP can be found at http://www.vesid.nysed.gov/specialed/spp/partb1106.html. The APR was developed by a workgroup formed in 2005 from among key managers of the Office of Vocational and Educational Services for Individuals with Disabilities (VESID). This group includes representatives from the Special Education Offices of Policy, Quality Assurance, Program Development and Data Collection and Reporting.  This group serves as the Cabinet to guide the development of the SPP and APR.  Regular meetings are held of this group to continuously address issues relating to the State's SPP and APR.

Stakeholder input from the Commissioner’s Advisory Panel (CAP) was sought regarding creation of the SPP in baseline measures, targets and improvement strategies.  CAP is kept continuously apprised regarding progress and issues reflected in the SPP in order to obtain their insights and input in determining implementation strategies and needs for revisions.

The SPP and APR are posted on the Department’s website at http://www.vesid.nysed.gov/specialed/spp/home.html, along with additional guidance information that explains the criteria for monitoring indicators. Announcements of the availability of these and related documents are provided through the list serve and through memoranda to school district administrators, school boards, parent organizations and others interested in the education of students with disabilities. Press announcements are released to newspapers regarding the availability of information, as new information is added.  Questions regarding the SPP and APR may be directed to the New York State Education Department (NYSED), VESID, Special Education Services at 518-473-2878. For more information on the federal requirements see: www.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/bapr/index.html.
 

[2] Day program alternatives are adult rehabilitation service programs designed for persons with the most severe disabilities who cannot successfully compete in the competitive labor market or matriculate in traditional postsecondary education settings even with extensive support. Services provided in these day program alternatives typically involve provision of developmental therapies to improve daily living, independent living, and social skills and to provide prevocational training. Placement in these settings is not necessarily an end-placement. As individuals acquire more skills and new systems for providing support evolve, participants may transition full- or part-time into other more integrated settings, including supported employment or supported postsecondary education models. Inclusion of this outcome in NYS’ definition of postsecondary school was highly recommended by the CAP to assure that students with the most severe disabilities are included in NYS’ transition services.

[3] See footnote 1.