APR 2008 - Indicators 11-14

Overview of the Annual Performance Report Development:

See Overview of the Development of the Annual Performance Report in the Introduction section, page 1.

Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B / Child Find

Indicator 11: Percent of children with parental consent to evaluate, who were evaluated within 60 days (or State established timeline).

(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B))

Measurement:

a. # of children for whom parental consent to evaluate was received.

b. # determined not eligible whose evaluations were completed within 60 days (or State established timeline).

c. # determined eligible whose evaluations were completed within 60 days (or State established timeline).

Account for children included in a but not included in b or c. Indicate the range of days beyond the timeline when the evaluation was completed and any reasons for the delays.

Percent = [(b + c) divided by (a)] times 100.

New York State’s Measurement in 2006-07 School Year:

NYS’ established timeline to complete the initial evaluation is 30 school days for preschool students and 60 calendar days for school age students.

In the 2006-07 school year, NYS collected data for this indicator in the PD-11 report, which is a web-based report that collects aggregate data from school districts. This report is posted at http://www.vesid.nysed.gov/sedcar/0607pdrpts.htm. The data that were collected did not distinguish between students who were found eligible for special education from those who were not. Because the indicator was revised by OSEP to require states to report on the percent of children with consent to evaluate who were evaluated within 60-days (or State established timeline) and to no longer require states to report on timelines for eligibility determinations, NYS did not collect information on eligibility determinations for this measure. Requiring states to report data on the numbers of students determined eligible and not eligible for special education services whose evaluations were completed within State required timelines is inconsistent with the indicator measure. However, in the 2007-08 school year, the State will collect these data at the individual student level through SIRS and will be able to distinguish between students who are found eligible for special education from those who are not.

New York’s formula for 2006-07 school year to calculate results for this indicator is as follows:

a. # of children for whom parental consent to evaluate was received. (Does not include students whose evaluations were completed past the State established timelines for reasons that are in compliance with State requirements.)

b. # of children whose evaluations were completed within 30 school days for preschool children and 60 calendar days for school age students.

Percent = [b divided by a] times 100.

FFY

Measurable and Rigorous Target

FFY 2006

(School year 2006-07)

100 percent of children with parental consent to evaluate will be evaluated and eligibility determined within State required timelines.

Actual Target Data for FFY 2006:

NYS’ new baseline data [1] are that 64.2 percent of all students received evaluations within the State required timeline. School age students were more likely to receive a timely evaluation at 78.4 percent compared to preschool students at 44.2 percent.

During the 2006-07 school year, one sixth of the school districts in the State were required to report data for this indicator. The data provided below represents data from 113 school districts. All school districts except NYC provided data on all eligible children. NYC provided data for a representative sample.

	A	B	C
Category of Students	Number of Students for Whom Parental Consent to Evaluate Was Received	Number of Students Whose Evaluations were Completed Within State Timelines	Percent = [b divided by a] times 100
Preschool Children	4,836	2,139	44.2%
School-Age Students	6,815	5,342	78.4%
Total for All Students	11,651	7,481	64.2%

The following data is presented by the SEQA regions of the State to inform needed regional improvement activities.

	A	B	C
Category of Students	Number of Students for Whom Parental Consent to Evaluate Was Received	Number of Students Whose Evaluations were Completed Within State Timelines	Percent = [b divided by a] times 100
*Central Region*
Preschool Children	580	134	23.1%
School-Age Students	877	639	72.9%
Total for All Students	1,457	773	53.1%
*Eastern Region*
Preschool Children	409	155	37.9%
School-Age Students	499	385	77.2%
Total for All Students	908	540	59.5%
*Hudson Valley Region*
Preschool Children	438	115	26.3%
School-Age Students	592	489	82.6%
Total for All Students	1,030	604	58.6%
*Long Island Region*
Preschool Children	806	623	77.3%
School-Age Students	836	621	74.3%
Total for All Students	1,642	1,244	75.8%
*New York City*
Preschool Children	1,261	501	39.7%
School-Age Students	2,133	1,738	81.5%
Total for All Students	3,394	2,239	66.0%
*Western Region*
Preschool Children	1,342	611	45.5%
School-Age Students	1,878	1,470	78.3%
Total for All Students	3,220	2,081	64.6%

Reasons

Following are reasons why school districts were not able to meet the State required timeline. Reasons have been separated into two categories: those that are determined to be "in compliance" with NYS regulations and those that are determined to be "out of compliance" with NYS regulations.

As stated in NYS’ measure for this indicator, the percent does not include students whose evaluations were completed past the State established timelines for reasons that are in compliance with State requirements. Some of the “in compliance” reasons for exceeding the required timeline for 1,338 preschool children and 374 school-age students were as follows:

Parents withdrew consent to evaluate.
Student/parent moved out of school district before the evaluation was completed.
Parents refused or repeatedly did not make the child available for the evaluation.
Parents canceled the evaluation/selected another evaluator.
Child transferred to a new district after the evaluation period began and parents and new district agreed to an extended time period.

Some of the “out of compliance” reasons provided by school districts exceeding the required timeline for 2,697 preschool and 1,473 school-age students were as follows:

Shortages of personnel to conduct evaluations.
Evaluator delays in completing the evaluations.
Scheduling difficulties that cause untimely CPSE or CSE meetings.

Extent of Delays

Following is an analysis of the number of days past the timeline for completion of evaluations for preschool children. Some of these delays are for reasons determined to be "in compliance" while others have been determined to be "out of compliance". However, NYS did not collect data in such a way as to be able to differentiate between the two types of delays. NYS will be able to differentiate in the 2007-08 school year, when these data will be collected at the individual student level.

Number of Days of Delay in Completing Evaluations of Preschool Students
Special Education Quality Assurance Region	1-10 Days of Delay	11-20 Days of Delay	21-30 Days of Delay	More than 30 Days of Delay
Central	131	142	95	149
Eastern	91	85	59	68
Hudson Valley	116	99	70	71
Long Island	175	38	13	15
New York City	382	291	188	213
Western	286	257	144	156
Total State	1,181	912	569	672

Below is the number of days past the timeline that evaluations of school-age students were completed. Some of these delays are for reasons that are “in compliance” with NYS regulations and some for reasons that are “not in compliance”. NYS did not collect data in such a way as to be able to differentiate between the two types of delays. NYS will be able to differentiate in the 2007-08 school year, when these data will be collected at the individual student level:

Number of Days of Delay in Completing Evaluations of School Age Students
Special Education Quality Assurance Region	1-10 Days of Delay	11-20 Days of Delay	21-30 Days of Delay	More than 30 Days of Delay
Central	92	49	67	43
Eastern	38	24	38	18
Hudson Valley	63	27	23	9
Long Island	99	52	71	51
New York City	116	62	99	91
Western	147	82	96	49
Total State	555	296	394	261

Discussion of Baseline Data

The baseline data provided above indicates that significantly larger percentages of school-age students’ eligibility determinations are made within the required timeline compared to preschool children’s eligibility determinations. This is indicative of NYS’ shorter time line for determining eligibility for preschool children.
An analysis of the baseline data by SEQA region indicates that the overall rate for determination of eligibility within required timelines for preschool and school-age students combined is as follows from highest to lowest: Long Island: 75.8 percent; New York City: 66.0 percent; Western: 64.6 percent; Eastern: 59.5 percent; Hudson Valley: 58.6 percent; and Central: 53.1 percent.
Of all the delays in evaluating preschool children, 35.4 percent were delays of 1-10 days; 27.4 percent were delays of 11 to 20 days; 17.1 percent were delays of 21 to 30 days; and 20.2 percent were delays of more than 30 days.
Of all the delays in evaluating school-age students, 36.9 percent were delays of 1-10 days; 19.7 percent were delays of 11 to 20 days; 26.2 percent were delays of 21-30 days; and 17.3 percent were delays of more than 30 days.

Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that occurred for FFY 2006:

Explanation of Progress or Slippage

NYS did not meet its target of 100 percent.

During the 2006-07 school year, all school districts reporting data for this indicator received electronic notices of compliance with this indicator based on 2005-06 school year data. During the 2007-08 school year, all school districts reporting data for this indicator received electronic notices of compliance with this indicator based on 2006-07 school year data.

School districts that were not in 100 percent compliance with this indicator were required to analyze the reasons for their delays in determining eligibility and to develop and or revise their processes and procedures related to ensuring timely completion of initial evaluations. Also, school districts were required to provide a Statement of Assurance to the State once they had made the required changes. In addition to this, school districts with less than a 90 percent compliance rate have been re-assigned to report data to the State on this indicator for the 2008-09 school year in order to document full compliance. See the schedule of the school years in which school districts must re-submit data on this indicator, posted at http://www.vesid.nysed.gov/sedcar/resubschedule.html. The Special Education School District Data Profiles will be updated with school districts’ revised compliance rates based on re-submission of data. These profiles are posted at http://eservices.nysed.gov/sepubrep/,

NYS will collect data on this indicator in the 2007-08 school year at the individual student level through SIRS. See information contained in the SIRS 2007-08 Policy Manual and in the SIRS 2007-08 Dictionary of Reporting Data Elements posted on line at http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/irts/SIRS/home.shtml. Collecting data through the new system is expected to improve the accuracy of these data.

Improvement Activities Completed in 2006-07

During 2006-07, in the Central NYS region, two task force groups which included preschool providers, county representatives and school district personnel were convened to identify and implement strategies to improve the timeliness of completion of preschool evaluations.
NYS Regulations were amended, effective October 4, 2007, to clarify that it is the board of education’s responsibility to ensure timely evaluations and placements for preschool children with disabilities.

Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources for FFY 2006 [If applicable]

The following improvement activity has been added:

Activity	Timelines	Resources
All school districts with less than 90 percent compliance on this indicator will be required to re-submit data for this indicator to the State to demonstrate correction of noncompliance.	2008-2011	SIRS

Overview of the Annual Performance Report Development:

See Overview of the Development of the Annual Performance Report in the Introduction section, page 1.

Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B / Effective Transition

Indicator 12: Percent of children referred by Part C prior to age 3, who are found eligible for Part B, and who have an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthdays.

(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B))

Measurement:

a. # of children who have been served in Part C and referred to Part B for eligibility determination.

b. # of those referred determined to be NOT eligible and whose eligibilities were determined prior to their third birthdays.

c. # of those found eligible who have an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthdays.

d. # of children for whom parent refusal to provide consent caused delays in evaluation or initial services.

Account for children included in a but not included in b, c or d. Indicate the range of days beyond the third birthday when eligibility was determined and the IEP developed and the reasons for the delays.

Percent = [(c) divided by (a – b – d)] times 100.

NYS will use the above formula except it will add “e” to the equation as follows:

e. # of children whose IEPs were not implemented by their third birthdays but for reasons that are “in compliance” with NYS regulations.

NYS Data = [(c ) divided by (a-b-d-e)] times 100

In 2006-07 school year, NYS used the PD-12 report to collect these data. This report is posted at http://www.vesid.nysed.gov/sedcar/0607pdrpts.htm.

FFY

Measurable and Rigorous Target

FFY 2006

(School Year 2005-06)

100 percent of children referred by Part C prior to age 3, who are found eligible for Part B, will have an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthday or in compliance with timelines established in State law.

Actual Target Data for FFY 2006:

Based on data submitted for the 2006-07 school year by 116 school districts that are representative of the State, 73.8 percent of children, who transitioned from Early Intervention (Part C) and were found to be eligible for preschool special education services under Part B, had their IEP developed and implemented by their third birthday. All children for whom there were delays in eligibility determination or who did not have their IEP implemented for reasons that are in compliance with State requirements were removed from the denominator as illustrated in the data chart below. All school districts that were required to submit data on this indicator reported data on all eligible children, except that New York City provided data on a representative sample of students.

	A	B	C	D	E	F
Region	# of children who have been served in Part C and referred to Part B for eligibility determination	# of those referred determined to be NOT eligible and whose eligibilities were determined prior to their third birthday	# of those found eligible who have an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthday	# of children for whom parent refusal to provide consent caused delays in eligibility determination or initial services	# of children for whom delays in determination of eligibility or delays in implementing the IEP were caused by reasons that are “in compliance” with State requirements	Baseline Data Calculation [( C ) /(A-B-D-E)]*100
Central	67	3	22	3	39	100%
Eastern	183	12	51	4	110	89.5%
Hudson Valley	413	27	103	9	233	71.5%
Long Island	389	17	143	11	211	95.3%
New York City	1,696	27	161	177	1,181	51.8%
Western	260	14	101	4	139	98.1%
Total State	3,008	100	581	208	1,913	73.8%

Column E in the table above includes the following other reasons determined to be "in compliance” with NYS requirements for implementing the IEP past the child’s third birthday for children included in Column A above:

Parents chose to continue their children in Early Intervention (EI) and transition to preschool after the child became three years of age. (895 children)
Child moved from district prior to determination of eligibility or prior to IEP implementation by age 3. (23 children)
Delays in making contact with parents to schedule the evaluation. (There is documentation of repeated attempts to make the contact). (56 children)
Parents refused or repeatedly did not make the child available for the evaluation. (795 children)
Parents canceled the scheduled evaluation and/or selected another site or approved evaluator.(11 children)
Children were referred to CPSE less than 30 days before their third birthday. (41 children).
Child transferred to a new school district after the evaluation period began and parents and new district agreed to an extended time period. (1 child)
Child started receiving services on the recommended program’s beginning date, even though it was after the child’s third birthday (91 children)

Some of the reasons provided by school districts for implementing the child’s IEP past the third birthday determined to be "out of compliance" with NYS requirements were as follows:

Approved evaluator was not available to provide a timely evaluation.
Evaluator delays in completing the evaluation.
CPSE did not meet to determine eligibility in a timely manner.
Additional evaluations were requested after the CPSE’s initial meeting to discuss evaluation results.
Delays in scheduling CPSE meeting.
Recommended Part B programs and/or services were not available when the child turned three years of age.

Number of Days Past the Third Birthday When IEPs were Implemented - Some of these children had delays for reasons that are “in compliance” with NYS requirements and some are for reasons that are considered to be “out of compliance” with NYS requirements. Data were not collected in such a way as to be able to distinguish between the two types of delays. Next year, when these data will be collected at the individual student level, we will be able to distinguish between the length of the delays which are “in compliance” with State requirements from those that are not.

Region	1 to 10 Days	11 to 20 Days	21-30 Days	More than 30 Days
Central	1	8	5	25
Eastern	7	2	23	72
Hudson Valley	21	6	12	193
Long Island	32	12	21	152
New York City	6	12	10	577
Western	21	11	14	87
Total State	88	51	85	1,106

Days of Delay in Implementing IEPs of Children Eligible for Preschool Special Education who are Transitioning from Part C to Part B by SEQA Region
Region	1 to 10 Days	11 to 20 Days	21-30 Days	More than 30 Days
Central	2.6%	20.5%	12.8%	64.1%
Eastern	6.7%	1.9%	22.1%	69.2%
Hudson Valley	9.1%	2.6%	5.2%	83.2%
Long Island	14.7%	5.5%	9.7%	70.0%
New York City	1.0%	2.0%	1.7%	95.4%
Western	15.8%	8.3%	10.5%	65.4%
Total State	6.6%	3.8%	6.4%	83.2%

Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that occurred for FFY 2006:

Explanation of Progress or Slippage

NYS did not meet its target of 100 percent compliance for this indicator.

NYS’ average performance on this indicator decreased from 86.5 percent in 2005-2006 to 73.8 percent in 2006-07. The State made some improvements to the data collection instrument to collect more precise data regarding reasons for delays. It is possible that last year’s compliance rate was somewhat inflated.

All school districts received electronic notices of compliance with this indicator based on 2005-06 school year data during the 2006-07 school year. All school districts received electronic notices of compliance with this indicator based on 2006-07 school year data during the 2007-08 school year.

School districts that were not in 100 percent compliance with this indicator were required to analyze the reasons for their delays in determining eligibility and to develop and or revise their processes and procedures related to ensuring timely determinations of eligibility for special education services and to provide a Statement of Assurance to the State once they had made the required changes. In addition to this, school districts with less than a 90 percent compliance rate have been re-assigned to report data to the State on this indicator for the 2008-09 school year in order to document full compliance. See the schedule of the school years in which school districts must re-submit data on this indicator, posted at http://www.vesid.nysed.gov/sedcar/resubschedule.html. The Special Education School District Data Profiles will be updated with school districts’ revised compliance rates based on re-submission of data. These profiles are posted at http://eservices.nysed.gov/sepubrep/,

Improvement Activities Completed in 2006-07

The joint Department of Health (DOH) and NYSED guidance document: Transition of Children at Age Three from the New York State Department of Health Early Intervention Program to the State Education Department Preschool Special Education Program or Other Early Childhood Service was completed and disseminated. A companion video/training program was completed and disseminated through the ECDC network.
In 2006-07, ECDCs provided regional turn-key training to CPSEs, preschool staff and administrators on the timelines and guidance required for the transition of a young child with a disability from Part C EI programs to Part B (preschool) services.
SEQA, ECDCs and school district personnel collaboratively conducted joint trainings and technical assistance on requirements for timely transition of children with disabilities from EI to preschool special education, including information about the timelines established under the joint guidance document.
In 2006-07, SEQA fully implemented the following procedures. (1) Approval for new program applications and requests for program expansions in regions where data indicates preschool students are not receiving services by their third birthdays where there is documented need for additional programs. (2) Authorization of variances to class size maximums where appropriate to allow additional students to be temporarily admitted to a preschool program after the start of the school year.
NYS Regulations were amended, effective October 4, 2007, to authorize preschool programs that are at maximum enrollment to temporarily enroll an additional preschool child when there is no other appropriate program available to serve the child. A field memo was distributed on the process/requirements.
NYS Regulations were amended, effective October 4, 2007, to clarify the board of education’s responsibility to ensure timely evaluations and placements for preschool children with disabilities.
NYS Education Law was amended, effective June 30, 2007, to require that preschool special education services be provided as soon as possible following development of IEP but no later than 30 days from recommendation of the CPSE.

Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources for FFY 2006 [If applicable]

The following improvement activity has been added:

Activity	Timelines	Resources
All school districts with less than 90 percent compliance on this indicator will be required to re-submit data for this indicator to the State to demonstrate correction of noncompliance.	2008-2011	SIRS

Overview of the Annual Performance Report Development:

See Overview of the Development of the Annual Performance Report in the Introduction section, page 1.

Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B / Effective Transition

Indicator 13: 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.

(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B))

* The federal indicator is age 16. NYS has elected to measure this beginning at age 15, since NYS regulations require that transition services be indicated on a student’s IEP to be in effect when the student turns age 15.

Measurement:
Percent = [(# of youth with disabilities 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) divided by the (# of youth with an IEP age 16 and above)] times 100.

FFY

Measurable and Rigorous Target

FFY 2006

(School year 2006-07)

100 percent of youth* aged 15 and above will have IEPs that include coordinated, measurable, annual IEP goals and transition services that will reasonably enable the student to meet the post-secondary goals.

*i.e., percent of youth with IEPs reviewed.

Actual Target Data for FFY 2006:

The 2006 data are based on the monitoring review of IEPs from a representative sample of 109 school districts, including NYC. The total number of students with IEPs, ages 15-21 in NYS during the 2005-06 school year was 56,140. The total number of IEPs reviewed from these representative school districts was 3,376. Of the 3,376 IEPs, 1,546 (45.8 percent) were found to have been in compliance with all IEP transition requirements.

Of the 109 school districts:

22 school districts reported that 0 percent of their student's IEPs that were reviewed met compliance with the IEP transition requirements.
36 school districts reported between 1 and 49 percent of their students' IEPs that were reviewed met the transition requirements.
20 school districts reported between 50 and 79 percent of their IEPs that were reviewed met the transition requirements.
31 percent reported between 80 and 100 percent of IEPs that were reviewed met the transition requirements.

Regional variations are noted in the following chart. NYC, from which nearly one third of the students with disabilities are educated, reported that three of their 100 IEPs reviewed met all of the compliance indicators. However, NYC significantly improved in developing IEPs that met compliance with individual citations, with an average increase in compliance across all eight IEP required citations of 45 percentage points.

2006-07 Indicator 13 - Transition IEP Data
Transition Coordination Site (TCS) Region	Total # of School Districts Reviewed	Number of Reviewed School Districts with IEPs found in Compliance
Transition Coordination Site (TCS) Region	Total # of School Districts Reviewed	0% of IEPs in compliance	1-49% of IEPs in compliance	50-79% of IEPs in compliance	80-100% of IEPs in compliance
Eastern	24	5	8	3	8
Hudson Valley	20	4	7	2	7
Long Island	17	5	6	5	1
Mid-State	13	2	4	2	5
Mid-West	15	2	4	4	5
NYC	1	0	1	0	0
Western	19	4	6	4	5
Totals	109	22	36	20	31

Data for each of the eight compliance indicators is reported in the chart below for two years. Major findings include:

A greater percentage of IEPs were in compliance with every regulatory citation in 2006, compared with 2005.
The requirement reflecting least compliance (43.1 percent of IEPs in 2006) was that under the student's present levels of performance, the IEP includes a statement of the student's needs, taking into account the student's strengths, preferences and interests, as they relate to transition from school to post-school activities.
The requirement with which most IEPs (79.8 percent) were in compliance was that the IEP indicates the recommended special education program and services to advance appropriately toward meeting the annual goals relating to transition needs.

Compliance Rate for Individual Regulatory Citations - Transition IEPs
	2005 Number and Percent of 108 District in Compliance		2006 Number and Percent of 109 Districts in Compliance
Requirement	Number	Percent	Number	Percent
When the CSE met to consider transition service needs, the school district invited the student. If the student did not attend, the district ensured that the student's preferences and interests were considered	62	57.41%	66	60.6%
Under the student's present levels of performance, the IEP includes a statement of the student's needs, taking into account the student's strengths, preferences and interests, as they relate to transition from school to post-school activities.	26	24.07%	47	43.1%
The IEP includes appropriate measurable post-secondary goals based upon age appropriate transition assessments relating to training, education, employment and, where appropriate, independent living skills.	25	23.15%	53	48.6%
The IEP includes measurable annual goals consistent with the student's needs and abilities, including (if applicable) benchmarks or short-term objectives.	58	53.70%	72	66.1%
The IEP includes a statement of the transition service needs of the student that focuses on the student's courses of study.	45	41.67%	62	56.9%
The IEP indicates the recommended special education program and services to advance appropriately toward meeting the annual goals relating to transition needs.	76	70.37%	87	79.8%
The IEP includes needed activities to facilitate the student's movement from school to post-school activities, including: instruction, related services, community experiences, the development of employment and other post-school adult living objectives, and when appropriate, acquisition of daily living skills and functional vocational evaluation.	35	32.41%	58	53.2%
The IEP includes a statement of the responsibilities of the school district and, when applicable, participating agencies, for the provision of such services and activities that promote movement from school to post-school opportunities, or both.	40	37.04%	62	56.9%

Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that occurred for FFY 2006:

Explanation of Progress or Slippage

While NYS did not meet its target that 100 percent of youth aged 15 and above will have IEPs that include coordinated, measurable, annual IEP goals and transition services that will reasonably enable the student to meet the post-secondary goals, there was substantial improvement in compliance against all the regulatory requirements related to transition planning. In 2006, 45.8 percent of IEPs were in compliance with all regulatory requirements compared to 33.2 percent in 2005.

Technical assistance personnel from VESID's funded TCSs and/or SETRC facilitated the reviews of most of the school districts compliance with this indicator. This served as part of the verification process and afforded districts technical assistance during the compliance review. In most cases it was indicated that districts are often providing appropriate transition programs and services but not accurately documenting this information on the students' IEPs.

Thus far, during the 2005-06 and 2006-07 school years, two representative samples of school districts in NYS have reviewed a sample of IEPs by using the State developed self review monitoring protocol and reported compliance with each of eight regulatory requirements related to transition IEPs. Results of the self-review and correction of noncompliance is reported through a web-based data submission system. The results of the reviews and status of compliance with regulatory requirements is displayed in the table below.

School Year	Number of School Districts
School Year	Conducted Reviews of IEPs	Reported Some Non Compliance	Corrected Non Compliance Within one Year from Notification	Corrected Non Compliance After one Year from Notification	Not in Compliance to Date
2005-06	108	108	9	69	30**
2006-07	109	78*	This information will be reported in the next APR
31 school districts will go through a verification review of their report of 100 percent compliance. *Of the 30 school districts, fifteen made progress and corrected some noncompliance; however, they have not corrected compliance with all eight regulatory citations.

Improvement Activities Completed in 2006-07

The Mid-State and Mid-West TCS regions had the largest improvement in SPP 13 compliance (an increase of 41.7 percentage points and 40.6 percentage points respectively). This is due to their reliance on a very targeted, consistent and research-based approach to technical assistance. These two TCS regions incorporated the use of a collaborative review and planning process for school districts (called a Transition Workday) with the use of the TransQUAL Online tool. Districts developed strategic plans for improvement and then the TCSs followed up with individual technical assistance. Due to the success noted here, the other TCS regions will refocus their efforts using this strategy.
NYC personnel received professional development on transition planning requirements and participated in a two-day fall TransQUAL forum focused on IEP development. Regular meetings were held with designated school representatives on identifying the components of the coordinated set of activities. Parent groups participated in reviewing potential post-secondary service providers. A transition conference was provided for parents and students.
TCSs provided targeted technical assistance to school districts on effective transition practices, particularly related to student-focused transition planning in the IEPs. In the Eastern TCS, 98 percent of responding districts noted improvement in transition procedures over two years.
TCSs facilitated linkages between students, schools, and VESID vocational rehabilitation (VR) services. In the Eastern TCS, 89 percent of responding districts noted a “good” or “better” VR connection; 1193 students were referred in last two years of school, and 84 percent were found eligible for VR services.
TCSs hosted conferences and workshops targeted to regional needing, including workshops to provide students with disabilities strategies and skills if they planned to seek work at school exit; benefits advisement sessions; job coach training.
Regional SETRC programs provided training and technical assistance to groups of districts that completed or will be engaging in a self-review monitoring process required by specific indicators of the SPP. Regional SETRC PDSs worked with groups of districts to prepare them for the self-review process; and provided technical assistance to groups of districts with common issues as determined by the self-review process.
TransQUAL Online was revised to assist school districts to conduct self-reviews and develop strategic workplans to improve development and implementation of transition IEPs. Districts can now measure their work plan progress on a monthly basis via a chart creation tool. TCSs used TransQUAL Online to target their regional technical assistance by using the aggregated data to pinpoint areas of desired change in the Transition process within districts. From September 2006 to September 2007, the number of planning teams using TransQUAL increased from 55 to 165, and the number of resulting workplans developed increased from 63 to 896.
School districts were required to review of a smaller sample of IEPs to determine if they have achieved compliance after their initial submission of noncompliance. In addition, school districts with less than 90 percent compliance were notified that they are required to do another full review of IEPs in a subsequent school year to demonstrate full compliance with requirements. See the schedule of the school years in which school districts must re-submit data on this indicator, posted at http://www.vesid.nysed.gov/sedcar/resubschedule.html. The Special Education School District Data Profiles will be updated with school districts’ revised compliance rates based on re-submission of data. These profiles are posted at http://eservices.nysed.gov/sepubrep/.
NYS Regulations were revised to require IEPs, meeting notices and prior written notices to be on forms prescribed by the Commissioner, effective January 1, 2009. These State forms will assist districts to be in compliance with IEP transition planning requirements and to ensure students are invited to IEP meetings when post-secondary goals and transition services will be considered.

Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources for FFY 2006 [If applicable]

Activity	Timelines	Resources
All school districts with less than 90 percent compliance on this indicator will be required to re-submit data for this indicator to the State to demonstrate correction of noncompliance.	2008-2011	Self Review Checklist

Overview of the Annual Performance Report Development:

See Overview of the Development of the Annual Performance Report in the Introduction section, page 1.

Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B / Effective Transition

Indicator 14: 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.

(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B))

Measurement:
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) divided by the (# of youth assessed who had IEPs and are no longer in secondary school)] times 100.

FFY

Measurable and Rigorous Target

FFY 2006

(School Year 2005-06)

None this year. This is the baseline year. See State Performance Plan for discussion of baseline data, establishment of future targets and improvement activities.

Actual Target Data for FFY 2006:

Not applicable.

Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that occurred for FFY 2006:

Not applicable.

Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources for FFY 2006 [If applicable]

Not applicable.

[1] This indicator was revised by USED from the previous year from date of eligibility determination to date evaluations were completed. Also, NYS followed the federal calculation more closely this year compared to last year. For these reasons, the 2006-07 school year data are the State’s new baseline data; they cannot be compared to last year’s data.