Overview of the Annual Performance Report Development:

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

Indicator 15: 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.

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

Actual Target Data for FFY 2006:

The percent of issues of noncompliance identified that were corrected within one year of the report being issued is 91.41 percent.

Charted below by SPP Indicator are findings of non-compliance under the general supervision components of quality assurance monitoring reviews or 60-day complaints. These findings represent quality assurance monitoring reviews conducted in 142 school district/agency programs and 60-day complaint investigations in 197 school district/agency programs.

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 reach the target of 100 percent, the percent of identified noncompliance issues that were corrected within one year from identification increased 7.7 percentage points from 83.71 percent in 2005-06 to 91.41 percent in 2006-07.

Thirty-six school districts or agencies had instances of noncompliance identified in 2005-06 that continued beyond 12 months (35 as a result of program monitoring reviews and one as a result of a complaint investigation). For all 36 school district or agencies, the follow-up monitoring activities that were conducted by SEQA staff included phone calls, off-site review of materials and/or on-site visits. In addition, technical assistance was provided to 21 of the institutions by one or more of VESID’s funded networks and/or SEQA staff. For one district, IDEA funds were reviewed and redirected as needed to address areas of noncompliance. Written communication outlining enforcement actions were issued to 11 institutions. State approval for placement of NYS students was terminated for one private school.

As of January 18, 2008, 1,903 (98.44 percent) of the 1,933 noncompliant issues identified during 2005-06 were brought into compliance. The remaining 30 non-compliant issues were found in one public school district and 24 private school programs.  Twenty-eight of the 30 issues remaining unresolved are issues related to staff certification in approved private preschool and school age programs.

As of January 18, 2008, 1,767 (99.71 percent) of the 1,772 non compliant issues identified during 2004-05 were brought into compliance. The remaining noncompliant issues were found in two preschool programs and are related to staff certification issues.

Improvement Activities Completed in 2006-07

• A new computer data system, Comprehensive Special Education Improvement (CSEIS) was activated in January 2007. SEQA staff were trained on the application during February, March and April 2007. The on-line system and training dramatically improved the compliance rate by assisting staff to more closely monitor districts’  compliance.
• In 2006-07, the NDU monitoring staff expanded to include nine professional staff. The unit has oversight of all out-of-state schools, in-state residential schools, Special Act Schools, State-Operated and State-Supported Schools. With added staff, the unit also assumed responsibility for NYC approved private school day programs. The NDU worked very closely with other State licensing agencies and with the statewide organizations that represent the private and Special Act schools to address compliance improvement activities.
• Focused review monitoring protocols were revised. 
• The following NYS special education publications and policy memoranda guidance documents were revised to reflect the IDEA 2004 changes:
  • Procedural Safeguards Notice (August 2007)
  • Sample Due Process Complaint Form (December 2006)

  • Sample Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) for preschool and school-age (December 2005)
  • Guidance on Parentally Placed Nonpublic Elementary and Secondary School Students with Disabilities Pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) 2004 and New York State (NYS) Education Law Section 3602-c

• 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 important IEP and parent notification requirements.
• The NDU provided compliance data to the in-state residential programs and the organizations that represent them identifying the frequency of compliance deficiencies by issue and by region. This allowed the providers to proactively plan for and address the most common deficiencies.
• In 2006-07, NYS established criteria to determine if a district/agency meets requirements, is in need of assistance, needs intervention, or needs substantial intervention, consistent with the provisions of section 616 of IDEA, and provided technical assistance and enforcement actions, consistent with IDEA and federal regulations

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

Changes in Proposed Timelines

Overview of the Annual Performance Report Development:

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

Indicator 16:  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.

(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B))
 

Actual Target Data for FFY 2006:

The percentage of signed written complaints resolved within the 60-day timeline or a timeline extended for exceptional circumstances with respect to a particular complaint was 82.82 percent.

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

Explanation of Slippage

Five of the seven Regional Offices completed the investigation of complaints at a 95 or higher percentage rate.

The percentage of timely issuance of complaint findings dropped in two Regional Offices because of circumstances that were unique to the Regional Offices and not systemic statewide.

• One regional office was late in issuing complaint findings on three State complaints. These cases were the result of human error. To avoid this situation in the future, staff has been trained, the Supervisor will monitor all timelines and staff will be required to use CSEIS to calculate the 60 day timeline. Only two complaints have been received in this office since August 2007 and both are on target with timelines.
• Another regional office reported that it did not issue timely complaint findings for 30 complaints during 2006-07 because of regional work load demands and inefficient procedures to monitor the timeliness of complaint investigations. To avoid such a situation in the future, all staff in this office are now assigned State complaints to resolve on a rotational basis and new procedures to monitor the due dates of various complaint activities and apprise the supervisor of the status on a monthly basis were initiated.  Since August 2007, the office had received six (6) new complaints. All 60-day findings letters have been issued on time.
• All State complaints entered into the CSEIS system will be monitored and SEQA supervisors and Coordinators will receive reports two weeks and one week before the State complaint findings are due.

Improvement Activities Completed

• SEQA Mangers and regional associates were trained on implementation of CSEIS and strategies to improve timely completion of complaint investigations.
• The NDU was established to provide general oversight of all in-State and out-of-State private day and residential programs for students with disabilities.

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

None at this time.

Overview of the Annual Performance Report Development:

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

Indicator 17:  Percent of fully adjudicated due process hearing requests that were fully adjudicated within the 45-day timeline (or 30-day timeline for preschool students) or a timeline that is properly extended by the hearing officer at the request of either party.

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

Actual Target Data for FFY 2006:

The percent of due process hearing requests that were fully adjudicated within the 45-day timeline (or 30-day timeline for preschool students) or a timeline that was properly extended by the impartial hearing officer (IHO) at the request of either party was 79.62 percent.

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

Explanation of Slippage

The percentage of adjudicated hearing completed in a timely manner decreased from 83.39 percent to 79.63 percent. This decrease is attributed to the following factors:

• NYS regulations limit extensions of impartial hearings to one 30-day extension at a time. The regulation, although in effect since July 2004, has only been consistently monitored since April of 2006. Not all the IHOs have fully adjusted to these limitations and some IHOs continue to grant extensions greater than 30 days.
• Fourteen (14) IHOs had five or more late decisions and were responsible for 56% of the late decisions in adjudicated impartial hearings. Ninety (90) percent of the late decisions were in the NYC Region where the 13 of the 14 IHOs with late decisions conduct their hearings. 
• A review of the data has identified a process issue with the increase in the number of the late adjudicated cases in the NYC Region.  Most of the IHOs serving NYC use the NYCDOE Impartial Hearing Office service of formatting and mailing their decision. The date on the decision is the date the IHO mails the decision to the parties and to NYSED.  During this year, due to staffing resources in the NYC Impartial Hearing Office, the processing of decisions has been delayed by a few days, which has resulted in additional cases of late decisions.

Improvement Activities Completed

• The capacity of the Impartial Hearing Reporting System (IHRS) to monitor timeliness was improved through the establishment of the electronic file transfer process from the NYC’s impartial hearing reporting system. The nightly process provides daily access to NYC impartial hearing information and has improved the accuracy of the information.
• Revisions to IHRS to improve monitoring and proactive notifications included development of reminders to IHOs of the 14-day initial hearing requirement if initial meetings are not scheduled by the ninth day after the end of the resolution session or after appointment for district initiated cases. Notices and adjustments to extensions are sent to the IHOs if the extensions they approve are in conflict with the NYS standards including extensions greater than 30 days or if an extension is granted prior to the allowable time frame. In addition, if the end of resolution information is not entered within three days of the end of the 30 day period the district and the IHO is reminded that the timeframe for resolution period has ended and action is required.
• Data collected through IHRS has been used to provide the IHOs with an activity summary of the total number of cases to which they were appointed and whether those cases were addressed in a timely manner. Trend information is also provided.
• IHRS includes an IHO Performance Summary which allows the IHO to see their timeliness performance for the time period selected. Improvements to this report for case specific information are scheduled.
• Based on NYS Regulations, NYSED initiated 31 investigations in impartial hearing cases where the decisions appeared overdue. When a complaint was founded, IHOs were required to participate in additional training.
• NYSED provided all IHOs with two-day training sessions in March and April of 2006. Additional training on special topics (behavioral regulations and time lines) was provided in April of 2007.
• A website for IHOs was established in February of 2007, which includes posting of alerts, access to applicable laws and regulations, State Review Office (SRO) information, Commissioner of Education Decisions, IHRS information, and links to the VESID publications page.

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

The following improvement activity has been added:

Overview of the Annual Performance Report Development:

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

Indicator 18:  Percent of hearing requests that went to resolution sessions that were resolved through resolution session settlement agreements.

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

Actual Target Data for FFY 2006:

10.63 percent of hearing requests that went to resolution sessions were resolved through resolution session settlement agreements.

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

Explanation of Slippage

The percentage of resolution sessions ending in agreement decreased from 17.73 percent to 10.63 percent. However, since this is the first full year of data collection in this area, this year’s data is considered a more accurate result since it reflects an entire annual cycle rather than the one quarter reported last year.

Improvement Activities

• NYS Regulations were amended, effective October 4, 2007, to conform State due process requirements to federal requirements relating to resolution process.
• Information for parents on resolutions sessions was included in the Procedural Safeguards Notice issued August 2007.

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

The following activities have been added:

Overview of the Annual Performance Report Development:

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

Indicator 19:  Percent of mediations held that resulted in mediation agreements.

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

Actual Target Data for FFY 2006:

The percent of mediation sessions held in 2004-05 that resulted in mediation agreements to resolve the dispute was 90.64 percent.

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

Explanation of Progress or Slippage

The percent of mediation sessions held in 2006-07 that resulted in agreement was 90.64 percent, down from 94.98 percent from the previous year.  There were 436 total mediation requests in 2006-2007.  

Improvement Activities Completed

• Forty (40) new special education mediators were trained in December 2007.
• New brochures are in the development stages.  NYSDRA has received a grant from a private non-profit foundation to do an intensive outreach pilot in 2008.

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

The following activities have been added:

Overview of the Annual Performance Report Development:

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

Indicator 20: State reported data (618 and State Performance Plan and Annual Performance Report) are timely and accurate.

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

Actual Target Data for FFY 2006:

The following is a rubric developed by USED to evaluate States’ performance on this indicator. The scores below represent NYS’ self evaluation on each APR indicator and in the 618 data submission requirements. A score of 1 indicates a positive score in the cell and a 0 indicates the State was not able to provide the all the required information by the due date.

As described below, NYS’ self review score indicates that 92.2 percent of USED data submission requirements were met by the State.

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

Explanation of Progress or Slippage

• NYS did not achieve its target of 100 percent complete and accurate data submission to USED during the 2006-07 school year. The State’s score based on a self review rubric was 92.2 percent.
• The delays in providing complete data for Indicators 1, 2 and 3 are a result of delays in fully implementing the new SIRS, which represents a major systems change in NYS. There are many issues with transitioning from the old systems to the new one, which have caused substantial delays in the verification processes. There have also been issues with some aspects of the new System’s performance that have caused delays in the data verification timelines.
• NYSED has begun data analysis on under-representation, by race/ethnicity, in special education and in particular disabilities, however will seek technical assistance from NCCRESt to assist us with meaningful data analysis and reporting for under-representation in special education by race/ethnicity.

Improvement Activities Completed in 2006-07

• NYS completed developing the Special Education School District Data Profiles, which are required under section 616 of IDEA. Trend data will be added to each indicator for which NYS maintains data. Also, routine annual updates to these reports are planned. These public reports may be found at http://eservices.nysed.gov/sepubrep/. These reports are continually updated when school districts report on the correction of all noncompliance on Indicators 4A, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13.
• NYS is in the midst of developing its SIRS, which includes all students (with and without disabilities).  In 2006-07 school year, all the high school State assessment and cohort data that were previously collected through the System to Track Educational Performance (STEP) system were phased into SIRS. This transition required school districts to take additional verification steps to ensure data transitioned accurately between the two systems. This transition is the cause of the delay in having data for Indicators 1 and 2 for this APR.
• In the 2006-07 school year, NYS also implemented its reporting and data verification system called nyStart, which is a web-based reporting system that provides an opportunity for authorized users in school districts to drill down to the student level to gain valuable information for analysis and for improving instructional programs. This is also the same system that is used to verify school districts data. There are many performance issues with this system which have caused significant delays in the timeline for having the 2006-07 data completely verified. This is another reason that NYS is not able to provide data for Indicators 1 and 2 in this APR. NYSED has convened a group of stakeholders to make recommendations to improve nyStart.
• During the 2006-07 school year, NYS convened a workgroup to identify the business rules for collecting special education data through SIRS. NYS’ database was subsequently modified to accommodate special education data. Based on recommendations of this workgroup, a decision was made to begin collecting most of the required special education data through SIRS in the 2007-08 school year. This work is proceeding, however, this is a major systems change and the State is experiencing delays in its collection of special education child count and environments data. USED has been notified that NYS will be late in submitting Tables 1 and 3 data in the 2007-08 school year. NYS continues to improve its documentation and provide technical assistance to all stakeholders. 
• The Quality Assurance Information System (QAIS) has been deactivated and all the data from that system transferred to CSEIS. A significant amount of time was spent to review the data conversion and ensure the accuracy of time line and compliance information for the baseline year and forward. Reports have been established for supervisor use in monitoring timely and accurate data entry. CSEIS has also been revised to collect the information on mediation requests related to due process. 
• CSEIS users and managers have been trained in the system revisions and use of reports to monitor data.
• IHRS has been revised to reflect changes in resolution session data including use of mediation after the resolution session and before the start of the impartial hearing.
• IHRS users have received technical assistance memorandum regarding system changes and have access to technical assistance via phone and e-mail on a daily basis.
• CSEIS has been assigned a full time staff person in addition to the manager for the system. The staff person has been trained in the use of the system and is responsible for addressing data changes and implementation of procedures designed to improve accuracy and quality. The new staff assigned to IHRS were trained in the use of the system and are implementing the current accuracy and quality procedures. The procedures have been revised to address the system changes.

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

[2] NA means not applicable