Students with Disabilities in Students with Disabilities in the P-16 Frameworkthe P-16 Framework::

Outcomes and Improvement Outcomes and Improvement StrategiesStrategies

Dr. Rebecca CortDr. Rebecca CortDeputy Commissioner: VESIDDeputy Commissioner: VESID

NY State Education DepartmentNY State Education Department

4 4 QuestionsQuestions*:*:

Where do we want to be?Where do we want to be? Why do we want to be there?Why do we want to be there? Where are we now?Where are we now? How are we going to get there?How are we going to get there?

*Roger Saland, CEO of PlugPower*Roger Saland, CEO of PlugPower

Where do we want to be?Where do we want to be?

High expectations for all individuals with High expectations for all individuals with disabilities.disabilities.

Full access to education and employment Full access to education and employment opportunitiesopportunities

Supports and services necessary to benefit Supports and services necessary to benefit from that accessfrom that access

Successful completion of high school and Successful completion of high school and college, employment, independence.college, employment, independence.

GOALS:

1. Close the great divide in achievement along lines of income, race and ethnicity, language and disability.

2. Keep up with growing demands for still more knowledge and skill in the face of increasing competition in a changing global economy

Source: Commissioner Mills Report to the Board of Regents, October 2006

Why do we want to be there?Why do we want to be there?

Moral imperativeMoral imperative

Constitutional and statutory rightConstitutional and statutory right

Economic necessityEconomic necessity

Where are we now?Where are we now?

Results for Students with Disabilities

We’re Making ProgressWe’re Making Progress

Achievement is up in Grades 3-8 in English Language Arts and Mathematics

Few students are educated in Separate Settings

More take and Pass Regents exams every year

More graduate every year

More earn Regents diplomas

More attend college than a decade ago

But Achievement and Graduation But Achievement and Graduation Rates Remain Far Too LowRates Remain Far Too Low

Too few students with disabilities are in general education settings in the Big Five Cities.

Achievement in Grades 3-8 is a fraction of what it should be.

Successful outcomes (graduation) are too low.

Too many students are being lost.

Race/Ethnicity of All School-Age Students Compared to Race/Ethnicity of School-Age Students with Disabilities

55.4

%

18.8

%

18.7

%

6.6%

0.4%

52.7

%

23.2

%

21.0

%

2.5%

0.6%

White Black Hispanic Asian AmericanIndian

All Students Students with Disabilities

Source: 2005-06 BEDS Data and December 1, 2005 PD1/4, Final: April 2007

All minorities are over represented in special education except Asians, who are significantly underrepresented.

Final: June 2007

Much larger percentages of students with disabilities are provided specialeducation services in separate classes and in separate settings in the Big Five

Cities, compared to rest of State.

2006 & 2007 English Language Arts (ELA): Percentages of Students with Disabilities at Levels 3 & 4• Performance of students with disabilities meeting the ELA learning

standards increased at every grade in 2007, even with the increase in ELL students with disabilities tested.

• Overall, 1 in 5 students with disabilities performs at grade level.

• Gap: Compare the 22.8% average for students with disabilities across grades 3-8 with that for all students in grades 3-8 at 63.4%.

2006 and 2007 English Language Arts (ELA)Students with Disabilities English Language Learners

Percentages at Levels 3 & 4

13

.1%

10

.3%

9.6

%

4.1

%

3.2

%

1.1

%

6.5

%14

.1%

11

.0%

9.8

%

5.0

%

3.6

%

2.5

%

8.4

%

Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grades 3-8

2006 ELL SWD (n=12,482) 2007 ELL SWD (n=18,952)

• Performance of students with disabilities (SWD) who are English Language Learners (ELL) meeting the ELA learning standards increased at every grade in 2007, but the increases are very low.

• Overall, 1 in 12 students with disabilities who are English Language Learner performs at grade level.

• Gap: Students with disabilities in grades 3-8 who were not English Language Learners were 3 times as likely to meet the standards than students with disabilities who are English Language Learners.

2006 & 2007 English Language Arts (ELA): Percentages of Students with Disabilities at Level 1

• In every grade, fewer students with disabilities showed serious academic problems.

• Gap: Compare the averages across grades 3-8 for students with disabilities at 25.1% with that for all students in grades 3-8 at 6.1%.

• Except in the Large City Districts, more students with disabilities met the standards in 2007.

• Gap: Variations among need/resource categories were substantial.

2006 & 2007 English Language Arts (ELA) by Need/Resource Categories:

Percentages of Students with Disabilities at Levels 3 & 4

• The percentage of students with disabilities in serious academic difficulties decreased in every category.

• Gap: Students in Large City Districts were 4 times as likely as those in Low Need Districts to score at Level 1.

2006 & 2007 English Language Arts (ELA) by Need/Resource Categories:

Percentages of Students with Disabilities at Level 1

9,7678,424

7,226

8,305

5,675

6,790

2,832

4,9694,154

2,499

13,07912,144

9,68011,194

8,60610,461

4,175

7,545

9,514

3,414

20,08118,949

16,30914,101

17,321

15,366

13,51812,607

5,6474,419

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Number with Score of 65-100Number with Score of 55-100Number Tested

• Since 1997, there has been more than 354% increase in the number of students with disabilities tested.

• Of the students tested in 2006, 65% achieved a score between 55-100.

Regents English Examination and Students with Disabilities

Public Schools-Including Charter Schools, Final April 2007

Regents Diplomas Earned by Students with Disabilities

526

623

774

1,11

5

1,32

9

1,83

9

2,25

7

2,86

5

864

4,67

3 5,36

6

Total State

1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-032003-04 2004-05 2005-06

Public Schools-Including Charter Schools

Students graduating with Regents diplomas in 2004-05 were required to pass five Regents examinations compared to eight being required in previous years.

• Since higher standards were adopted in 1996, more than 10 times as many students with disabilities are earning Regents diplomas.

Student Group Cohort

Enrollment

Regents/

Local Diploma

IEP Diploma & Other

Still Enrolled

Transfer

to GED

Dropout

2001 Total Cohort After 4 Years

All Students 214,494 64.2% 1.8% 18.4% 4.8% 10.9%

Gen.Ed. Students

187,792 68.0% 0.0% 17.7% 4.5% 9.7%

Students with Disabilities

26,702 37.3% 14.4% 22.8% 6.6% 18.9%

2001 Total Cohort After 5 Years

All Students 212,135 72.3% 2.4% 5.1% 1.4% 18.9%

Gen. Ed. Students

185,854 76.4% 0.1% 4.7% 1.2% 17.5%

Students with Disabilities

26,281 42.8% 18.8% 7.3% 2.4% 28.6%

2002 Total Cohort After 4 Years

All Students 216,910 66.7% 2.0% 15.8% 1.4% 14.2%

Gen. Ed. Students

189,457 70.9% 0.1% 14.7% 1.3% 13.0%

Students with Disabilities

27,453 37.5% 14.8% 23.1% 2.6% 21.9%

High School Outcomes for 2001 and 2002 Total Cohorts

Final: June 2007

Outcomes for 2001 Total Cohort of Students with Disabilities After 5 Years by Need/Resource Capacity

Total State Includes Charter Schools, Final- April 2007

• More students in the Big Five Cities dropped out than graduated.

• Gap: There are substantial variations in outcomes by need/resource capacity of school districts.

28,174 30,593

34,04136,060

37,793 38,02740,587 40,275

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

1997 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

The number of self-identified students with disabilities in New York State higher education programs decreased slightly after many years of steady increase.

2.8%3.0%

3.3%

Number of Individuals with Disabilities and Percent of Total Enrollment in NYS Institutions of Higher Education*

*Data for 1998 are not available

Source: OHE

3.4% 3.4%

3.6%

Final: April 2007

3.4%3.5%

How are we going to get How are we going to get there?there?

Facing today’s educational challenges means improving critical systems and structures that support achievement from the earliest years though college completion.

Source: Commissioner Mills Report to the Board of Regents, October 2006

Strategies for Improving Student Performance in

the P-16 Initiative

Action 1 Identify Low Performing Schools & Target

Improvements

• Set annual State targets for improvement

• Publish performance data

• Hold low-performing schools accountable

• Redirect IDEA funds in low-performing schools

• Provide Quality Indicator protocols

Action 2Help Districts Improve Instructional Practices

• Identify instructional practices contributing to poor student performance and help districts make improvements

• Describe and promote effective practices through district-to-district assistance

– Improved literacy

– Positive behavioral interventions

– Effective special education service delivery

Contracts for Excellence: Targets

• Predominantly benefit students with greatest educational needs– English language learners & limited English proficiency

– Students in poverty

– Students with disabilities

• Schools identified as requiring academic progress, corrective action or restructuring with emphasis on the most serious academic problems

• For evidence-based practices that facilitate student attainment of learning standards

Contracts for Excellence: Allowable Activities

• Class size reduction

• Increased time on task

• Teacher and Principal quality initiatives

• Middle and High School restructuring

• Full-day pre-kindergarten and kindergarten

• With prior SED approval, up to 15% for experimental programs to improve student achievement

Action 3Align VESID Technical Assistance Resources

• Direct technical assistance (TA) resources to address school improvements in:

– Literacy

– Behavioral supports

– Quality delivery of special education services

• Improve achievement and reduce disproportionate representation of minority students by:

– Preventing inappropriate referrals

– Increasing declassification rates

• Expand availability and capacity of TA centers to promote training and implementation of Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS) in the Large 4 and BOCES

Action 4Increase Positive Post School Outcomes

• Increase the number of students with disabilities transitioning directly from high schools to:– vocational rehabilitation training programs– employment– college

• 60 Model Transition Program (MTP) Projects

• CUNY MOU

Key Actions

• Direct TA resources to IDEA-identified districts

• Contracts for Excellence prioritize students in greatest need, including students with disabilities

• Focus TA on improving core instructional practices

• Identify successful schools

• Establish statewide Response to Intervention (RtI) Technical Assistance Center (TAC)

• Provide grants to districts to implement RtI programs

• Explore the development of Career and Technology Education (CTE) program options for students with disabilities to decrease dropout rates

Response to Intervention (RtI) §100.2(ii)

• Minimum requirements– Appropriate instruction in general education class– Screenings– Levels of targeted intervention– Repeated assessments – Application of information to make educational

decisions– Written notification to parents

• School selects structure and components

• Ensure fidelity of implementation

Learning Disabilities

• If you use the RtI process, you still must conduct a complete individual evaluation

• May not rely on any single procedure

• Must include observation of student’s academic performance in the regular classroom

• Determine that learning problems are NOT the result of lack of appropriate instruction in math and reading

Use of Significant Discrepancy regarding Learning Disabilities

• State does not prohibit its use

• Except that effective on or after July 1, 2012 (5 years), a school district shall not use the severe discrepancy criteria for:

– LD determination

– in reading

– in grades K-4

Educational Benefit

New York State Education DepartmentVESID, Special Education Quality Assurance

Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE)

Intent is to design individualized instruction

With sufficient supports and services to

Enable student to receive educational benefit

Rowley Standard

U.S. Supreme Court in Board of Education v. Rowley (1982) defined two-pronged test

Used to determine if IEP appropriately developedDoes IEP meet procedural compliance?Was IEP reasonably calculated to enable child

to receive educational benefit?

Reasonable Calculation Based on procedural requirements of IDEA 2004 IEP identifies needs related to:

Child’s disability Involvement & progress in general curriculum

Annual Goals established in each need area Services planned to support:

Progress toward all goals Progress in general curriculum Participation in extracurricular & other nonacademic activities Education with disabled & nondisabled children

Child’s IEP adjusted if progress not made and/or to address anticipated needs

Educational Benefit

Can be measured in a variety of waysAchieving passing marksAdvancing from grade to gradeMaking progress toward meeting annual goals Improving scores on statewide/district wide

assessments & alternate assessment measuresGraduating with a regular diploma Passing High School exit exams such as Regents and

RCT

Educational Benefit Activity(EBA)

Determine whether design of IEP is reasonably calculated for student to receive educational benefit

Components Reviewing IEP documentation and annual goals progress for a

3-year cycle

Analyzing the relationship among needs, annual goals, and services

Comparing progress across consecutive IEPs

Looking for patterns in IEP development process

Determining if IEP was reasonably calculated to result in educational benefit

Focused Review(FR)

Preliminary activity in Focused Review process

Coordinated with other key FR ActivitiesReview of District/Building DataClassroom/Program VisitationsStaff Interviews

Scope and Focus

What does this mean for SEQA and SETRC?

Access to a comprehensive bank of information which should be used to identify the compliance Focus Areas and which components of the Quality Indicator Assessment and Resource Guides to use.

Implementing IDEA 2004Implementing IDEA 2004::

Highlights of 2007 Changes to NYS Highlights of 2007 Changes to NYS Special Education Laws and Special Education Laws and

RegulationsRegulations

Status of Conforming Law and Regulation

• Chapter 378 of the Laws of 2007– Retroactive effective date of 6/30/07

– 2 year sunset

• Amendments to Parts 100, 120, 200 and 201 of the Commissioner’s Regulations– Some adopted effective 2007

– Additional revised amendments discussed May 2008 to be approved by Regents in July 2008

10 Policy Areas Affected

1. Referrals

2. Evaluations

3. Eligibility

4. CSE Members

5. IEPs

6. Continuum

7. Due Process

8. Discipline

9. Parentally Placed

10.Charter Schools

ReferencesReferences & Links & Links P-16 Education: A Plan for Action

http://usny.nysed.gov/summit/p-16ed.pdf

Report to the Board of Regents on Closing the Achievement Gap: Strategies for Students with Disabilities Implemented in 2007-2008 http://www.regents.nysed.gov/2008Meetings/May2008/0508vesidd3.htmhttp://www.regents.nysed.gov/2008Meetings/May2008/0508vesidd3.htm

Results for Students and Individuals with Disabilities in 2005-06 and 2006-07 http://www.regents.nysed.gov/2007Meetings/June2007/0607brd2.doc

http://www.oms.nysed.gov/press/documents/SpecialEdRepCardSlides-Final2007.ppt

State Performance Plan and Annual Performance Report http://www.vesid.nysed.gov/specialed/spp/home.html

Special Education Policy Guidance, Laws and Regulations http://www.vesid.nysed.gov/specialed/timely.htm