Students with Disabilities in the P-16 Framework :

1. Students with Disabilities in the P-16 Framework: Outcomes and Improvement Strategies Dr. Rebecca Cort Deputy Commissioner: VESID NY State Education Department

2. 4 Questions*: • Where do we want to be? • Why do we want to be there? • Where are we now? • How are we going to get there? *Roger Saland, CEO of PlugPower

3. Where do we want to be? • High expectations for all individuals with disabilities. • Full access to education and employment opportunities • Supports and services necessary to benefit from that access • Successful completion of high school and college, employment, independence.

4. GOALS: • Close the great divide in achievement along lines of income, race and ethnicity, language and disability. • 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

5. Why do we want to be there? • Moral imperative • Constitutional and statutory right • Economic necessity

6. Where are we now?

7. Results for Students with Disabilities

8. We’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

9. But Achievement and Graduation Rates 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.

10. All minorities are over represented in special education except Asians, who are significantly underrepresented. Source: 2005-06 BEDS Data and December 1, 2005 PD1/4, Final: April 2007

11. Much larger percentages of students with disabilities are provided special education services in separate classes and in separate settings in the Big Five Cities, compared to rest of State. Final: June 2007

12. 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%.

13. 2006 and 2007 English Language Arts (ELA)Students with Disabilities English Language LearnersPercentages at Levels 3 & 4 • 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.

14. 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%.

15. 2006 & 2007 English Language Arts (ELA) by Need/Resource Categories: Percentages of Students with Disabilities at Levels 3 & 4 • Except in the Large City Districts, more students with disabilities met the standards in 2007. • Gap: Variations among need/resource categories were substantial.

16. 2006 & 2007 English Language Arts (ELA) by Need/Resource Categories: Percentages of Students with Disabilities at Level 1 • 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.

17. Regents English Examination and Students with Disabilities • 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. Public Schools-Including Charter Schools, Final April 2007

18. Regents Diplomas Earned by Students with Disabilities • Since higher standards were adopted in 1996, more than 10 times as many students with disabilities are earning Regents diplomas. Students graduating with Regents diplomas in 2004-05 were required to pass five Regents examinations compared to eight being required in previous years. Public Schools-Including Charter Schools

19. High School Outcomes for 2001 and 2002 Total Cohorts Final: June 2007

20. Outcomes for 2001 Total Cohort of Students with Disabilities After 5 Years by Need/Resource Capacity • 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. Total State Includes Charter Schools, Final- April 2007

21. The number of self-identified students with disabilities in New York State higher education programs decreased slightly after many years of steady increase. Number of Individuals with Disabilities and Percent of Total Enrollment in NYS Institutions of Higher Education* 3.6% 3.5% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4% 3.3% 3.0% 2.8% *Data for 1998 are not available Final: April 2007 Source: OHE

22. How are we going to get there?

23. 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

24. Strategies for Improving Student Performance in the P-16 Initiative

25. 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

26. 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

27. 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

28. 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

29. 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

30. 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

31. 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

32. 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

33. 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

34. 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

35. Educational BenefitNew York State Education DepartmentVESID, Special Education Quality Assurance

36. Free Appropriate Public Education(FAPE) • Intent is to design individualized instruction • With sufficient supports and services to • Enable student to receive educational benefit

37. Rowley Standard U.S. Supreme Court in Board of Education v. Rowley (1982) defined two-pronged test • Used to determine if IEP appropriately developed • Does IEP meet procedural compliance? • Was IEP reasonably calculated to enable child to receive educational benefit?

38. 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

39. Educational Benefit • Can be measured in a variety of ways • Achieving passing marks • Advancing from grade to grade • Making progress toward meeting annual goals • Improving scores on statewide/district wide assessments & alternate assessment measures • Graduating with a regular diploma • Passing High School exit exams such as Regents and RCT

40. Educational Benefit Activity(EBA) • Determine whether design of IEP is reasonably calculated for student to receive educational benefit

41. 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

42. Focused Review(FR) • Preliminary activity in Focused Review process • Coordinated with other key FR Activities • Review of District/Building Data • Classroom/Program Visitations • Staff Interviews

43. 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.

44. Implementing IDEA 2004:Highlights of 2007 Changes to NYS Special Education Laws and Regulations

45. 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

46. Referrals Evaluations Eligibility CSE Members IEPs Continuum Due Process Discipline Parentally Placed Charter Schools 10 Policy Areas Affected

47. References & 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.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 Regulationshttp://www.vesid.nysed.gov/specialed/timely.htm