2020 SPP/APR and State Determination Letters PART B – New York
OSEP Response to SPP/APR
PDF2020 SPP/APR Submission PART B — New York
MS WORDView PDF
OSEP Response to SPP/APR
400 MARYLAND AVE. S.W., WASHINGTON DC 20202 - 2600
www.ed.gov
The Department of Education’s mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by
fostering educational excellence and ensuring equ al access.
U NITED S TATES D EPARTMENT OF E DUCATION
O FFICE OF S PECIAL E DUCATION AND R EHABILITATIVE S ERVICES
June 2 5 , 20 20
Honorable Shannon Tahoe
Interim Commissioner
New York State Education Department
89 Washington Avenue
Albany , New York 12234
Dear Interim Commissioner Tahoe :
I am writing to advise you of the U. S. Department of Education’s (Department) 2020
determination under section 616 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The
Department has determined that New York needs intervention in implementing th e requirements
of Part B of the IDEA. This determination is based on the totality of the State’s data and
information, including the Federal fiscal year (FFY) 2018 State Performance Plan/Annual
Performance Report (SPP/APR), other State - reported data, and o ther publicly available
information.
Your State’s 2020 determination is based on the data reflected in the State’s “2020 Part B
Results - Driven Accountability Matrix” (RDA Matrix). The RDA Matrix is individualized for
each State and consists of:
(1) a Compliance Matrix that includes scoring on Compliance Indicators and other
comp liance factors;
(2) a Results Matrix that includes scoring on Results Elements ;
(3) a Compliance Score and a Results Score ;
(4) an RDA Percentage based on both the Compliance Score and the Results Score ; and
(5) the State’s Determination.
The RDA Matrix is further explained in a document, entitled “How the Department Made
Determinations under Section 616(d) of the Individuals with Di sabilities Education Act in 2020 :
Part B ” (HTDMD).
The Office of Special Education Programs ( OSEP ) is continuing to use both results data and
compliance data in making determinations in 2020 , as it did for Part B determinations in 201 4,
2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019 . (The specifics of the determination procedures and criteria
are set forth in the HTDMD and reflected in the RDA Matrix for your State.) In maki ng Part B
determinations in 2020 , OSEP continued to use results data related to:
Page 2 — Chief State School Officer
(1) the participation of children with disabilities (CWD) on regular Statewide assessments;
(2) the participation and performance of CWD on the most recently administered (school
year 201 8 - 201 9 ) National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP);
(3) t he percentage of CWD who graduated with a regular high school diplo ma; and
(4) the percentage of CWD who drop ped out.
You may access the results of OSEP’s review of your State’s SPP/APR and other relevant data
by accessing the EMAPS SPP/APR reporting tool using your State - specific log - on information at
https://emaps.ed.gov/ suite/ . When you access your State’s SPP/APR on the site, you will find , in
Indicators 1 through 16, the OSEP Response to the indicator and any actions that the State is
required to take. The actions that the State is required to take are in two places:
(1) a ctions related to the correction of findings of noncompliance are in the “OSEP
Response” section of the indicator; and
(2) any other actions that the State is required to take are in the “Required Actions” section
of the indicator.
It is important for you to review the Introduction to the SPP/APR, which may also include
language in the “ OSEP R esponse ” and/or “ Required Actions ” sections .
You will also find all of the following important documents saved as attachments:
(1) the State’s RDA Matrix;
(2) the HTDMD docum ent;
(3) a spreadsheet entitled “2020 Data Rubric Part B,” which shows how OSEP calculated the
State’s “Timely and Accurate State - Reported Data” score in the Compliance Matrix; and
(4) a document e ntitled “Dispute Resolution 2018 - 2019 ,” which includes the IDEA s ection
618 data that OSEP used to calculate the State’s “Timely State Complaint Decisions” and
“Timely Due Process Hearing Decisions” scores in the Compliance Matrix .
As noted above, and as further explained in the enclosures to this letter, the Department has
determined that New York needs intervention in implementing the requirements of Part B of
IDEA. The Department identifies a State as needing intervention under IDEA Part B if its RDA
Percentage is less than 60%. New York ’s RDA Percentage is 57.92% . T h e major factors
contributing to New York’s 2020 Needs Intervention determination ar e the score s of ‘0’ on the
results elements for the percentage of fourth grade children with disabilities participating in
regular Statewide assessments in reading and math, the percentage of eighth grade children with
disabilities participating in regular Statewide assessments in reading and math, and the
percentage of fourth grade children with disabilities scoring at basic or above on the NAEP in
math. I n addition, New York received a score of ‘0’ on Timely Due Process Hearing Decisions
( 52.46% ) and Longstanding Noncompliance ( uncorrected noncomplian ce identified in FFY 2013
or earlier) .
OSEP notes that the State has placed the New York City Department of Education (NYCDOE)
on a compliance assurance plan to address longstanding noncompliance with New York City’s
provision of a free appropriate public education to children with disabilities and protection of
parental and student rights . As stated in OSEP’s September 10, 2019 letter to the State, there has
Page 3 — Chief State School Officer
been an increase i n the number of due process hearing requests filed with NYCDOE , many of
which ha ve not been resolved within the 45 - day timeline without having received a specific
extension under 34 C.F.R. § 300.515(c) . The State’s most recent dispute resolution data
submitted under section 618 of IDEA provides additional evidence of this continued ba cklog.
Therefore, OSEP will continue to address , under separate cover, the State’s general supervisory
and monitoring responsibilities under sections 61 2(a)(11) and 6 16(a) of IDEA to ensure that due
process complaints, impartial due process hearings , and expedited due process hearings are
conducted consistent with IDEA requirements.
Pursuant to section 616(d)(2)(B) of the IDEA and 34 C.F.R. § 300.603(b)(2), a State that is
determined to be “needs intervention” or “needs substantial intervent ion” and does not agree
with this determination, may request an opportunity to meet with the Assistant Secretary to
demonstrate why the Department should change the State’s determination. To request a hearing,
submit a letter to Mark Schultz , Delegated the authority to perform the functions and duties of
the Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, U. S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20202 within 15 days of the date of
this letter. The lett er must include the basis for your request for a change in your State’s
determination.
States were required to submit Phase II I Year Four of the State Systemic Improvement Plan
( SSIP ) by April 1, 2020 . OSEP appreciates the State’s ongoing work on its SSIP and its efforts to
improve results for students with disabilities. We have carefully reviewed and responded to your
submission and will provide additional feedback in the upcoming weeks. Additionally, OSEP
will continue to work with your State as it implem ents the fifth year of Phase III of the SSIP,
which is due on April 1, 2021 .
As a reminder, your State must report annually to the public, by posting on the State educational
agency’s (SEA’s) website , the performance of each local educational agency (LEA) located in
the State on the targets in the SPP/APR as soon as practicable, bu t no later than 120 days after
the State’s submission of its FFY 2018 SPP/APR. In addition, your State must:
(1) review LEA performance against targets in the State’s SPP/APR;
(2) determine if each LEA “meets the requirements” of Part B, or “needs assistance,” “needs
intervention,” or “needs substantial intervention” in implementing Part B of the IDEA ;
(3) take appropriate enforcement action; and
(4) inform each LEA of its determination.
Further, your State must make its SPP/APR available to the public by posting it on the SEA’s
web site. Within the upcoming weeks , OSEP will be finalizing a State Profile that:
(1) includes the State’s determination letter and SPP/APR, OSEP attachments , and al l State
attachments that are accessible in accordance with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act
of 1973 ; and
(2) will be accessible to the public via the ed.gov website.
Page 4 — Chief State School Officer
OSEP appreciates the State’s efforts to improve results for children and youth with disa bilities
and looks forward to working with your State over the next year as we continue our important
work of improving the lives of children with disabilities and their families. Please contact your
OSEP State Lead i f you have any questions, would like to discuss this further, or want to request
technical assistance.
Sincerely,
Laurie VanderPloeg
Director
Office of Special Education Programs
cc: State Director of Special Education
View File
2020 SPP/APR Submission PART B — New York
State Performance Plan / Annual Performance Report:Part BforSTATE FORMULA GRANT PRProvide sufficient detail to ensure that the Secretary anHow and where the State reported to the public on the FFY17 performance of each LESame data as used for reporting to the Department of Education (Department) under FFY20132014201520162017Target >=47.17%50.48%55.39%55.57%57.71%Data47.17%52.65%52.86%52.55%55.35%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=57.82%60.02%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input USED requires targets for this indicatorDateDescriptionData SY 2017-18 Cohorts for Regulatory Adjusted-Cohort Graduation R10/02/2019Number of youth with IEPs graduating with a regular diploma18,571 SY 201Number of youth with IEPs eligible to graduate32,631 SY 2017-18 Regulatory Adjuste56.91%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of youth with IEPs in the current year's adjusted cohort graduating with a Provide additional information about this indicator (optional)1 - Prior FFY RequirOPTION 2:Use same data source and measurement that the State used to report in itsFFY20132014201520162017Target =95.00%95.00%9595.00%BHS90.00%Actual91.14%9.94%90.69%90.53%94.90%Historical Data: MathGroup Grou20132014201520162017AGrade 3-82005Target >=95.00%95.00%95.00%95.00%95.00%AGrade 3-74.15%69.75%70.73%BHS2005Target >=95.00%95.00%95.00%95.00%95.00%BHS91.00%Actual95.TargetsGroupGroup Name20182019ReadingA >=Grade 3-895.00%95.00%ReadingB >=HS95.00%95.00%MathA >=Grade 3-895.00%95.00%MathB >=HS95.00%95.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input The targets for this indicator are set bFFY 2018 SPP/APR Data: Reading AssessmentGroupGroup NameNumber of Children with IE27,77426,56094.90%95.00%95.63%Met TargetNo SlippageFFY 2018 SPP/APR Data: Math AssGrade 3-8243,267174,95070.73%95.00%71.92%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippageBHS27,71527Provide links to the page(s) where you provide public reports of assessment resultData Source3C. Same data as used for reporting to the Department under Title I of 7Grade 8Grade 9Grade 10Grade 11Grade 12HSAGrade 3-8XXXXXXBHSXHistorical Data: Reading GroupGroup NameBaseline FFY20132014201520162017AGrade 3-82012Target >=11.17%13.00%16.00%20.00%23.00%AGrade 3-812.39%Actual11.17%162.73%63.00%63.00%63.50%64.0%BHS65.62%Actual62.73%70.87%70.98%74.75%72.55%HistoriFFY20132014201520162017AGrade 3-82012Target >=15.32%15.50%16.00%19.00%19.00%AGrade 3-814.26%Actual15.32%17.84%18.34%18.78%20.96%BHS2012Target >=63.29%64.00%64.HS50.22%Actual63.29%68.46%67.16%64.49%62.75%TargetsGroupGroup Name20182019ReadingA >=Grade 3-823.00%23.00%ReadingB >=HS66.00%70.00%MathA >=Grade 3-823.00%23.00%MathB >=HS66.00%66.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input See Introduction for Stakeholder input. FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data: Reading AssessmentGroupGroup NameChildren with IEPs who recNo SlippageBHS26,56019,16672.55%66.00%72.16%Met TargetNo SlippageFFY 2018 SPP/APR FFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageAGrade 3-8174,95037,51420.962.75%66.00%65.14%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippageRegulatory InformationThe SEA, (or3C - OSEP Response The State provided targets for FFY 2019 for this indicator, andIn the description, specify which method the State used to determine possible discFFY20132014201520162017Target =44.00%45.00%452.00%B255.30%Data44.03%47.4%48.22%44.53%43.65%C12008Target >=91.00%91.50%92.00%9C182.80%Data91.54%87.60%90.15%88.81%85.80%C22008Target >=48.00%50.00%52.00%55.00%6C263.20%Data48.17%53.72%53.01%51.25%49.44%TargetsFFY20182019Target A1 >=95.00%95.00%Target A2 >=56.00%56.00%Target B1 >=95.00%95.00%Target B2 >=56.00%56.00%Target C1 >=93.00%93.00%Target C2 >=64.00%64.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input Proposed targets for preschool outcomes Number of childrenPercentage of Childrena. Preschool children who did not improve functioning340.57%b. Preschool children 8.78%c. Preschool children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-agedd. Preschool children who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to samee. Preschool children who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-ageNumeratorDenominatorFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageA1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age exDid Not Meet TargetNo SlippageOutcome B: Acquisition and use of knowledge and skila. Preschool children who did not improve functioning230.39%b. Preschool children who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer tc. Preschool children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peerd. Preschool children who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to samee. Preschool children who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-ageNumeratorDenominatorFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageB1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age exOutcome C: Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needsNumber of ChildrenPercea. Preschool children who did not improve functioning370.62%b. Preschool children who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer tc. Preschool children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peerd. Preschool children who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to samee. Preschool children who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-ageNumeratorDenominatorFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageC1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age exPartReasons for slippage, if applicableC2The slippage is not statistically significant. As a sampling indicator, fluctuatioYESIf yes, has your previously-approved sampling plan changed?NODescribe the sampling methodology outlining how the design will yield valid and reNone 7 - OSEP Response The State provided targets for FFY 2019 for this indicator,Include the State's analysis of the extent to which the demographics of the parentTargets: Description of Stakeholder Input Results for this indicator were shared aFFY20132014201520162017Target >=93.00%93.50%94.00%94.00%94.50%Data93.69%93.93%93.45%93.36%93.43%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=95.00%95.00%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of respondent parents who report schools facilitated pThe number of parents to whom the surveys were distributed.47,389Percentage of resIf yes, has your previously-approved sampling plan changed?NODescribe the sampling methodology outlining how the design will yield valid and reIf yes, is it a new or revised survey?NOThe demographics of the parents responding are representative of the demographics If no, describe the strategies that the State will use to ensure that in the futur8 - OSEP Response The State provided a target for FFY 2019 for this indicator, and9 - Indicator DataNot ApplicableSelect yes if this indicator is not applicable.NOHFFY20132014201520162017Target 0%0%0%0%0%Data0.59%0.15%0.59%0.18%0.53%TargetsFFY20182019Target 0%0%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataHas the state established a minimum n and/or cell size reNumber of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic grouDefine disproportionate representation. Please specify in your definition: 1) th110FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verCorrection of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2017Year Findings 9 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone9 - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported less than 100% compliance for FFY 2018 (greater than 0%10 - Indicator DataNot ApplicableSelect yes if this indicator is not applicable.NOFFY20132014201520162017Target 0%0%0%0%0%Data1.32%1.18%0.44%0.71%1.24%TargetsFFY20182019Target 0%0%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataHas the state established a minimum n and/or cell size re25Number of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic grYESDefine disproportionate representation. Please specify in your definition: 1)17908FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verActions taken if noncompliance not correctedThere are eight (8) findings of noncom10 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone10 - OSEP ResponseThe State must demonstrate, in the FFY 2019 SPP/APR, that the 8 remaining districtTargets must be 100%.Provide detailed information about the timely correction of nFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data88.07%83.84%83.30%85.10%84.00%TargetsFFY20182019Target 100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data(a) Number of children for whom parental consent to e(b) Number of children whose evaluations were completed within 60 days (or State-eWhat is the source of the data provided for this indicator? State database that in545031FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verActions taken if noncompliance not correctedThere is one finding of noncompliance 11 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone11 - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported less than 100% compliance for FFY 2018, the State must Account for children included in (a), but not included in b, c, d, e, or f. IndicaFFY20132014201520162017Target100%100%100%100%100%Data97.00%75.26%67.35%71.73%56.67%TargetsFFY20182019Target 100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR Dataa. Number of children who have been served in Part C 2,774b. Number of those referred determined to be NOT eligible and whose eligibilic. Number of those found eligible who have an IEP developed and implemented by thed. Number for whom parent refusals to provide consent caused delays in evaluation e. Number of children who were referred to Part C less than 90 days before their tf. Number of children whose parents chose to continue early intervention services Numerator(c)Denominator(a-b-d-e-f)FFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippagePercent of childAccount for children included in (a), but not included in b, c, d, e, or f. Indica3210FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verCorrection of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2017Year Findings FFY 2016110FFY 2016Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State veri12 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone12 - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported leTargets must be 100%.Provide detailed information about the timely correction of nFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data77.17%78.29%76.50%90.23%88.05%TargetsFFY20182019Target 100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of youth aged 16 and above with IEPs that contNumber of youth with IEPs aged 16 and aboveFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DaDo the State's policies and procedures provide that public agencies must meet thesIf yes, at what age are youth included in the data for this indicator15Provide additional information about this indicator (optional)All 107 school distr645860FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verCorrection of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2017Year Findings 13 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone13 - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported less than 100% compliance for FFY 2018, the State must Enrolled in higher educationas used in measures A, B, and C means youth have been14 - Indicator DataHistorical DataBaseline FFY20132014201520162017A2009Target >=37.50%42.20%42.70%43.00%43.5%A43.00%Data37.62%48.12%40.77%44.02%43.39%B2009Target >=62.60%66.00%67.00%68.00%69.00%B64.00%Data62.58%71.71%67.25%69.43%70.34%C2009Target >=72.40%75.00%76.0%77.50%78.50%C77.00%Data72.41%80.85%77.75%80.66%82.8FFY20182019Target A >=44.00%44.00%Target B >=70.00%70.00%Target C >=80.00%80.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input An internal workgroup analyzed historica1,3951. Number of respondent youth who enrolled in higher education within one yea2. Number of respondent youth who competitively employed within one year of leavin3. Number of respondent youth enrolled in some other postsecondary education or tr4. Number of respondent youth who are in some other employment within one year of Number of respondent youthNumber of respondent youth who are no longer in secondarA. Enrolled in higher education (1)6191,39543.39%44.00%44.37%Met TargetNo Slippage80.65%Met TargetNo SlippagePartReasons for slippage, if applicableBThis is not a statistically significant difference from target. Of note is that oPlease select the reporting option your State is using: Option 2: Report in alignmIf yes, has your previously-approved sampling plan changed?NODescribe the sampling methodology outlining how the design will yield valid and reIf yes, is it a new or revised survey?NOInclude the State's analyses of the extent to which the response data are represenProvide additional information about this indicator (optional)Data Source:NYS con SessionsInstructions and MeasurementMonitoring Priority:SourceDateDescriptionDataSY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section C: Due Process ComSY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section C: Due Process Com3.1(a) Number resolution sessions resolved through settlement agreements130Select yes if the data reported in this indicator are not the same as the State's FFY20132014201520162017Target >=5.50%6.00%7.00%8.00%9.00% - 10.00%Data4.71%4.82%3.20%2.83%1.81%TargetsFFY2018 (low)2018 (high)2019 (low)2019 (high)Target11.00%12.00%11.00%12.00%FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data3.1(a) Number resolutions sessions resolved through settlement agreements3.1 NumbeBased on the findings of a study of the Impartial Hearing Office procedures of a lIf the data reported in this indicator are not the same as the State's data under SY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section B: Mediation Reque2.1 Mediations held189SY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section B: Mediation RequeSY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section B: Mediation Reque2.1.b.i Mediations agreements not related to due process complaints150Select yes if the data reported in this indicator are not the same as the State's FFY20132014201520162017Target >=87.00%88.00%90.00%94.00%89.00% - 92.00%Data87.10%88.53%83.02%86.63%88.74%TargetsFFY2018 (low)2018 (high)2019 (low)2019 (high)Target91.00%95.00%91.00%95.00%FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data2.1.a.i Mediation agreements related to due process complaints2.1.b.i Mediation agProvide additional information about this indicator (optional)Mediation continues I certify that I am the Chief State School Officer of the State, or his or her desT 55Part B
(Grant Year 2018–2019 — Issued June 25, 2020)
How the department made determinations
idea_file-template-default single single-idea_file postid-80912 wp-custom-logo wp-embed-responsive with-font-selector no-anchor-scroll footer-on-bottom animate-body-popup social-brand-colors hide-focus-outline link-style-standard has-sidebar content-title-style-normal content-width-normal content-style-boxed content-vertical-padding-show non-transparent-header mobile-non-transparent-header kadence-elementor-colors elementor-default elementor-kit-82278
Last modified on September 17, 2020