1 results for students with disabilities 2008-09 and 2009-10 school year data report for the...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Results for Students with Disabilities
2008-09 and 2009-10 School Year Data
Report for the RSE-TASC Statewide MeetingMay 2010
2
Classification Rates for School-Age Students with Disabilities in New York State
11.1%11.6% 11.7% 11.8% 11.8% 11.9% 11.8% 12.0% 12.2% 12.1% 12.3% 12.6% 12.9% 13.0% 13.3%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%19
95-9
6
1996
-97
1997
-98
1998
-99
1999
-00
2000
-01
2001
-02
2002
-03*
2003
-04
2004
-05
2005
-06
2006
-07
2007
-08*
*
2008
-09
2009
-10
Per
cen
tag
e
*Revised methodology
**2007-08 was the first year classification rates were calculated based on students with disability counts collected through the Student Information Repository System (SIRS)
Statewide Results - March 2010
The 2009-10 special education classification rate increased compared to the previous year.
3
Number of School-Age Students with Disabilities in New York State
362,
202
380,
320
389,
887
398,
920
401,
568
406,
841
404,
210
403,
260
405,
444
409,
791
407,
000
409,
149
410,
330
404,
902
405,
632
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,000
500,00019
95-9
6
1996
-97
1997
-98
1998
-99
1999
-00
2000
-01
2001
-02
2002
-03*
2003
-04
2004
-05
2005
-06
2006
-07
2007
-08*
*
2008
-09
2009
-10
Per
cen
tag
e
*Revised methodology
**2007-08 was the first year classification rates were calculated based on students with disability counts collected through the Student Information Repository System (SIRS)
Statewide Results - March 2010
Although the 2009-10 special education classification has increased compared to the previous years, the actual number of students with disabilities peaked in 2007-08.
4
NYC and Rest Of State School-Age Special Education Disability Population by Year
158,004
175,229
159,951153,371
148,593150,685
230,403
246,898250,379255,778
258,407259,106
140,000
150,000
160,000
170,000
180,000
190,000
200,000
210,000
220,000
230,000
240,000
250,000
260,000
270,000
2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10
NYC Rest of State
Statewide Results - March 2010
Special Education Disability Population by Year
5
11.7
% 13.7
%
16.6
%
12.3
%
16.6
%
14.4
%
5.0%
15.9
%
11.7
%
15.4
%
5.5%
11.8
%
17.0
%
15.8
%
5.5%
19.0
%
13.0
%
11.9
%
17.6
%
16.4
%
5.7%
19.6
%
13.3
%15.1
%
4.7%
12.6
%
11.9
%
19.5
%
12.9
%
16.7
%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
20%
White Black Hispanic Asian American Indian StatewideAverage*
2005-06 Classification Rate 2006-07 Classification Rate2007-08 Classification Rate 2008-09 Classification Rate2009-10 Classification Rate
March 2010
Statewide Classification Rates of Students with Disabilities
by Race/Ethnicity 2005-06 (December 1, 2005) – 2009-10 (October 7, 2009)
**Includes Students with Disabilities reported as Multi-racial (none in 2005-06, 103 in 2006-07, 218 in 2007-08, 584 in 2008-09, 1099 in 2009-10)
The special education classification rate is highest for Black and American Indian students.
6
ELA Results
7
15.2
%
13.3
%
15.2
%
13.3
% 22.3
%
40.2
%
20.2
%
17.5
%
10.6
%
17.1
%
17.0
% 26.0
%
44.5
%
22.8
%
23.3
%
16.1
%
21.4
%
20.9
% 30.4
%
48.9
%
27.9
%35.2
%
25.0
%
31.6
%
30.7
% 42.4
%
60.5
%
39.3
%
New York City Large City Urban-Suburban
Rural Average Low Total Public
2006 2007 2008 2009
Percentage of Students Scoring at Levels 3 and 4
2006-2009 3-8 ELA SWD BY NRC
8
2006 - 2009 English Language Arts (ELA)Students with Disabilities English Language LearnersThe performance of students with disabilities in grades 3-8 who are also English Language Learners is very low, however, there were slight improvements in each grade.
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%15.2
%
14.1
%
19.4
%
5.6% 7.6%
1.7%
11.7
%23.7
%
21.3
%
27.3
%
21.1
%
15.0
%
5.4%
20.0
%
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grades 3-8
2005-06 ELL SWD 2006-07 ELL SWD
2007-08 ELL SWD 2008-09 ELL SWD
Percentage of Students Scoring at Levels 3 and 4
Number Tested 2005-06
Grade 3: 1,512
Grade 4: 1,858
Grade 5: 2,477
Grade 6: 2,246
Grade 7: 2,195
Grade 8: 2,194
Grades 3-8 Combined: 12,482
Number Tested 2006-07
Grade 3: 3,816
Grade 4: 3,783
Grade 5: 3,451
Grade 6: 2,935
Grade 7: 2,534
Grade 8: 2,433
Grades 3-8 Combined: 18,952
Number Tested 2007-08
Grade 3: 3,474
Grade 4: 3,606
Grade 5: 3,295
Grade 6: 2,841
Grade 7: 2,351
Grade 8: 1,933
Grades 3-8 Combined: 17,500
Number Tested 2008-09
Grade 3: 3,642
Grade 4: 3,712
Grade 5: 3,619
Grade 6: 3,160
Grade 7: 2,740
Grade 8: 2,410
Grades 3-8 Combined: 19,283
9
2006-2009 by Ethnicity2006 to 2009 Students with Disabilities Grades 3-8 ELA
by Ethnicity Level 3 or 4 - Statewide
Percentage of Students Scoring at Level 3 or 4
11
.8%
14
.2%
13
.3%
26
.5%
19
.2%
21
.8%
35
.3%
29
.4%
32
.7%
33
.9%
47
.5%
27
.1%
30
.7%
17
.0%
15
.7%
13
.2%
28
.5%
21
.4%
35
.3%
48
.6%
2006 2009 2006 2009 2006 20092007 2006 2009 2006 2009
* 2007 – There were 42 Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander students not included in above chart. 2008 – There were 44 Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander students not included in above chart. 2009 – There were 49 Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander students not included in above chart.
** 2007 – There were 4 Multi-racial students not included in the above chart. 2008 – There were 73 Multi-racial students not included in the above chart. 2009 – There were 265 Multi-racial students not included in the above chart.
2008 2007 2008 2007 2008 2007 2008 2007 2008
Asian/Pacific Islander Black Hispanic American Indian/Alaskan Native
White
10
7% 6% 4% 3% 1% 1%
4%
10%
12%
9%
16%
10%
8% 6%
16.0
%
19.0
%
33.0
%
22.0
%
14.0
%
18.0
%
20.0
%
67%
63%
54% 59
%
75%
73%
70%
Grade 3 ELA Grade 4 ELA Grade 5 ELA Grade 6 ELA Grade 7 ELA Grade 8 ELA High SchoolELA
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
2,202 2,434 2,506
2,302 2,471 2,531NumberWith Valid Scores 2,682
Final: April 2009
Performance of Students with Disabilities in Alternate Assessments in ELA in 2008-09 School Year
The majority of students with disabilities tested on the alternate assessment in ELA performed at an advanced level in all grades.
11
Regents and RCT Examination Results
12
12,94213,057
2,4994,154
4,969
2,832
6,7905,675
8,3057,226
8,4249,767
10,506
16,88317,299
3,414
9,514
7,545
4,175
10,4618,606
11,1949,680
12,14413,079
14,325
24,81525,046
4,4195,647
12,60713,518
15,366
17,321
14,101
16,309
18,94920,081
22,735
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Number with Score of 65-100
Number with Score of 55-100
Total Number Tested
2009 Regents English Examination & Students with Disabilities2009 Regents English Examination & Students with DisabilitiesData represents Public Schools, Including Charter Schools
In the 2009-10 school year, the number of students with disabilities tested on Regents examination in English decreased compared to a trend of increasing numbers since 2002.
13
Examination
Percent Not Tested
Students with Disabilities Percent Scoring
0-54 55-64 65-100
2005 2001 2005 2001 2005 2001 2005 2001
English 38.3% 45.6% 16.0% 17.2% 8.8% 8.9% 36.8% 28.3%
Mathematics 35.3% 45.7% 16.9% 19.8% 10.6% 8.0% 37.1% 26.5%
Global History 35.3% 41.2% 21.4% 19.0% 11.4% 9.0% 32.0% 30.9%
U.S. History 42.7% 49.5% 11.0% 12.6% 8.2% 7.9% 38.1% 29.9%
Science 36.8% 41.9% 14.5% 12.4% 10.6% 8.4% 38.1% 37.4%
Regents Performance in Selected Cohorts After 4 Years of School
More students with disabilities in the 2005 cohort as compared to the 2001 cohort were tested and more passed each Regents exam, but too many students remain not tested within four years.
14Data represents Public Schools, including Charter Schools
The Regents Competency Tests remain a tool for helping students with disabilities meet graduation requirements.
Approximately half of students with disabilities tested on the reading and math RCT passed it in 2009.
Statewide Results - January 2010
Percent of Students with Disabilities Passing each Regents Competency Test in 2009
15
Total Cohort Outcomes
16
Although 4-year graduation rates for students with disabilities have not improved, more students are remaining in school and fewer are dropping out.
38.4% 43.0% 39.5% 41.5% 42.1%
13.7% 11.0% 9.9% 12.1% 11.5%
22.1% 24.5% 31.7% 28.6%
23.7% 19.6% 17.3% 16.0% 15.9%
28.0%
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Dropped Out
Transferred to GED Program
Still Enrolled
IEP Diploma
Graduated
GED 1.9%GED 1.3%
GED 1.4%
Cohort Membership
2001 28,906
2002 26,678
2003 28,390
2004 31,252
2005 32,058
Students with Disabilities Outcomes Results After 4 Years, Through June
GED 1.7% GED 2.4%
17
The fifth year of school helps more students with disabilities to meet graduation requirements.
49.7
%
46.5
%
49.0
%
41.5
%
49.5
%
42.1
%
38.4
%
43.9
%
44.6
%
48.0
%
43.0
%
39.5
%
Four Years Five Years Six Years
2001 Cohort (28,906) 2002 Cohort (26,678) 2003 Cohort (28,390)
2004 Cohort (31,252) 2005 Cohort (32,058)
Students with Disabilities Graduation RateAfter Four Year Through June
18
44.0
%
15.9
%
75.5
%
54.9
%
39.8
%
39.8
%
25.5
%
26.6
%
11.4
%
10.4
%
18.2
%
14.8
%
15.4
%
12.1
%
4.1%
17.9
%
18.3
%29.8
%
21.0
%
11.9
%
4.4%
NYC Large 4 Cities Urban/Suburban Rural High Need Average Need Low Need Total Public
% High School Diploma % IEP Diplomas % Dropped Out
2005 Total Cohort 10,753 1,660 2,698 2,486 10,277 4,086
2005 Total Cohort after Four Years as of AugustGraduation, IEP Diploma and Dropout Rates
32,058
In the High Need Districts (NYC, Large 4 Cities, Urban/Suburban and Rural High Need) graduation rates are lowest, dropout rates are highest and more students with disabilities earn an IEP diploma compared to Average or Low Need districts.
19
Regents Diplomas Awarded to Students with Disabilities
774 864 1,115 1,3291,839
2,2572,865
4,673
5,3665,877
7,000
7,708
623526
1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
Since higher standards were adopted in 1996, more than 14 times as many students with disabilities are earning Regents diplomas.
20
1.6
%
1.5
%
3.1
%
2.4
%
2.9
%
1.7
%
NYC Large 4 Cities Urban/Suburban Rural High Need Average Need Low Need Total Public
% IEP Diplomas
2005 Total Cohort 77,378 8,983 16,964 14,758 72,316 33,616
2005 Total Cohort of All Students Earning an IEP Diploma after Four Years as of August
224,822
0.5%
In all need resource categories of school districts except the low need districts, the percentage of students earning an IEP diploma exceeds the 1%of students who can demonstrate proficiency on State assessments by usingresults on the NYSAA for accountability purposes.
21
Selected State Performance Plan Indicators
22
Indicator 3Performance and AYP
23
Percent of School Districts Making Adequate Yearly Progress
For Students with Disabilities in All Required Subjects and Grades
48.3%57.2%
75.5%71.3%
82.7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Baseline2004-05(n=290
Districts)Grades 4, 8 &High School
2005-06(n=675
districts)Grades 3-8 &High School
2006-07(n=648
districts)Grades 3-8 &High School
2007-08(n=655
districts)Grades 3-8 &High School
2008-09(n=665
districts)Grades 3-8 &High School
Pe
rce
nt o
f Sch
oo
l Dis
tric
ts M
aki
ng
AY
PNYS exceeded the State’s Performance Plan AYP target in 2008-09
Target 59%
24
6.3%
0.0%
48.8
%
69.1
% 74.7
%
71.3
%
88.1
%
9.4%
0.0%
48.8
%
91.7
%
86.0
%
95.8
%
82.7
%
New York City Large City Urban-Suburban
Rural Average Low Total Public
2007-08 2008-09
Very few of the districts in New York City and no large city is making AYP for the students with disabilities subgroup in all grades and subjects in which they have at least 30 students with disabilities.
Number of Districts:2003 2004
NYC: 32 32Large City 4 4Urban-Suburban 43 43Rural 123 121Average 316 321Low 118 119
Percent of School Districts that Made AYP in All Subjects and Grades in Which they had 30 Students with Disabilities
25
Indicator 4Suspensions of Students with
Disabilities for More than 10 Days Out-of-School
26
The number of school districts that suspend at least 2.7% of students with disabilities for more than 10 days
50
60 64
40
2005-06 Baseline 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
Percent of school districts with high rates of suspension decreased from 9.4% of all school districts to 5.9% of all school districts.
The number of school districts that suspended 2.7 % or more of students with disabilities for more than 10 days also decreased.
27
Indicator 5Least Restrictive Setting forSchool-Age Students with
Disabilities
285/98
2 Regions - Less than 2% at Separate Public Sites
9 Regions - 2-4.3% at Separate Public Sites
12 Regions - 4.4-7% at Separate Public Sites
16 Regions - Over 7% at Separate Public Sites
National Average : 4.3 percent
Separate Settings are defined as schools attended exclusively by students with disabilities; these settings include Chapter 853, Special Act, State Operated and State Supported schools, separate BOCES sites and New York City separate public schools.
Indicator 5
Least Restrictive Environment data for school-age students continue to improve…1996-97 Public and Private Special Education Placements at Separate Sites for Each BOCES Region and New York City
29
Only 2 of 38 regions (5%) placed 7% or more Students with Disabilities in Separate Sites in 2009-10 compared to 28% in 1999-2000
3/24/10
Separate Settings are defined as schools attended exclusively by students with disabilities; these settings include Chapter 853, Special Act, State Operated and State Supported schools, separate BOCES sites and New York City separate public schools
Less than 2% (17)
2-4.3% (10)
4.4-6.9% (9)
More than 6.9% (2)
27 of 38 regions (71%) placed 4.3% or fewer Students with Disabilities in Separate Sites in 2009-10 compared to only 46% in 1999-2000
GS
Students with Disabilities (Ages 4-21) in Separate SettingsBy BOCES Region and New York City Based on 2009-10 VR-5 Data
30
In the Big Five cities, more than twice as many students with disabilities are placed in general education classrooms for less than 40 percent of the day compared to the national average.
31
Indicator 11Timely Evaluations of
Preschool and School-Age Studentsfor Special Education Eligibility
32
Percent of Preschool and School-age Referrals for Special Education Receiving Timely Evaluations
(target is 100%)
44.2%
78.4%
64.2%
48.5%
81.2%
67.4%61.3%
74.6%
84.7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
PreschoolChildren
School-AgeStudents
Total for AllChildren
Per
cen
t o
f T
imel
y E
valu
atio
ns
of
Ch
ild
ren
Ref
erre
d f
or
Sp
ecia
l E
du
cati
on
2006-07 baseline 2007-08 2008-09
NYS continues to make progress in the percent of preschool and school age
students receiving timely initial evaluations.
33
Indicator 13Transition IEPs of Youth Aged 15 or
Older
34
Secondary Transition – Percent of Youth with IEPs
Determined Reasonable to Meet Post Secondary Goals
The percent of students aged 15 and over whose IEPs are in compliance with all 8 regulatory requirements has continued to improve over the years, with a different sample of school districts reporting these data annually.
35
Improvement Strategies
36
2010-11 Districts Needing Assistance / Intervention
• 95* school districts (includes 32 in NYC)– 75 identified for high drop out rates– 55 identified for low graduation rates– 3 identified for AYP – 2 or more consecutive years
(ELA)– 12 identified for continuing noncompliance
• 39 school districts identified last year that received technical assistance are no longer identified.
* Some districts identified for multiple issues
37
Redesign of Special Education Network
• 10 Regional Special Education Technical Assistance Support Centers (RSE-TASC)
– School improvement specialists– Regional special education trainers– Behavior specialists (PBIS)– Transition specialists – Bilingual special education specialists– Nondistrict TA providers
38
Response-to-Intervention
• Required phase in by 2011-12 school year
• State Technical Assistance Centerwww.nysrti.org
• Guidance document
• Parent guide
• Program development grants to 14 schools/districts
39
• 44 Schools identified with effective practices– 13 received grants to assist other districts
• Districts needing assistance / intervention for students with disabilities may apply for grant funds to replicate the effective practices
S³TAIR Project
40
And…
• Special Education Parent Centers expanded to 14 statewide
• 14 Early Childhood Direction Centers assist parents of preschool children and address timely evaluation / services issues
• Collaborative work with institutions of higher education in low performing schools and to better prepare special education teachers