results for students and individuals with disabilities september 2008

1

Results for Students and Individuals with Disabilities

September 2008

2

2006 - 2008 English Language Arts (ELA) Students with Disabilities

26.6

%

26.5

%

26.6

%

16.8

%

16.1

%

10.5

%

20.2

%

28.0

%

27.6

%

29.1

%

19.7

%

17.3

%

15.6

%

22.8

%

30.8

%

29.8

% 40.7

%

23.9

%

29.4

%

13.3

% 27.9

%

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

2006 2007 2008

Percentage of Students Scoring at Levels 3 and 4

Grade 3 = 23,811 26,692 27,285Grade 4 = 26,474 28,281 29,983Grade 5 = 28,987 29,985 30,661Grade 6 = 28,883 29,055 31,195Grade 7 = 29,237 29,842 31,180 Grade 8 = 29,119 29,514 31,077Grades 3-8= 166,511 173,369 181,381

Number Tested - 2006 2007 2008

The percentage of students with disabilities meeting the ELA Learning Standards increased at every grade level except Grade 8 even with the increase in ELL students with disabilities tested.

3

2006 - 2008 English Language Arts (ELA)Students with Disabilities

37.3

%

38.6

%

28.0

% 33.0

%

32.9

% 38.5

%

34.6

%

34.8

%

33.2

%

21.5

%

12.4

%

24.3

%

25.4

%

25.1

%

26.7

% 31.7

%

8.9%

8.3%

8.7%

22.8

%

17.6

%


2006 2007 2008

Percentage of Students Scoring at Level 1

There is a decease in the percentage of students with disabilities scoring at Level 1 in all grades for the past two years. The decreases in Grades 5, 6 and 7 are substantial and improvement has been sustained from one grade to the next.

4

15.2

%

12.6

%

15.1

%

13.5

% 22.6

%

40.3

%

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

%

New York City Large City* Urban-Suburban Rural Average Low Total Public

2006 2007 2008



Performance in Grades 3 - 8 by Need/Resource Capacity Category

In every category, there was an increase in the percentage of students with disabilities who scored at proficient levels in ELA in 2008 compared to 2007 or 2006.

5

40

.8%

45

.8%

40

.8%

40

.4%

28

.5%

14

.5%

34

.6%

30

.6% 3

9.2

%

30

.3%

27

.2%

19

.3%

9.7

%

25

.1%

20

.4% 27

.1%

21

.8%

20

.9%

14

.7%

7.2

%

17

.6%

New York City Large City Urban-Suburban Rural Average Low Total Public

2006 2007 2008



Performance in Grades 3 - 8 by Need/Resource Capacity Category

The percentage of students with disabilities scoring at Level 1 has been cut in half in most Need/Resource Capacity categories over two years of testing.

6

2006 - 2008 English Language Arts (ELA)Students with Disabilities English Language Learners

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%


2005-06 ELL SWD 2006-07 ELL SWD 2007-08 ELL SWD


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


Grade 3: 3,816

Grade 4: 3,783

Grade 5: 3,451

Grade 6: 2,935

Grade 7: 2,534

Grade 8: 2,433



Grade 3: 3,474

Grade 4: 3,606

Grade 5: 3,295

Grade 6: 2,841

Grade 7: 2,351

Grade 8: 1,933


Performance remains extremely low for ELL students with disabilities, especially for the declining number who remain designated as ELL in grades 6, 7, and 8.

7

2006-07 and 2007-08 Students with Disabilities Grades 3-8 ELA – Statewide by Race/Ethnicity

Level 3 or 4

21.8%30.7%

17.0%15.7%13.2%

28.5%19.2%

35.3%

21.4%

35.2%

Asian/PacificIslander

Black Hispanic AmericanIndian/Alaskan

Native

White

Percentage of Students Scoring at Level 3 or 4

2007 2008 2007 2008 2007 2008 2007 2008 2007 2008

There is an increase in the statewide percentages of students with disabilities scoring at Levels 3 or 4 in all the race/ethnicity categories.

Whites (35.3%) and Asian/Pacific Islander (35.2%) had the highest percentage of students with disabilities score on Grade 3-8 ELA at Level 3 or 4.

The largest percentage increases of scoring in Levels 3 or 4 in 2008 was Blacks (+46%) and Hispanics (+36%) and American Indian/Alaskan Natives (28%).

8

2007-08 Students with Disabilities ELA Grades 3-8

by Gender Levels 3 - 4 Statewide

28.0% 12.1%

15.5%

32.1%

24.3%

38.8%

29.7%

28.9%

29.9%

23.6%

41.7%

31.7%

Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8

Percentage of Students Scoring at Levels 3 or 4

FemaleFemale

FemaleFemale Female

MaleMale

MaleMale Male

Female Male

Performance is similar for male and female students with disabilities with males out-numbering females by approximately 2 to 1 across all grade levels.

Number of Students With Disabilities Tested

Grade Female Male

3 8,47418,811

4 10,01319,970

5 10,66519,996

6 10,87620,319

7 10,75120,429

8 10,66820,409

9

2006-07 and 2007-08 Students with Disabilities Statewide Grades 3-8 ELA

by Race/Ethnicity and Gender Level 3 or 4

35.0

%

29.3

%

13.4

%

15.6

%

16.5

%

29.5

%21.4

%

20.1

%

36.9

%

22.2

%

28.1

%

13.1

%

15.7

%

17.3

%

31.4

%

34.4

%

18.7

%

21.0

%

22.1

%

35.4

%

Asian/Pacific Islander Black Hispanic AmericanIndian/Alaskan Native

White

2007 Female 2008 Female 2007 Male 2008 Male


Female Female Female FemaleFemale

Male Male Male MaleMale

There is an increase in the statewide percentages of students with disabilities Grade 3 to 8 ELA scoring at Levels 3 or 4 for each gender in all the race/ethnicity categories.

The largest percentage of students with disabilities to score on Grade 3 – 8 ELA Level 3 or 4 was Asian/Pacific Islander Females (36.9%); White Males (35.4%); White Females (35%) and Asian /Pacific Islander Males (34.4%).

The greatest percentage increase for scoring ELA Level 3 or 4 was Black Females (+50%); Black Males (43%); Hispanic Females (+42%) and Hispanic Males (+34%).

10

2006 - 2008 Mathematics - Students with Disabilities50

.0%

44.8

%

31.6

%

21.6

%

18.0

%

17.1

% 30.2

%41.7

%

31.9

%

26.8

%

20.7

% 37.2

%

66.6

%

53.4

%

52.8

%

42.4

%

42.9

%

31.0

% 47.8

%

47.2

%

57.1

%


2006 2007 2008


Grade 3 = 27,045 26,780 27,325Grade 4 = 29,043 28,327 30,072Grade 5 = 30,290 29,960 31,662Grade 6 = 30,077 29,040 31,119Grade 7 = 29,791 29,659 31,037Grade 8 = 29,539 29,305 30,899Grades 3-8= 175,785 173,071 181,114

Number Tested 2006 2007 2008

The percentage of students with disabilities meeting the mathematics learning standards increased substantially in 2008 in every grade.

11

2006 - 2008 Mathematics - Students with Disabilities

36

.8%44

.4%

42

.1%

44

.4%

35

.9%

28

.8%

23

.7%

28

.2%

40

.2%

28

.6%

33

.5%

23

.7%

24

.8%

17

.5%

19

.9%2

9.5

%

17

.5%23

.9%

16

.3%

20

.4%

11

.0%


2006 2007 2008


There is a substantial decease in the percentage of students with disabilities scoring in math at Level 1 in all grades in each of the past two years.

12

24.8

%

15.7

%

24.7

%

24.8

%

34.2

%

52.1

%

30.2

%

18.1

%

28.9

%

31.2

%

41.1

%

59.0

%

37.2

%

43.4

%

28.5

%

40.1

%

40.6

%

52.0

%

68.6

%

47.8

%

32.8

%


2006 2007 2008


2006 - 2008 MathematicsLevels 3 or 4 in Grades 3 - 8 Students with Disabilities

by Need/Resource Capacity

Students with disabilities have improved their math scoring performance in all the Need / Resource Capacity categories in each of the past two consecutive years.

The greatest percentage increases at Level 3 or 4 scoring was in Large Cities (+57.5%); Urban-Suburban High Need districts (+38.7%) and New York City districts (+32.3%).

13

43.7

% 53.5

%

42.0

%

38.7

%

29.7

%

16.5

%

36.8

%

32.9

%

46.4

%

34.2

%

29.9

%

23.0

%

12.2

%

28.2

%

22.4

% 33.4

%

25.1

%

23.5

%

16.8

%

8.7

%

19.9

%


2006 2007 2008


2006 - 2008 MathematicsPerformance in Grades 3 - 8 Students with Disabilities by Need/Resource

CapacityStudents with disabilities in Large City Districts were about 4 times as likely as those in Low Need Districts to score at Level 1.

The percentage of students with disabilities scoring at Level 1 decreased in every Need / Resource Capacity category for two consecutive years. .

The largest percentage decrease in Level 1 scoring was in New York City (-31.9%); Low Need Districts (-28.7%) and the Large City Districts (-28.0%)

14

2006-07 and 2007-08 Students with Disabilities Grades 3-8 Math - Levels 3 or 4

Statewide by Race/Ethnicity

33.7%39.7%

56.3%

45.8%

28.1%32.0%

23.2%

56.5%

42.9%

67.5%

Asian/Pacific Islander Black Hispanic AmericanIndian/Alaskan Native

White


2007 2008 2007 2008 2007 2008 2007 2008 2007 2008

There is an increase in the statewide percentages of students with disabilities scoring in grade 3-8 math at Levels 3 or 4 in all the race/ethnicity categories.

Asian/Pacific Islander students with disabilities significantly outperform all other groups.

15

2007-08 Students with Disabilities Math Grades 3-8

by Gender Levels 3 - 4 Statewide

43.7%

32.3%

28.7%

41.5%

39.2%

47.2%

47.5%

61.4%

56.4%

44.1%

55.8%

68.9%

Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8

Percentage of Students Scoring at Levels 3 or 4

FemaleFemale

FemaleFemale Female

MaleMale

MaleMale Male

Female Male

In math, males outperform female students with disabilities across all grade levels.

Number of Students With Disabilities Tested

Grade Female Male

3 8,478 18,847

4 10,038 20,034

5 10,667 19,995

6 10,843 20,276

7 10,699 20,338

8 10,605 20,294

16

10,5069,767

8,4247,226

8,305

5,6756,790

2,832

4,9694,154

2,499

14,32513,07912,144

9,68011,194

8,60610,461

4,175

7,545

9,514

3,414

22,735

20,08118,949

16,309

14,101

17,321

15,366

13,51812,607

5,6474,419

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

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

Since 1997, there has been more than 514% increase in the number of students with disabilities tested. Of the students tested in 2007, 63% achieved a score between 55-100.

Regents English ExaminationStudents with Disabilities

Public Schools-Including Charter Schools

17

6,9

41

17

,82

8

8,2

16

7,6

64

16

,94

5

11

,45

0

8,8

01

17

,19

9

11

,83

4

9,1

53

16

,42

9

11

,99

2

9,9

66

15

,98

7

13

,05

1

5,3

80

6,7

62 9

,62

6

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

Reading Writing Mathematics

Nu

mb

er

of

Stu

de

nts

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Large numbers of students with disabilities were tested on most RCT examinations.

From 2002 to 2007 Regents Competency Testing for Reading increased by 77%; Writing by 85%; and Mathematics by 22%.

Regents Competency Tests Examinations

Public Schools, Including Charter Schools

Students with Disabilities

18

58.7

%

69.2

%

55.1

%68.2

%

62.6

%

60.2

% 80.2

%

59.2

%

51.0

%

69.7

%

47.5

%

53.0

% 70.0

%

49.0

%

52.6

%

72.4

%

47.0

%60.9

%

Reading Writing Mathematics

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Percent of Students with Disabilities Passing each Regents Competency Tests

Public Schools, Including Charter Schools

3,96

8

7,18

7

3,72

3

11,1

59

5,86

1

4,73

7

10,0

30

4,95

0

6,14

6

8,16

3

5,83

9

6,13

7

6,30

8

6,40

4

8,08

3

6,30

9

7,21

2

7,51

9

The Regents Competency Tests remain significant towards students with disabilities meeting graduation requirements.

There has been a notable increase in the number of students with disabilities who have passed the RCT in Reading (59%) and Writing (94%) from 2002 to 2007

19

Student Group Cohort

Enrollment

Regents/

Local Diploma

IEP Diploma & Other

Transfer to GED

Still Enrolled

Dropout

2002 Total Cohort After 4 Years

All Students 214,729 67.2% 1.7% 1.2% 17.1% 12.8%

Gen.Ed. Students

187,730 70.8% 0.3% 1.1% 16.1% 11.8%


26,999 42.5% 11.5% 2.2% 24.3% 19.5%


All Students 214,729 73.3% 2.5% 1.4% 6.5% 16.4%

Gen. Ed. Students

187,730 77.0% 0.5% 1.2% 5.7% 15.5%


26,999 47.4% 16.4% 2.6% 11.4% 22.2%


All Students 220,332 68.6% 1.7% 1.2% 17.0% 11.5%

Gen. Ed. Students

191,804 72.9% 0.2% 1.0% 15.1% 10.7%


28,528 39.3% 12.1% 2.2% 29.4% 16.9%

High School Outcomes for 2002 and 2003 Total Cohort

There is a significant increase in students with disabilities graduation rate after 5 years

20

72

.4%

49

.0%

35

.9%

31

.7%

22

.5%

19

.8%

9.6

%20

.7%

15

.7%

8.0

%14

.8%

4.7

%

19

.9%

20

.0%

38

.9%

22

.0%

12

.5%

4.0

%

NYC Large 4 Cities Urban/Suburban Rural High Need Average Need Low Need

% High School Diploma % IEP Diplomas % Dropped Out

2003 Total Cohort after Four Years as of JuneGraduation, IEP Diploma and Dropout Rates

2003 Total Cohort

8,407 1,536 2,778 2,223 9,563 3,873

The Average and Low Need Districts have higher graduation rates, lower IEP diploma rates and lower dropout rates compared to the High Need Districts. The five cities had the lowest graduation rates and the highest drop out rates. The rate of use of the IEP diploma varies widely across Need Resource Capacity categories.

21

19

.2%

25

.3% 33

.5%

35

.1%

52

.2%

76

.9%

23

.4%

29

.7% 39

.6%

39

.1%

58

.0%

81

.1%

30

.1% 4

0.3

%

22

.7%

21

.6%

13

.1%

34

.0% 4

3.8

%

26

.4%

24

.0%

15

.4%

4.2

%

5.4

%

NYC Large 4 Cities Urban/Suburban Rural High Need Average Need Low Need

% High School Diploma (after four years) % High School Diploma (after five years)% Dropped Out (after four years) % Dropped Out (after five years)

2002 Students with Disabilities Total Cohort after Four and Five Years

Graduation and Dropout Rates

Number In Cohort:

6,813 1,735 2,485

2,316 9,683 3,925

Greater percentages of students with disabilities graduated after five years of school compared to four years in every Need Resource Capacity category of school districts.

4 Y

ear

s

4 Y

ea

rs

4 Y

ea

rs

4 Y

ea

rs

5 Y

ea

rs

5 Y

ea

rs

5 Y

ea

rs

5 Y

ea

rs

4 Y

ea

rs

4 Y

ea

rs

5 Y

ea

rs

5 Y

ea

rs

4 Y

ea

rs

4 Y

ea

rs

5 Y

ea

rs

5 Y

ea

rs

4 Y

ea

rs

4 Y

rs

5 Y

ea

rs

5 Y

rs

4 Y

ea

rs

4 Y

rs

5 Y

rs

5 Y

ea

rs

22

56

.2%

52

.6% 6

6.4

% 79

.4%

84

.7% 93

.8%

72

.9%

22

.5% 31

.7%

35

.9% 4

9.0

%

39

.3%

72

.4%

19

.8%

New York City Large City Urban-Suburban

Rural Average Low Total Public

General Education Students Students with Disabilities

Percentage of Students Graduating with Regents or Local Diploma After 4 Years

By Need/Resource Capacity Category

2003 Total Cohort Graduation Rate General Education Students and Students with Disabilities

There are similarities in the slope of the graduation rates of general education and students with disabilities, with students with disabilities in Low Need districts graduating at a higher rate than general education students in NYC, the Big4, and Urban-Suburban districts.

Results Through June 2007

23

28,174 30,593

34,041 36,06037,793 38,027 40,587 40,245

41,088

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 2006

The number of self-identified individuals with disabilities in New York State higher education programs is increasing.

2.8% 3.0% 3.3%

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

*Data for 1998 are not availableSource: OHE

3.4% 3.4%3.5%

3.4%

3.6%3.6%

24

Improving Graduation and Drop-Out Rates for Students with Disabilities Requires…

25

Coming to High School PreparedP-16 Actions:

• Providing professional development and support to schools to use “Quality Indicator Review and Resource Guides” for – Adolescent literacy instruction– Positive behavioral supports, particularly small group and

individualized interventions

• Monitoring every school district’s policies and procedures when the data shows they have a disproportionate rate of long-term suspensions of students with disabilities.

26

Access to Content Area Instruction and Credit Bearing Courses

P-16 Actions• We have set policy to promote integrated co-

teaching (special education and general education co-teaching)

• We are providing professional development and support to schools to provide research-based strategy and direct instruction to students with disabilities, particularly in adolescent literacy

27

Transition PlanningP-16 actions:

• Monitoring every school district to ensure the IEPs of students with disabilities, ages 15 and older, include good transition planning (goals and services to help the student reach his/her post school goals)

• Directing Transition Coordination Sites to provide technical assistance to schools with low graduation and/or high drop out rates for students with disabilities

• Funding 60 model transition school-based programs to support school-to-work and school-to-higher education transition services in collaboration with VR and adult providers

28

Additional Strategies

• Explore the development of career and technical education program options with engaging curriculum and content instruction

• Recognize schools with higher 5 year graduation rates

• Address IEP diploma policy to limit its use to students with the most severe disabilities

29

Expanding State’s Technical Assistance Resources

• Parent Centers – statewide (11 new) – 2 continuing

• Mediation • State RTI Technical Assistance Center• PBIS Statewide Technical Assistance Center• Schools with Effective Instructional Practices for


results for students and individuals with disabilities september 2008

Documents