Disproportionality / CEIS

1. Disproportionality/ CEIS Dr. Lanai Jennings Coordinator Office of Special Programs Data Coordinator Professional Development Lorraine Elswick Coordinator Office of Special Programs Complaints Professional Development Dr. Frances Clark Coordinator Office of Special Programs Positive Behavior Supports Professional Development

2. Rates of Suspension and Expulsion Indicator 4

3. What does Indicator 4 address? • Equity in suspensions rates • 4A: Comparison of SWD to SWOD • 4B: Comparison of SWD by race/ethnicity • When suspension rates are discrepant, is the difference due to inappropriate policies, procedures, and practices relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards

4. Measurement Indicator 4A • Significant discrepancy for a district is defined as a relative difference of 160 between the rate for SWD and the rate for SWOD in the rate of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year Indicator 4B • Significant discrepancy is defined as a relative difference greater than 100 in the suspension rate for a given SWD race/ethnic category vs. suspension rate for All Other SWD within the district Minimum Cell Requirement • 20

5. Where/when do the data originate?

6. Indicator 4A Indicator 4B Using Hispanic category as example Step 1: Hispanic SWD rate= (# of Hispanic SWD with OSS/EXP greater than 10 days)/# of Hispanic SWD enrolled) Step 2: All Other rate = (# of SWD in All Other racial/ethnic categories with OSS/EXP greater than 10 days)/# SWD of All Other racial/ethnic categories enrolled) Step 3: (Hispanic SWD rate –All Other SWD rate)/All Other SWD rate*100 Step 1: SWD rate= (# of SWD with OSS/EXP greater than 10 days)/# of SWD enrolled) Step 2: SWOD rate = (# of SWOD with OSS/EXP greater than 10 days)/# of SWOD enrolled) Step 3: (SWD rate – SWOD rate)/SWOD rate*100 Calculation

7. Indicator 4A Data Data is also from 2008-2009 and reflects the cell size increase to 20

8. Indicator 4 Data

9. What OSP activities/initiatives are in place to address behavior? To get all PBS materials and information open http://wvde.state.wv.us/osp/, open Improving Results, then click on Positive Behavior Supports OR http://wvde.state.wv.us/osp/PositiveBehaviorSupport.html WVSWPBS WVECPBS WVRTI S/E: A Three-Tiered Model of Social/Emotional Supports for ALL

10. https://sites.google.com/site/wvecpbs/

11. Principal’s Orientation and Application Documents: http://wvde.state.wv.us/osp/PositiveBehaviorSupportschoolwide.html SWPBS Training materials: https://sites.google.com/site/2009swpbstrainingmaterials/

12. WVRTI S/E: A Three-Tiered Model of Social/Emotional Supports for ALL Pilots: https://sites.google.com/site/wvsbmhtaskforce/ 7 Pilot sites: RESA II: Mingo Co. – 2 Elementary Schools (Task Force Support Dr. Jennifer Whisman) RESA V: Pleasants Co – County-wide (Task Force Support Dr. Jennifer Whisman) 2 Elementary, 1 Middle & 1 High School RESA VII: Marion Co – Alternative Mid/High School (Task Force Support Spec. Ed Dir. Gia Deasy)

13. What OSP activities/initiatives are in place to address behavior? Exceeding the relative difference threshold, triggers a state level review of districts’ policies, procedures, and practices relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards Common issues revealed: • Disciplinary timelines exceeded • Failure to determine or document if the suspension constitutes a change of placement • All pertinent information is not reviewed or documented during MDR • Data quality issues

14. Identification of Noncompliance During SEA Review Requires Correction Correction is defined in OSEP Memo 09-02: Correction is achieved when: • Every instance of noncompliance identified via the review of policies, procedures, and practices is corrected and verified by WVDE. AND • If needed, the LEA has changed its policies, procedures, and/or practices that contributed to or resulted in noncompliance. AND • Based on its review of updated data, WVDE verified that the district is correctly implementing the specific statutory or regulatory requirement(s). Districts are required to correct any noncompliances as soon as possible, but in no case later than one year.

15. Disproportionate Representation • SPP/APR Indicators 9 & 10 • Refers to the over- or underrepresentation of students from a specific racial/ethnic group in special education and related services that is the result of inappropriate identification • Examination must include review of general and special education policies, procedures and practices • Focus on whether there are patterns of differential treatment in the identification, referral, evaluation or eligibility of students • Must result in a change in policies, practices or procedures that contribute to the disproportionality

16. Indicator 9 Percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services that is the result of inappropriate identification Compliance indicator with a target of 0%

17. Indicator 10 Percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories that is the result of inappropriate identification Compliance indicator with a target of 0%

18. Indicators 9 & 10 Data Sources • December 1 Child Count • 2nd Month Enrollment Data • Seven racial/ethnic groups • Six categorical disabilities (autism, emotional/ behavioral disorder, mental impairment, specific learning disability, speech/language impairment, other health impairment)

19. Risk Ratio Method Answers the question: What is the risk of a student from a particular racial/ethnic group being identified for special education and related services compared to the risk of a student from any other racial/ethnic group?

20. Weighted Risk Ratio (WWR) Calculation • Step 1: Calculate risk for each group • Black Students with Disabilities/Black Enrolled • Asian Students with Disabilities/Asian Enrolled . . . etc. • Step 2: Calculate State Composition for each group • Enrolled Black students/All enrolled • Enrolled Asian students/All enrolled. . .etc. • Step 3: Calculate weighted risk ratio • [1-State Black Composition/*District Black SWD risk]/[State American Indian Composition/*District American Indian SWD risk) + [State Asian…etc. for all others] • Don’t calculate if less than 20 enrolled

21. MeasurementIndicators 9 & 10 - Disproportionate representation is defined as: • a WWR of 2.0 or higher with a cell size of 20 for overrepresentation, or • a WWR of .25 or below with a cell size of 50 for underrepresentation, AND • the district’s review of policies, procedures and practices confirms inappropriate identification

22. Indicators 9 & 10 Annual CSADA Indicator Status: • WVDE Data Driven • Determination of initial compliance status based on weighted risk ratio and cell size for both over and underrepresentation • Second test of statistical significance applied • Z-Test for Two Proportions or Chi-Square • Compliance status is district determined based on review of policies, procedures and practices resulting in inappropriate identification • State level verification review required

23. December 1, 2009 February 1, 2010 Second Test of Statistical Significance 14 districts emerged with disproportionate representation 2 overrepresentation 11 underrepresentation 1 over-and underrepresentation 1st Test - WWR and cell size • 43 districts emerged with disproportionate representation • 22 underrepresentation • 6 overrepresentation • 15 over-and underrepresentation WVDE DATA DRIVEN

24. Indicators 9 &10 Monitoring Process – Overrepresentation • Data provided to districts in February • District’s compliance status is WVDE determined Status is indicated as Met or Not Met • District conducts review of general and special education policies, procedures and practices (e.g., Policy 2419 – Child Find, Evaluation, Eligibility) • Determine whether the disproportionate overrepresentation is due to inappropriate identification

25. Indicators 9 & 10 Monitoring Process – Underrepresentation • Data provided to districts in February • District’s compliance status is WVDE determined. Status is indicated as Met or Not Met • District conducts review of general and special education procedures and practices (designated school’s individual student achievement, SAT (referral) data, instructional practices by racial/ethnic groups) • Determines whether the disproportionate underrepresentation is due to inequity in practices

26. District Review Protocols

27. Identification of Noncompliance During SEA Review Requires Correction Correction is defined in OSEP Memo 09-02: Correction is achieved when: • Every instance of noncompliance identified via the review of policies, procedures, and practices is corrected and verified by WVDE. AND • If needed, the LEA has changed its policies, procedures, and/or practices that contributed to or resulted in noncompliance. AND • Based on its review of updated data, WVDE verified that the district is correctly implementing the specific statutory or regulatory requirement(s). Districts are required to correct any noncompliances as soon as possible, but in no case later than one year.

28. Activities/Initiatives to Address Disproportionate Representation • 3-Tiered Model of Positive Behavior Support (PBS) • School-wide PBS • Early Childhood PBS • 3-Tiered Model of Instruction/Intervention (RLA and Math) • Technical Assistance by OSP • National Center for Culturally Responsive Education Systems (NCCRESt) • Phonemic Awareness Project Findings of Noncompliance Procedures for out-of-state transfer students Determining eligibility in a different category Considering all areas of suspected disability

29. SPP/APR Indicators 4b, 9 & 10 ARE NOT Significant Disproportionality Additional information to be provided tomorrow at lunch

30. Parent InvolvementIndicator 8Betsy PetersonCoordinator Parent Coordinator Professional Development

31. Indicator 8 • Indicator addresses the percent of parents with a child receiving special education services who report that schools facilitated parent involvement as a means of improving services and results for children with disabilities.

32. Indicator 8 • The data for this indicator originate from the Parent Survey that is mailed each year to selected districts. All districts will be surveyed in 6 years.

33. Indicator 8 • When your district is being surveyed it is very important that you encourage the parents to respond to the survey!! Thanks!!!

34. Parent InvolvementPat Haberbosch, Director WV Parent Training and Information (PTI)

36. VIDEO

37. The US Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, will be conducting a verification visit to the state of West Virginia. This visit is to evaluate WV on: • Effectiveness with implementing a general supervision system • Collection of state reported data • Fiscal management • Systems for improving child and family outcomes and protecting child and family rights.

38. The Office of Special Education has asked WVPTI to help in soliciting parent input in this process by way of a parent survey. Please go to the following website: Students ages 3-21: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/8H6DYJL Birth to Three: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/LVMJX6Y The US Dept. of Ed. developed all questions on this survey.

39. To date, WVPTI has disseminated the surveys through a variety of ways: • Bulk mailed to the following agencies: • West Virginia Advocates • WV Developmental Disabilities Council • Autism Training Center • Mountain States Parents Can • Parent Network Specialists at CED • All Service Coordinators for WV Birth to Three • PERCS

40. The previous agencies listed are either disseminating the surveys individually, or at trainings/activities which they attend. WVPTI Staff and Trainers are disseminating at all activities/events/trainings, as well as individually. WVPTI Office Staff have taken a few over the phone. We are seeing results of the survey monkey. As of Sept. 15, we have a total of 46 surveys that have been done online.

41. Parent Verification Visit Survey: Part B of IDEA • I know how to get information about the special education services in my State. • □ Yes □ No • a. If yes, I can obtain that information from: (Please select all that apply.) • □ Web site (Name of website)_________________________________ • □ State Education Agency • □ Local School District/Local Education Agency (LEA) • □ Parent Training Information center (WVPTI) • □ Advocacy Group • □ Other:____________________________________

42. Within the last year, I received a copy of my rights under the Local School • District’s/LEA’s special education program under Part B of the Individuals with • Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the Federal special education law for • providing special education services to children with disabilities. • □ Yes □ No • a. If yes, who gave you this information? (Please select all that apply.) • □ Special Education Coordinator • □ Special Education Teacher • □ Related Service Provider (social worker, speech pathologist, etc.) • □ Evaluation Team • □ Parent Training and Information Center (WVPTI) • □ Local School District/LEA Representative • □ School Administrator • □ Other:______________________________________________

43. b. If yes, was an explanation of your rights provided, if needed? □ Yes □ No □ NA

44. Within the past year I have asked for: (Please select all that apply.) • □ Mediation □ State Complaint • □ Resolution Session □ Due Process Hearing • □ Other Dispute Resolution applicable to the State, • including facilitated Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) • Each of the concerns that I raised in the State Complaint was • addressed in the decision letter/letter of finding. • □ Yes □ No

45. I have experienced or observed special education practices • that I believe were not in compliance with Part B of IDEA. • □ Yes □ No □ Don’t know • a. If yes, please explain:______________________________________________

46. Based on my experiences with the special education services in my • State, I feel the areas that are most effective are: • (Please select the top three.) • □ Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) • □ Provision of a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) • □ Evaluation/Assessment • □ IEPs • □ Qualified Related Service Providers • □ Qualified Special Education Teachers • □ Timely Implementation of IEPs • □ Transition from Part C to Part B (transition from the • infant/toddler program to preschool)

47. □ Materials in the Parent’s Native Language/Mode of Communication □ Special Education Monitoring by the State □ Due process Hearings and Complaints □ Transportation □ Accommodations/Modifications □ Parent Involvement □ No Improvement Needed □ Don’t Know □ Other: (please explain briefly) __________________________________________

48. Based on my experiences with the special education services in my • State, I feel the areas that need most improvement are: • (Please select the top three.) • □ Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) • □ Provision of a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) • □ Evaluation/Assessment • □ IEPs • □ Qualified Related Service Providers • □ Qualified Special Education Teachers • □ Timely Implementation of IEPs • □ Transition from Part C to Part B (transition from the • infant/toddler program to preschool)

49. □ Materials in the Parent’s Native Language/Mode of Communication □ Special Education Monitoring by the State □ Due process Hearings and Complaints □ Transportation □ Accommodations/Modifications □ Parent Involvement □ No Improvement Needed □ Don’t Know □ Other: (please explain briefly) __________________________________________

50. I know how to get the results of the U.S. Department of • Education’s evaluation of my State’s performance under the • federal special education laws (i.e., the State’s Determination). • □ Yes □ No • I know how to get the results of the State’s evaluation of my • Local School District’s/LEA’s performance under the special • education laws (i.e., the LEA’s Determination). • □ Yes □ No