1 / 20

Disproportionality

Disproportionality. Overview of State Performance Plan Indicators 4 – Suspension and Expulsion, 9 – Disproportionality in Special Education, and 10 – Disproportionality in Disability Categories. This power point includes:. A description of each indicator;

ford
Download Presentation

Disproportionality

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Disproportionality Overview of State Performance Plan Indicators 4 – Suspension and Expulsion, 9 – Disproportionality in Special Education, and 10 – Disproportionality in Disability Categories

  2. This power point includes: • A description of each indicator; • The SPP targets for each year and whether our State met the targets; • Any additional pertinent information related to the indicator (if applicable); • A list of some of the improvement activities included in the State’s SPP/APR for the indicator;

  3. A description of how the indicator might impact a district’s determination level (as described in WAC 392-172A-07012); and • Contact information for questions about the indicator.

  4. Suspension/Expulsion • Indicator 4: Rates of suspension and expulsion: • Percent of districts that have a significant discrepancy in the rate of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year for children with IEPs; and • Percent of districts that have: (a) a significant discrepancy, by race or ethnicity, in the rate of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year for children with IEPs; and (b) policies, procedures, or practices that contribute to the significant discrepancy and do no comply with requirements relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards. (20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A); 1412(a)(22)) • Data for this indicator are submitted by districts through the annual Special Education Students Suspended/Expelled report.

  5. State Targets – Indicator 4A *Originally, this was designated as a Compliance Indicator, with a required target of 0%. OSEP clarified in 2007 that it is in fact a Results Indicator, and States were allowed to determine their own targets. Therefore, our targets were revised using 2007-08 data as the baseline.

  6. State Targets – Indicator 4B • Official reporting on indicator 4b is not required by OSEP (the federal Office of Special Education Programs) until the 2009-10 school year, which will be considered the baseline year. Note: Since this is a Results Indicator, States are permitted to set their own targets.

  7. Disproportionality in Special Education • 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. (20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(C)) • Data for this indicator are collected through OSPI’s general supervisory activities, including the annual Child Find and LRE reports submitted by districts, review of district policies/procedures, annual self-evaluations completed by districts, district self-studies, onsite monitoring visits, etc.

  8. Indicator 9: Weighted Risk Ratios – State Totals 1.0 = an equal likelihood (or risk) as all other students 2.0 = twice as likely as all other students (overrepresentation) 0.5 = half as likely as all other students (underrepresentation) Please note: This shows our State’s data alone, not whether the data are a result of inappropriate identification, which is the decision States are required to make for indicators 9 and 10 every year for all districts.

  9. State Targets – Indicator 9 Note: Since this is a Compliance Indicator, States are federally-required to set the target at 0% for all years.

  10. Disproportionality in Disability Categories • Indicator 10: Percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories that is the result of inappropriate identification. (20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(C)) • Data for this indicator are collected through OSPI’s general supervisory activities, including the annual Child Find and LRE reports submitted by districts, review of district policies/procedures, annual self-evaluations completed by districts, district self-studies, onsite monitoring visits, etc.

  11. Indicator 10: Weighted Risk Ratios – State Totals Under-rep Over-rep Under-rep

  12. State Targets – Indicator 10 Note: Since this is a Compliance Indicator, States are federally-required to set the target at 0% for all years.

  13. SPP/APR Improvement Activities • Here are some of the improvement activities included in our SPP/APR to address these three indicators: • Disproportionality is a priority focus area of OSPI’s program review team, including district self-studies, onsite systems analysis visits, and technical assistance; • Positive Behavior Intervention/Support (PBIS) trainings, aligned with the concepts of Response to Intervention (RTI) have been provided by OSPI since 2006;

  14. Improvement Activities (cont.) • Regional WAC trainings, including discipline requirements, were conducted in the fall of 2007; • Disproportionality and discipline are focus areas in the annual federal fund applications that all districts complete; • Model state forms were created, including model evaluation forms to assist with appropriate identification; • Develop/collect technical assistance resources across all twenty performance indicators and make available to LEAs and the general public on OSPI’s website. These include resources for both overrepresentation and underrepresentation;

  15. Improvement Activities (cont.) • State and district-level trend data for these indicators are posted annually on OSPI’s website: www.k12.wa.us/SpecialEd/data.aspx; • Disproportionality presentations are conducted at conferences across the state; • Targeted technical assistance is provided to districts identified as at risk in these indicators through the regional Educational Service Districts (ESDs); • AND MORE…

  16. Impact on Determinations • Indicator 4 is a results indicator, and district performance does not currently impact their determination level. However, the timeliness of the district’s indicator 4 report will impact the district’s determination. • Indicators 9 and 10 are compliance indicators, therefore a district’s performance will impact two of the determinations criteria – criteria 2 (timely correction of non-compliance) and criteria 4 (performance on the compliance indicators). See the next three slides for more information…

  17. Determination Criteria 2 – Timely Correction of Non-compliance Note: There are no determination level 2 criteria for this indicator.

  18. Determination Criteria 4 – Performance on Compliance Indicators Note: There are no determination level 2 or 4 criteria for this indicator.

  19. Determination Criteria 3 – Timely and Accurate Data • If a district does not submit the annual Special Education Students Suspended/Expelled report for indicator 4 on or before the required deadline (June 30th), it will impact the district’s determination with regard to criteria 3 – Timely and Accurate Data. • This is 1 of the 7 required data reports for criteria 3.

  20. Contact Information • For questions about indicators 4, 9, and 10 contact Leslie Pyper at: Leslie.Pyper@k12.wa.us • For information about OSPI’s disproportionality self-study, visit: www.k12.wa.us/SpecialEd/self_study.aspx • For disproportionality tools and resources, visit: www.nccrest.org/

More Related