1 / 13

Disproportionality

Special Education Division SELPA Meeting December 1, 2011 Presented by: Patricia Skelton, Ed.D . Assessment, Evaluation, & Support Unit 916-327-3547 pskelton@cde.ca.gov. Disproportionality. Disproportionality.

raven
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. Special Education DivisionSELPA MeetingDecember 1, 2011 Presented by:Patricia Skelton, Ed.D.Assessment, Evaluation, & Support Unit916-327-3547pskelton@cde.ca.gov

  2. Disproportionality

  3. Disproportionality • The California Department of Education is responsible under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) for identifying districts with disproportionate racial/ethnic representation of special education students. • The IDEA identifies two levels of disproportionality in a district’s special education population

  4. Disproportionality • The first level is referenced as disproportionality, and includes the annual identification of a significant discrepancy and disproportionate representation of special education students, by race/ethnicity, and is based on one year of data. This level is part of the State Performance Plan (SPP) and the Annual Performance Report (APR) and is reported under Indicators 4, 9, and 10.

  5. Significant Disproportionality • The second level, significant disproportionality, looks at persistent (continued) disproportionality and is based on four years of data and has fiscal implications for a district. This level is required by IDEA but not part of the annual SPP/APR process.

  6. Disproportionality Significant Disproportionality Identification of continued disproportionality Based on Indicator 4, 9, & 10 disproportionality identification Based on the analysis of four years of disproportionality data Fiscal implications • Identification of a significant discrepancy in racial/ethnic representation (Indicator 4) • Identification of race and ethnic disproportionate representation (Indicators 9 & 10) • Uses two measures: E-formula and alternate risk ratio • Based on one year of data • Compliance implications

  7. Significant Discrepancy vs. Significant Disproportionality • Confusion often lies in the use of the term “significant” in both levels of disproportionality. Significant discrepancy, is used with Indicator 4 in the SPP/APR, and is based on one year of data. • Significant disproportionality,at the second level, is required by the IDEA, but is not addressed in the SPP/APR. Significant disproportionality is based on the analysis of four years of disproportionality dataand has fiscal implications.

  8. Data Used to Identify Significant Discrepancy and Disproportion Representation For the 2011-12, identification of disproportionality was based on: • Indicator 4: Significant Discrepancy • CASEMIS June 2010 • Uses lag year data as required by the OSEP • Indicators 9 and 10: Disproportionate Representation • CASEMIS December 2011

  9. Significant Disproportionality Criteria • Significant disproportionality is a result of identified significant discrepancy and/or disproportionate representation (as monitored through SPP/APR Indicators 4, 9, and 10), in the current year and in two of the three previous years for the same race/ethnicity in the same area (i.e. overall, disability, suspension/expulsion).

  10. Significant Disproportionality

  11. Significant Disproportionality

  12. Reporting Race/Ethnicity • Two separate entries… • A-15 Ethnicity: Is the student Hispanic or Latino? • Yes= Code 500 • No= Code 501 • Intentionally Left Blank= 900 (not recommended) • A-16 Race: Student’s race identification • If student is coded 501 or 900 in ethnicity it is important to identify a race code.

  13. Federal Requirements on Reporting Race/Ethnicity • As a general matter, while educational institutions and other recipients are required to comply with this guidance, individuals are not required to self-identify their race or ethnicity. If respondents do not provide information about their race or ethnicity, educational institutions and other recipients should ensure that respondents have refused to self-identify rather than simply overlooked the questions. If adequate opportunity has been provided for respondents to self- identify and respondents still do not answer the questions, observer identification should be used. While the Department recognizes that obtaining data by observer identification is not as accurate as obtaining data through a self- identification process, places some burden on school district staff, and may be contrary to the wishes of those refusing to self-identify, it is better than the alternative of having no information. FR Doc E7-20613 [Federal Register: October 19, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 202)] [Notices] [Page 59266-59279]

More Related