Disproportionality of Racial and Ethnic Groups in Special Education

1. Disproportionality of Racial and Ethnic Groups in Special Education Significant Disproportionality and EIS versus Disproportionate Representation due to Inappropriate Identification and the SPP

2. Disproportionality • Longstanding national issue • Dramatic rise • South Carolina’s OCR agreement

3. IDEA Requirements • More extensive examination • More extensive remedies • Better understanding of complexities involved

4. Differences • Requirements for the monitoring priority of Indicators 9 and 10 that address disproportionality that is the result of inappropriate identification (to be referred to as disproportionality due to inappropriate identification) • Requirements concerning significant disproportionality identified through the collection and examination of data (to be referred to as significant disproportionality)

5. Significant Disproportionality • Collect and examine data to determine whether significant disproportionality based on race or ethnicity is occurring with respect to the identification of children with disabilities: • Identification as children with particular impairments; • Placement in particular educational settings; • Incidence, duration, and type of disciplinary actions.

6. Significant Disproportionality • State will define “significant disproportionality” with input from stakeholders and national TA providers • State will determine statistically significant levels • Definition must be based on an analysis of numerical information • May not include consideration of policies, procedures, or practices

7. Significant Disproportionality Consequences apply when the determination of significant disproportionality is made in ANY of the three areas: • Identification as children with particular impairments; • Placement in particular educational settings; OR • Incidence, duration, and type of disciplinary actions.

8. Significant Disproportionality • Once a determination of significant disproportionality is made, 3 things happen: • State must provide for the review and, if appropriate, the revision of policies, procedures, and practices used in the identification, placement, and discipline. This purpose of the review is to determine if the policies, procedures, and practices are consistent with the requirements in the IDEA.

9. Significant Disproportionality • LEA is required to reserve 15% of the flow-through IDEA funds to provide comprehensive, coordinated early intervening services (EIS) to children who are in need of additional support for academic and/or behavioral problems, but who have not yet been identified as needing special education.

10. Significant Disproportionality • LEA will be required to publicly report on the results of its revision of policies, procedures, and practices

11. Timeline for significant disproportionality • First determinations will be made in February ’08 based on LEAs’ December 1, 2007 618 data for identification and placement; • LEAs determined to have significant disproportionality will have to review and revise, if necessary their policies, procedures, and practices; use 15% of their IDEA funds for EIS for the 08-09 school year; and publicly report.

12. Summary for Significant Disproportionality • Based on analysis of numerical information only • Made for identification, placement, OR discipline • Independent from an analysis of whether or not it’s due to inappropriate identification

13. Summary for Significant Disproportionality • Three consequences: • Review and revision, if necessary, on policies, procedures, and practices; • Reservation of 15% of IDEA for EIS; and • Public reporting on revision of policies, procedures, and practices.

14. Disproportionality due to inappropriate identification • Required by the SPP • Monitoring priority • Compliance/enforcement issue • More than just an examination of numerical information • Probe to determine whether disproportionality is due to inappropriate identification

15. Disproportionality due to inappropriate identification • State must report annually on the performance of the state as well as each LEA within the state. • Includes all of special education as well as LD, MD, ED, OHI, Autism, and S/LI • Determination is a process • Once determination is made, LEA has one year to correct this issue of noncompliance

16. Disproportionality due to inappropriate identification Process of determination: • Weighted risk ratios were computed using LEA 618 data submitted December 1, 2006 • LEAs with a trigger of 2.8 are considered to be “at risk” of having disproportionality due to inappropriate identification • LEAs will begin process of determining whether the disproportionality is due to inappropriate identification

17. Disproportionality due to inappropriate identification • Review (probe questions) will focus on identifying contributing factors • Review (individual folder reviews) will look at two areas: • Procedures related to referral, evaluation, and identification of children with disabilities and • New placements made during the 05-06 school year in the categories identified

18. Disproportionality due to inappropriate identification • Probe question review will guide LEAs through examination of supports, roadblocks, and causes • Transfer rate from other districts • Housing of a multidistrict program • Use of schoolwide model for instruction • Professional development opportunities • Supports for culturally diverse learners • Levels of intervention/instruction • Identification and instruction of at risk learners

19. Disproportionality due to inappropriate identification • Individual folder review will guide LEAs through the examination of the specific practices and criteria used to determine eligibility • Determination and review of needed evaluation data • Evaluation planning team • Nondiscriminatory assessments • Variety of assessment tools and strategies • Comprehensive evaluation

20. Disproportionality due to inappropriate identification • Tools and strategies that provide relevant information to directly assist in the determination of education needs • Documentation of appropriate instruction • Determination made by a team • Determination not made on a single procedure used as sole criterion

21. Disproportionality due to inappropriate identification Individual folder review.doc

22. Disproportionality due to inappropriate identification Rubric for S-L.doc

23. Disproportionality due to inappropriate identification • Individual folder reviews will also examine all new placements to the category identified: • Similar to OCR forms that have been completed by LEAs in the area of EMD • All new placements made during 05-06 school year for the particular category/categories

24. Disproportionality due to inappropriate identification • Compliance • 90% or more of all records reviewed show evidence that a particular regulatory requirement has been met. • Noncompliance • Fewer than 90% of all records reviewed show evidence that a particular regulatory requirement has been met.

25. Timeline for Disproportionality due to inappropriate identification • Trigger for “at risk” status made in February each year (this year in May). • LEA to complete the Self-Assessment portions including the probe questions and all folder reviews. • LEAs to submit summary information to OEC by November 30, 2007 and thereafter annually.

26. Timeline for Disproportionality due to inappropriate identification • OEC to review summary information and make determination of compliance by February, 2008. • LEAs determined to have disproportionality due to inappropriate identification will have one calendar year from the date of notification to correct the issue of noncompliance.

27. Summary for Disproportionality due to inappropriate identification • Monitoring priority • Trigger leads to investigation • Investigation into contributing factors and regulatory compliance • Determination of disproportionality due to inappropriate identification treated as compliance issue with one year to correct