Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

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

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Disproportionality Overview of State Performance Plan Indicators 4 – Suspension and Expulsion, 9 – Disproportionality in Special Education, and 10 – Disproportionality."— 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: 1. A description of each indicator; 2. The SPP targets for each year and whether our State met the targets; 3. Any additional pertinent information related to the indicator (if applicable); 4. A list of some of the improvement activities included in the States SPP/APR for the indicator;

3 5. A description of how the indicator might impact a districts determination level (as described in WAC A ); and 6. Contact information for questions about the indicator.

4 Suspension/Expulsion Indicator 4: Rates of suspension and expulsion: A.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 B.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 (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 YearTargetActualMet Target? %*21% No %*14% No % Yes %TBD %TBD *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 data as the baseline.

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

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 (a)(3)(C)) Data for this indicator are collected through OSPIs 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) 8 Please note: This shows our States 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 Amer Indian/ Alaska Native Asian/Pacific Islander Black (not Hispanic) Hispanic White (not Hispanic) All Disabilities

9 State Targets – Indicator 9 YearTargetActualMet Target? % Yes % Yes %0.3% No %0.0% Yes %TBD %TBD 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 (a)(3)(C)) Data for this indicator are collected through OSPIs 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-repOver-repUnder-rep Amer Ind/Alaska Native Asian/Pacific Islander Black (not Hispanic) Hispanic White (not Hispanic) Autism Comm Dis EBD Health Impaired SLD MR

12 State Targets – Indicator 10 YearTargetActualMet Target? % Yes % Yes %0.3% No %0.0% Yes %TBD %TBD 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 OSPIs 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 OSPIs 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 OSPIs website: 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 districts indicator 4 report will impact the districts determination. Indicators 9 and 10 are compliance indicators, therefore a districts 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 DescriptionDetermination Level If OSPI determined that non-compliance existed in the district with regard to indicators 9 and/or 10, the district corrected the non- compliance in a timely manner. 1 (Meets Requirements) The district corrected the identified non- compliance for indicators 9 and/or 10, but did not complete the corrections within one year of notification. 3 (Needs Intervention) The district did not correct the identified non- compliance for indicators 9 and 10 – uncorrected non-compliance still exists in the district. 4 (Needs Substantial Intervention) Note: There are no determination level 2 criteria for this indicator.

18 Determination Criteria 4 – Performance on Compliance Indicators DescriptionDetermination Level The disproportionate representation that exists in the district for indicators 9 and/or 10 (if any), is not a result of inappropriate identification. 1 (Meets Requirements) The disproportionate representation that exists in the district for indicators 9 and/or 10 (if any), is a result of inappropriate identification. 3 (Needs Intervention) 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 30 th ), it will impact the districts determination with regard to criteria 3 – Timely and Accurate Data. This is 1 of the 7 required data reports for criteria 3. All of the required reports were on time and accurate. 1 (Meets Requirements) 4, 5, or 6 of the 7 reports were on time and accurate. 2 (Needs Assistance) 1, 2, or 3 of the 7 reports were on time and accurate. 3 (Needs Intervention) None of the reports were on time and accurate. 4 (Needs Substantial Intervention)

20 Contact Information For questions about indicators 4, 9, and 10 contact Leslie Pyper at: For information about OSPIs disproportionality self-study, visit: For disproportionality tools and resources, visit:


Download ppt "Disproportionality Overview of State Performance Plan Indicators 4 – Suspension and Expulsion, 9 – Disproportionality in Special Education, and 10 – Disproportionality."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google