1. New Significant Disproportionality Regulations
Discipline P2P Exchange
Hello, welcome to the presentation titled: Disproportionate Representation, Significant Disproportionality, Significant Discrepancy: How are they the same? How are they different?
Today we are here to talk about the regulations and requirements for Disproportionate Representation (also known as Indicators 9 and 10 of the State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report (SPP/APR)); Significant Disproportionality and Significant Discrepancy (also known as Indicators 4A and 4B of the SPP/APR). You may find this presentation useful if you want to know and understand the basic requirements and differences between each of these three requirements. This presentation may also be useful to new state staff, LEA staff, or other audiences such as parent centers, technical assistance centers, or university programs.
April 5, 2017
Julie Bollmer

2. New Regulations 20 U.S.C. 1418(d) and 34 CFR §§300.646 and 300.647
Determine whether significant disproportionality based on race/ethnicity is occurring with respect to the:
Identification of children as children with disabilities, including identification as children with particular impairments
Placement of children in particular educational settings
Incidence, duration, and type of disciplinary actions, including suspensions and expulsions
We are now going to move on to significant disproportionality. This is not part of the State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report, but is an IDEA requirement that requires states to look at disproportionality in multiple ways.

3. Timeline States must be in compliance by July 1, 2018
States must make significant disproportionality determinations using new methodology during SY
OSEP’s State Model Timeline

4. Identification Analysis Categories Age Range Categories
Children ages 6-21
Must also include children ages 3-5 by July 1, 2020
Categories
All Disabilities
Intellectual Disabilities
Specific Learning Disabilities
Emotional Disturbance
Speech or Language Impairments
Other Health Impairments
Autism

5. Placement Analysis Categories Age Range Categories Children ages 6-21
Inside a regular class for less than 40 percent of the day
Inside separate schools and residential facilities (not including homebound or hospital settings, correctional facilities, or private schools)

6. Discipline Analysis Categories Age Range Categories Children ages 3-21
Out-of-school suspensions and expulsions of 10 days or fewer
Out-of-school suspensions and expulsions of more than 10 days
In-school suspensions of 10 days or fewer
In-school suspensions of more than 10 days
Disciplinary removals in total

7. Methodology – Risk Ratio
Must calculate a risk ratio for each LEA for each of the racial/ethnic groups for each analysis category (i.e., identification, placement, discipline)
Risk Ratio: What is a specific racial/ethnic group’s risk of
Receiving special education and related services for a particular disability
Being placed in a particular educational environment
Experiencing a particular disciplinary removal
As compared to the risk for all other children?

8. Methodology – Risk Ratio
Identification:
Number of children from racial/ethnic group in disability category Number of enrolled children from racial/ethnic group ÷
Number of all other children in disability category Number of all other enrolled children

9. Methodology – Risk Ratio
Placement:
Number of children from racial/ethnic group in placement category Number of children with disabilities from racial/ethnic group ÷
Number of all other children in placement category Number of all other children with disabilities
Discipline:
Number of children from racial/ethnic group in discipline category Number of children with disabilities from racial/ethnic group ÷
Number of all other children in discipline category Number of all other children with disabilities

10. Minimum Cell Size Identification: ÷
States may set a reasonable minimum cell size (risk numerator)
Presumptively reasonable if 10 or less; anything larger requires rationale and detailed explanation
Identification:
Number of children from racial/ethnic group in disability category Number of enrolled children from racial/ethnic group ÷
Number of all other children in disability category Number of all other enrolled children
This wording seems awkward to me…”exclude LEAs’ racial/ethnic groups…” is that from the NPRM? Changed to NPRM language
Could we do an arrow or a circle or something? The green doesn’t call enough attention in my opinion.
It also looks like the “A” in All other is capped in the last two examples. changed
Will folks know ISS? yes
What are your thoughts about adding a slide after this one that shows why this number is important (as opposed to the numerator of the risk ratio)? We could pull text from the Risk Ratios and Minimum Cell Sizes section of the TA guide (page 72). See next two slides

11. Minimum N-Size Identification: ÷
States may set a reasonable minimum n-size (risk denominator)
Presumptively reasonable if 30 or less; anything larger requires rationale and detailed explanation
Identification:
Number of children from racial/ethnic group in disability category Number of enrolled children from racial/ethnic group ÷
Number of all other children in disability category Number of all other enrolled children
This wording seems awkward to me…”exclude LEAs’ racial/ethnic groups…” is that from the NPRM? Changed to NPRM language
Could we do an arrow or a circle or something? The green doesn’t call enough attention in my opinion.
It also looks like the “A” in All other is capped in the last two examples. changed
Will folks know ISS? yes
What are your thoughts about adding a slide after this one that shows why this number is important (as opposed to the numerator of the risk ratio)? We could pull text from the Risk Ratios and Minimum Cell Sizes section of the TA guide (page 72). See next two slides

12. Alternate Risk Ratio Identification: ÷
Must use an alternate risk ratio if the comparison group in the LEA does not meet the minimum cell size or the minimum n-size
Identification:
Number of children from racial/ethnic group in disability category Number of enrolled children from racial/ethnic group ÷
Number of all other children in disability category Number of all other enrolled children
District-Level Data
State-Level Data

13. State must set reasonable risk ratio thresholds
May set different thresholds for each analysis category (up to 14)
May not set different thresholds for individual racial/ethnic groups

14. Additional Flexibilities
States can choose to identify an LEA as having significant disproportionality only after an LEA exceeds the risk ratio threshold for up to three prior consecutive years, including the current reporting year
Consecutive Years
A state need not identify an LEA with significant disproportionality if the LEA is making “reasonable progress” in lowering the risk ratios, where reasonable progress is determined by the state
Reasonable Progress

15. Reasonable minimum cell size
Stakeholder Input
States must seek stakeholder (including State Advisory Panel) advice for the following:
Reasonable threshold
Reasonable minimum cell size
Reasonable minimum n-size
Standard for reasonable progress

16. If the State Identifies Districts
The state must…
Ensure districts reserve 15 percent of IDEA funds for Comprehensive CEIS to address factors contributing to the significant disproportionality
Provide for the annual review of policies, procedures, and practices of any district that has significant disproportionality
Require districts to publicly report on the revision of policies, procedures, and practices

17. Comprehensive CEIS Grade Level/Ages Served Age 3 through grade 12
Groups Served
Children who are not currently identified as needing special education or related services but who need additional academic and behavioral support to succeed in a general education environment
Children currently identified as needing special education or related services (funds can be used primarily, but not exclusively, for this group)
Permitted Activities
Professional development and educational and behavioral evaluations, services, and supports
The activities must address factors and policy, practice, or procedure contributing to significant disproportionality

18. OSEP Resources Equity in IDEA final regulations
Essential Questions and Answers
State Model Timeline
Equity in IDEA 101: Contents of the Final Rule

19. Visit the IDC Disproportionality and Equity Resource Collection
IDC Resources
Visit the IDC Disproportionality and Equity Resource Collection

20. For More Information Visit the IDC website http://ideadata.org/
Follow us on Twitter

21. The contents of this presentation were developed under a grant from the U.S. Department of Education, #H373Y However, the contents do not necessarily represent the policy of the U.S. Department of Education, and you should not assume endorsement by the federal government. Project Officers: Richelle Davis and Meredith Miceli