Discipline Identification and Reporting

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Significant Disproportionality and CEIS Special Education Directors Meeting September 2010 Dr. Lanai Jennings Coordinator, Office of Special Programs.
Advertisements

Disproportionality in Special Education
Angela Tanner-Dean Diana Chang OSEP October 14, 2010.
ESEA Directors Institute 2014ESEA Directors Institute 2014 Civil Rights Data CollectionCivil Rights Data Collection Thursday, October 9, 2014Thursday,
Disproportionality of Racial and Ethnic Groups in Special Education Significant Disproportionality and EIS versus Disproportionate Representation due to.
IDEA Reauthorization and Disproportionality Sammie Lambert, DECS KYCASE Summer Institute Lexington, Kentucky July 16, 2007.
Dr. John D. Barge, State School Superintendent “Making Education Work for All Georgians” FY2012 Data Collections Conference Special Education.
Indicator 4A & 4B Rates of Suspension & Expulsion Revised Methodology Identification of Significant Discrepancy DE-PBS Cadre December 1, 2011.
1 Leanna Stiefel and Amy Ellen Schwartz Faculty, Wagner Graduate School and Colin Chellman Research Associate, Institute for Education and Social Policy.
Continuous Improvement Performance Plan (CIPP) New Hanover County Schools Students with Disabilities Data Story.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Jack O’Connell, State Superintendent of Public Instruction State Performance Plan (SPP) & Annual Performance Report.
Monitoring Significant Disproportionality in Special Education Systems Performance Review & Improvement Fall Training 2011.
1 Results for Students with Disabilities and School Year Data Report for the RSE-TASC Statewide Meeting May 2010.
1 Accountability Conference Education Service Center, Region 20 September 16, 2009.
Data Analysis & Disproportionality Nancy Fuhrman & Dani Scott Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction.
Significant Disproportionality Symptoms, Remedies and Treatments.
Responding to Special Education Disproportionality Understanding your Data Presenters: Nancy Fuhrman & Dani Scott, DPI.
IDEA & Disproportionality Perry Williams, Ph.D. Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education.
Data Slides for Children & Students with IEPs in 2010 Michigan Department of Education Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services.
An Introduction to the State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report.
State Performance Plan (SPP) Annual Performance Report (APR) Dana Corriveau Bureau of Special Education Connecticut State Department of Education ConnCASEOctober.
Nash-Rocky Mount Public Schools Programs for Exceptional Children State Performance Plan/ Annual Performance Report/Continuous Improvement Performance.
Demographic Trends in Massachusetts Charter Schools Preliminary Analysis October 2015.
Kentucky Continuous Monitoring Process Spring 2012.
District Annual Determinations IDEA Part B Sections 616(a) and (e) A State must consider the following four factors: 1.Performance on compliance.
KETTLE MORAINE (KM) SCHOOL DISTRICT: Ryan Meyer.
TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction State of California Annual Performance Report Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004.
Significant Discrepancy in Suspension and Expulsion Rates in West Virginia: Barriers to Implementation of Discipline Policy and Procedures November 15,
State Performance Plan/ Annual Performance Report/Continuous Improvement Performance Plan (SPP/APR/CIPP) Buncombe County Schools 2013.
Demographic & Attrition Trends in Massachusetts Charter Schools Preliminary Analysis December 2015.
Equity in IDEA ___________________ NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING Michael Yudin Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services Ruth.
State Advisory Panel & Interagency Coordinating Council Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)Significant Disproportionality & Overview of SAP/ICC Website.
THE APR AND SPP--LINKING SPECIAL EDUCATION DATA TO ACCOUNTABILITY FOR EDUCATION RESULTS Building a Brighter Tomorrow through Positive and Progressive Leadership.
Continuous Improvement Performance Plan (CIPP) New Hanover County Schools Students with Disabilities Data Story.
Special Education School District Profile Slinger School District Lynda McTrusty.
Agenda Part I Recap of the Final Rule Part II Standard Methodology Part III Remedies Part IV Dates Part V Questions.
2016 Annual Dropout and Cohort Graduation Rates
WELCOME What is on your table? Agenda for both days
OVER-IDENTIFICATION OF STUDENTS FOR SERVICES: Special education
Special Education District Profile:
Proposed Significant Disproportionality New Data Collection Presenters: Robert Trombley, Richelle Davis.
What is “Annual Determination?”
Appleton Area School District
Health of Wisconsin: Report Card 2016
Disproportionality: Tier Two Monitoring Activities
Special Education Reviews: A new paradigm for LEAs
DISPROPORTIONALITY REGULATIONS
New Significant Disproportionality Regulations
Breaking the School to Prison Pipeline
Selecting Title I schools and allocating funds
CClick here to get started
Department of Exceptional Student Education
Agenda Part I Significant Disproportionality Part II Equity in IDEA Final Rule Overview Part III Standard Methodology Part IV Data Reporting Part V Questions.
Title I A Comparability Report
Disproportionality Institute March 29-30, 2018 Little Rock, Arkansas
Chronic Absenteeism Equity Profile
SPECIAL EDUCATION DISCIPLINE REPORTS
The Need to Support Challenging Students as part of Massachusetts’ Discipline Reform by Daniel J. Losen Director, The Center for Civil Rights Remedies,
Data Update State of California
Discipline.
Presented by Robert Curtin April 11, 2016
Madison Elementary / Middle School and the New Accountability System
Massachusetts’ Next-Generation Accountability & Assistance System
Disproportionality Prevention Support
Findley Oaks Elementary Data Overview
District and School Accountability System: Proposed Modifications
Significant Disproportionality Fiscal Webinar
Significant Disproportionality Stakeholder Meeting
Significant Disproportionality
Significant Disproportionality
Presentation transcript:

Discipline Identification and Reporting June 2016 1 Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

Agenda Review MA discipline regulations and identification process: Over-reliance on long-term suspension Suspension discrepancy by race/SWD status Review Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) reporting on disciplinary removals for students with disabilities Questions Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

MA Discipline Regulations 603 CMR 53.14(4) requires ESE and the Commissioner to identify: Schools that need assistance to reduce over-reliance on long-term suspension or expulsion as a consequence for student misconduct Schools and districts with data that reflect significant disparities in the rate of suspension and expulsion by race and ethnicity, or disability ESE used 2014-2015 SSDR data to make identifications in 2016 Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

Long Term Suspension ID and Reporting ESE reports rates of students suspended for more than 10 cumulative days in a school year Posted on School and District Profiles ”Days Missed Report” Guide ID of schools in need of assistance to reduce over-reliance on long term suspension and expulsion Criteria: At least 100 students enrolled At least 5% of students suspended for 10 days or more 12 schools identified Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

Discrepancy by Race/SWD ID and Reporting Rate difference methodology used: Compares racial and/or SWD subgroup to all students Measures disparities in two ways: within school/district and to state Incorporates central tendency: two standard deviation threshold for “significant disparity” Consider overall suspension/expulsion rate Districts and schools with below average suspension rates not identified Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

Methodology Detail 1) Determine universe of eligible groups. Enrollment >= 20 and >=6 students suspended 2) Calculate average rate difference at school and district level. Treat race and SWD subgroups separately : 1)Race/eth subgroup - school/district rate 2)Race/eth subgroup – state rate 3)SWD subgroup – school/district rate 4)SWD subgroup - state rate 3) Flag groups with internal AND state differences outside two standard deviations. 4) School/District rate must be greater than the average school/district rate. Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

Example- Race, school level Group to All Students Diff 1) Calculate average difference to school and state rates among eligible groups School Group Group Rate All Students Rate Group to All Students Diff State Rate Group to State Diff 1 Hisp 45.2% 19.0% 26.2% 4.1% 41.1% 2 White 32.2% 18.6% 13.6% 28.1% 3 Asian 28.6% 20.3% 8.3% 24.5% 4 Black 31.6% 16.2% 15.4% 27.5% Multi 29.1% 12.9% 25.0% Difference Average Difference Std Dev 2 Std Dev Difference Threshold Group to School 15.3% 4.6% 9.2% 24.5% Group to State 29.2% 4.8% 9.6% 38.8% 2) Average difference + 2 standard deviation = difference threshold for flagging 3) School #1 will be flagged for it’s Hispanic group. Both school difference and state difference are above thresholds. Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

Group to All Students Diff Example, cont.: School #1 has been flagged for it’s Hispanic group, so… School Group Group Rate All Students Rate Group to All Students Diff State Rate Group to State Diff 1 Hisp 45.2% 19.0% 26.2% 4.1% 41.1% 2 White 32.2% 18.6% 13.6% 28.1% 3 Asian 28.6% 20.3% 8.3% 24.5% 4 Black 31.6% 16.2% 15.4% 27.5% Multi 29.1% 12.9% 25.0% 4) Check whether school rate is higher than average school rate of 7.2% The school rate is 19.0%. School #1 will be identified for significant discrepancies. Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

2 SD Threshold Difference 2 SD Threshold Difference 2015 Actual Criteria Schools To All Students To State (4.1%) Average School Rate Group Type 2 SD Threshold Difference Race 10.8 25.4 7.2 SWD 15.5 31.4 Districts To All Students To State (4.1%) Average District Rate Group Type 2 SD Threshold Difference Race 7.7 15.1 5.0 SWD 11.1 21.8 Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

Identification Summary Schools and Districts Identified for Discrepancies School District Reason: N Race 20 3 SWD 5 Total 25 Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

Federal IDEA Reporting All states that receive IDEA funds must report annually on a number of performance indicators, including indicator 4: 4A. Significant discrepancy in the rate of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days for children with IEPs 4B. Significant discrepancy in the rate of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days for children with IEPs, by race or ethnicity Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

Indicator 4A Step 1: Identify the overall “state rate.” Calculate the percentage of SWDs who were removed for greater than 10 days during the school year. This is the state rate. Step 2: Calculate each district’s rate.* Calculate the percentage of SWDs in each district who were removed for greater than 10 days during the school year. Step 3: Identify districts with a “significant discrepancy.” Compare each district’s rate to the state rate, and identify districts whose rate has been at least 5x the state rate for the past two years. *Note that all districts with fewer than 30 SWDs are not included in the calculation. Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

Indicator 4B Step 1: Identify the overall “state rate.” Calculate the percentage of SWDs who were removed for greater than 10 days during the school year. This is the same state rate as in 4A. Step 2: Calculate each district’s rate for each racial/ethnic group.* Calculate the percentage of SWDs in each racial/ethnic group in each district who were removed for greater than 10 days during the school year. Step 3: Identify districts with a “significant discrepancy.” Compare each district’s rate for each racial/ethnic group to the overall state rate and identify districts whose rate for a specific racial/ethnic group has been at least 5x the state rate for the past three years. Step 4: Review the identified districts’ policies, practices and procedures. Districts identified under indicator 4B will undergo a review of their policies, practices, and procedures (PPPs), to determine whether or not the PPPs contributed to the significant discrepancy. *Note that all districts with fewer than 10 SWDs in a particular racial/ethnic group are not included in the calculation for that racial/ethnic group. Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

Indicator 4 In FFY15…. State rate = 0.7% 5x state rate = 3.4% 5 districts were flagged under indicator 4A 9 districts were flagged under indicator 4B Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

Questions? Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education