DISPROPORTIONALITY REGULATIONS Presented by: Jody A Fields, PhD Director, IDEA Data & Research @ UA Little Rock Special Education Data Manager jafields@ualr.edu or 501-683-7219

Overview of regulations Q: What date were the regulations released? A. December 20, 2016 Q: What date do the regulations go into effect? A. July 1, 2018 Q. What program in IDEA are these regulations governing? A. Comprehensive Coordinated Early Intervening Services Q. What is Comprehensive Coordinated Early Intervening Services? A. The new program name given for mandated districts to provided early intervening services Q. Why were the regulations developed? A. To establish a Standard Methodology across states and territories

Overview of regulations Establish a standard methodology Clarify what states must address Clarify requirements for the review and revision of policies, procedures, and practices Require that LEAs identify and address factors contributing to significant disproportionality Allow CCEIS for children age 3-21 for mandated districts, including those with a current IEP

STANDARD Methodology All states will use the risk ratio methodology States are given the flexibility to set their own minimum cell size, n- size, and risk ratio thresholds Recommended n-size is 30 or less (denominator) Recommended cell size is 10 or less (numerator) Risk ratio threshold States will provide justification for the numbers selected

WHAT STATES MUST ADDRESS USING THE NEW METHODOLOGY? The identification of children as children with disabilities The identification of children as children with disabilities in accordance with a particular impairment described in section 602(3) of the Act. Six categories must be examined Intellectual disabilities Specific learning disabilities Emotional disturbance Speech or language impairments Other health impairments Autism

WHAT STATES MUST ADDRESS USING THE NEW METHODOLOGY? The placement in particular educational settings of these children; For children with disabilities ages 6 through 21, inside a regular class less than 40 percent of the day; For children with disabilities ages 6 through 21, inside separate schools and residential facilities, not including homebound or hospital settings, correctional facilities, or private schools;

WHAT STATES MUST ADDRESS USING THE NEW METHODOLOGY? The incidence, duration, and type of disciplinary removals from placement, including suspensions and expulsions. For children with disabilities ages 3 through 21, out-of-school suspensions and expulsions of 10 days or fewer; For children with disabilities ages 3 through 21, out-of-school suspensions and expulsions of more than 10 days; For children with disabilities ages 3 through 21, in-school suspensions of 10 days or fewer; For children with disabilities ages 3 through 21, in-school suspensions of more than 10 days; and For children with disabilities ages 3 through 21, disciplinary removals in total, including in-school and out-of-school suspensions, expulsions, removals by school personnel to an interim alternative education setting, and removals by a hearing officer.

Calculating the risk and risk ratio 4.60% 16.05% DISTRICT SPECIAL EDUCATION –% WHITE In one district their enrollment rate for white students is 4.60 %; however, 16.05% of students receiving special education is white. DISTRICT ENROLLMENT – % WHITE

Definitions Made Easy Risk(risk index): Risk tells us how likely a certain outcome is (i.e. being identified as having a disability) Comparison group: All other races Risk ratio: The risk ratio tells us how the risk for one racial/ethnic group compares to the risk for a comparison group Minimum cell size: Risk numerator Minimum n-size: Risk denominator Alternate risk ratio: Uses the district level risk for racial/ethnic group in the numerator and the state level risk for the comparison group. Used if the comparison group does not meet the minimum cell or n-size

The risk ratio is calculated 98 times a district can be identified in 98 different ways There are 14 cell sizes, N-sizes and risk thresholds to be set How can there be 98 different ways t be identified? There are 7 races and 14 categories, 7 * 14 = 98

A proportion expressing likelihood. CALUCLATING THE RISK A proportion expressing likelihood. Example: 26 White children identified 64 total White children in LEA Risk of White child identified as child with disability = 26/64 or 40.63%. The district has an enrollment of 1391 and 64 are white Special Education Child Count is 162 and 26 are white The percentage of white students in the district who are receiving special education services is ((26/64) *100) = 40.63%

CALCULATING THE RISK RATIO A comparison of risks: likelihood of outcome for one group vs. outcome for all others in the LEA Example: 26 White children identified out of (cell size) 64 total White children in LEA (n – size) 136 of other children identified out of (cell size) All 1,327 other children in LEA (n- size) Risk Ratio: 3.96 (26/64) /(136/1327) = .4063/.1025 = 3.96 Carrying the rate for the numerator over from the previous slide, but in decimal format. The numerator of the risk ratio calculation for white students to be identified for special education is .4063 The comparison group is all other students (non-white) Denominator Numerator is special education 162 - 26 white students = 136 Denominator is district enrollment 1391-64 white students = 1327

Let’s calculate a Risk Ratio District A has an enrollment of 1,400 students 55 are white 1345 are other races District A has a child count of 145 students 24 are white 121 are of other races

Let’s Calculate a Risk Ratio Numerator: number of white students in special education divided by the number of white students in the district 24/55 = .4363 Denominator number of other students identified in special education divided by the number of other students in the district 121/1345 = .0899 Risk Ratio .4363/.0899 = 4.853

CALCULATING THE ALTERNATE RISK RATIO Example: Minimum cell size = 10 Minimum n-size = 30 491 out of 500 students in the LEA are Black Number of other students in comparison group = 9 70 of 491 are children with IEPs 70 Black children identified as CWD out of 491 total Black children in the LEA 67,000 children identified as CWD out of 450,000 all other children in the State Alternate risk ratio: (70/490) / (67,000/450,000) = .1426/.1488 = 0.96 An alternate risk ratio is calculated when the cell size or N-size is less than the criteria. If the minimum cell size is 10 and there are only 9 an alternate risk ratio is calculated. If the N-size is 30 but there are only 25 an alternate is calculated. If both cell and N-size are below the minimum then no calculation is made. In this example, there are only 9 students (less than 10) in the comparison group other students; so an alternate risk ratio is calculated using the state numbers for other students (non-black).

How many districts could be identified in a single year? Depends on the cell size, n-size, and risk threshold selected!

Identification (all disabilities) 12/1/2016 with a cell size of 10 and a n – size of 30 Risk Threshold American Indian/ Alaskan Native Risk Ratio Asian Black Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander Hispanic White Multi Race 2 3 2.5 3.5 1 This table illustrates the number of districts flagged as having disproportionate representation based on the December 1, 2016 child count, in the area of identification by race, for four different risk thresholds. If theses districts were identified for three consecutive years they would be identified for significant disproportionality and would be required to set a side funds to implement CCEIS. Using a cell size of 10 and a N-size of 30 if the risk threshold was set at 2 or 2.5 three districts would be flagged. If the risk threshold was set at 3, 2 districts would flag and if it was set at 3.5 one district would flag. All districts flagged is for the racial category white. With a risk threshold of 3, only one district would have a two year pattern and be at risk the following year for significant disproportionality. (December 1, 2017 data analysis) How many districts have a two year pattern with a threshold of 3? 1

Disability categories, 12/1/2016 cell size of 10 and a n – size of 30 Autism Risk Threshold American Indian/ Alaskan Native Risk Ratio Asian Black Hawaiian/ Pacific islander Hispanic White Multi Race 2.5 1 2 12 9 3 10 7 3.5 4 6 How many districts have a two year pattern with a threshold of 3? 2 Emotional Disturbance Risk Threshold American Indian/ Alaskan Native Risk Ratio Asian Black Hawaiian/ Pacific islander Hispanic White Multi Race 2.5 7 3 6 3.5 How many districts have a two year pattern with a threshold of 3? 2 These tables illustrate the number of districts flagged as having disproportionate representation based on the December 1, 2016 child count in the disability categories of autism and emotional disturbance for three different risk thresholds. If theses districts were identified for three consecutive years they would be identified for significant disproportionality and would be required to set a side funds to implement CCEIS. For autism, using a cell size of 10 and a N-size of 30 if the risk threshold was set at 2.5 multiple districts would be flagged across all seven racial/ethnic categories with Hispanic having the most. If the risk threshold was set at 3, districts would flag in four of the seven racial/ethnic categories, with Hispanic having the most; and if it was set at 3.5 districts would flag in the racial ethnic categories of Hispanic, White, and multiple races. With a risk threshold of 3, only two districts, for autism, would have a two year pattern and be at risk the following year for significant disproportionality. For emotional disturbance, using a cell size of 10 and a N-size of 30 if the risk threshold was set at 2.5 seven districts would be flagged in the racial/ethnic category white. If the risk threshold was set at 3, six districts would be flagged in the racial/ethnic category white; and if it was set at 3.5 three districts would flag in the racial ethnic category white. With a risk threshold of 3, only two districts, for emotional disturbance, would have a two year pattern and be at risk the following year for significant disproportionality.

Disability categories, 12/1/2016 cell size of 10 and a n – size of 30 SLD Risk Threshold American Indian/ Alaskan Native Risk Ratio Asian Black Hawaiian/ Pacific islander Hispanic White Multi Race 2.5 7 4 3 1 3.5 How many districts have a two year pattern with a threshold of 3 ? 1 Intellectual Disability Risk Threshold American Indian/ Alaskan Native Risk Ratio Asian Black Hawaiian/ Pacific islander Hispanic White Multi Race 2.5 37 1 3 25 3.5 16 4  12 How many districts have a two year pattern with a threshold of 3? 18 How many districts have a two year pattern with a threshold of 4? 7 These tables illustrate the number of districts flagged as having disproportionate representation based on the December 1, 2016 child count in the disability categories of specific learning disability (SLD) for three different thresholds and intellectual disability (ID) for four different risk thresholds. If theses districts were identified for three consecutive years they would be identified for significant disproportionality and would be required to set a side funds to implement CCEIS. For SLD, using a cell size of 10 and a N-size of 30 if the risk threshold was set at 2.5, 11 districts would be flagged in the racial/ethnic categories of black (7) and white (4). If the risk threshold was set at 3, one districts would flag in the racial/ethnic category of black. If the threshold was it was set at 3.5 one districts would flag in the racial/ethnic category of black. With a risk threshold of 3, only one district, in SLD, would have a two year pattern and be at risk the following year for significant disproportionality. For intellectual disability, using a cell size of 10 and a N-size of 30 if the risk threshold was set at 2.5, 37 districts would be flagged in the racial/ethnic category black and 1 for Hispanic. If the risk threshold was set at 3, 25 districts would be flagged in the racial/ethnic category black. If it was set at 3.5, 16 districts would flag in the racial ethnic category black and at a risk threshold of 4, 17 districts would flag in the racial/ethnic category black. With a risk threshold of 3, 18 districts flagged for ID, would have a two year pattern and be at risk the following year for significant disproportionality. With a risk threshold of 4, 7 districts flagged for ID, would have a two year pattern and be at risk the following year for significant disproportionality.

Disability categories, 12/1/2016 cell size of 10 and a n – size of 30 OHI Risk Threshold American Indian/ Alaskan Native Risk Ratio Asian Black Hawaiian/ Pacific islander Hispanic White Multi Race 2.5 4 10 1 3 2 3.5 How many districts have a two year pattern with a threshold of 3 ? 2 Speech Risk Threshold American Indian/ Alaskan Native Risk Ratio Asian Black Hawaiian/ Pacific islander Hispanic White Multi Race 2 3 7 2.5 3.5 How many districts have a two year pattern with a threshold of 3? 0 These tables illustrate the number of districts flagged as having disproportionate representation based on the December 1, 2016 child count in the disability categories of other health impaired (OHI) for three different thresholds and Speech for four different risk thresholds. If theses districts were identified for three consecutive years they would be identified for significant disproportionality and would be required to set a side funds to implement CCEIS. For OHI, using a cell size of 10 and a N-size of 30 if the risk threshold was set at 2.5, 15 districts would be flagged in the racial/ethnic categories of black (4), white (10), and multiple races (1). If the risk threshold was set at 3, three districts would flag in the racial/ethnic category of white (2) and multiple races (1). If the threshold was it was set at 3.5, one districts would flag in the racial/ethnic category of white. With a risk threshold of 3, two districts flagged for OHI would have a two year pattern and be at risk the following year for significant disproportionality. For speech, using a cell size of 10 and a N-size of 30 if the risk threshold was set at 2.0, 3 districts would be flagged in the racial/ethnic category black and 7 for white. If the risk threshold was set at 2.5 or grater zero districts would be flagged. Zero districts are at risk for significant disproportionality.

Educational placEment, 12/1/2016 cell size of 10 and a n – size of 30 Less than 40% in regular classroom Risk Threshold American Indian/ Alaskan Native Risk Ratio Asian Black Hawaiian/ Pacific islander Hispanic White Multi Race 2.5 1 6 2 3 5 3.5 How many districts have a two year pattern with a threshold of 3 ? 4 Separate School Risk Threshold American Indian/ Alaskan Native Risk Ratio Asian Black Hawaiian/ Pacific islander Hispanic White Multi Race 2.5 4 6 3 5 3.5 How many districts have a two year pattern with a threshold of 3? 4 These tables illustrate the number of districts flagged as having disproportionate representation based on the December 1, 2016 child count in educational placement categories of “Less than 40% of the day in the regular classroom” and “separate school” for three different risk thresholds. If theses districts were identified for three consecutive years they would be identified for significant disproportionality and would be required to set a side funds to implement CCEIS. For <40% of the day, using a cell size of 10 and a N-size of 30 if the risk threshold was set at 2.5, nine districts would be flagged in the racial/ethnic categories of Asian (1) black (6), and white (2). If the risk threshold was set at 3, five districts would flag in the racial/ethnic category of black and if the threshold was set at 3.5, three districts would flag in the racial/ethnic category of black. With a risk threshold of 3, four districts flagged for educational placement of <40% of the day in the regular classroom, would have a two year pattern and be at risk the following year for significant disproportionality. For educational placement in a separate school, using a cell size of 10 and a N-size of 30 if the risk threshold was set at 2.5, 10 districts would be flagged in the racial/ethnic categories of black (4) and white (6). If the risk threshold was set at 3 or 3.5, nine districts would flag in the racial/ethnic category of black (4) and white(5). With a risk threshold of 3, four districts flagged for educational placement in a separate school, would have a two year pattern and be at risk the following year for significant disproportionality.

Less Than 40% of the day in the regular classroom Two year Summary of identification, disability, and educational placement 10 cell size; 30 N size; risk threshold of 3   All Disabilities ID Less Than 40% of the day in the regular classroom Separate School FY 16 FY 17 A White 4.18 3.96 I Black 3.49 4.58 Autism J 4 4.33 4.66 3.69 Q 18.99 16.77 K 5.67 5.61 4.31 4.12 AC 20.64 21.11 B 3.48 3.78 L 3.43 3.21 S 4.59 AD 4.49 6.72 C 5.07 5.9 M 5.57 8.11 AB 3.4 4.07 X 10.62 7.61 N 4.55 4.98 ED O 3.57 34 LEAs identified across areas P 6.9 4.88 28 distinct districts D 4.99 3.08 3.01 5 duplicate districts E 4.48 3.2 3.76 3.1 1 all and <40 R 5.62 4.71 1 ED and ID SLD 3.99 2 ID , <40, SS T 4.03 4.14 1 ID and SS F 4.65 U 3.7 3.12 W 6.59 6.17 OHI 4.38 Note: zero districts were flagged for Speech Language Impairment Y 3.46 3.83 G 4.27 4.77 Z 3.86 4.11 H 3.11 Slide 36: This slide presents a list of districts who are currently identified with two consecutive years in the areas of identification, disability, and educational placement. The identification was made using the standard risk ratio methodology with a cell size of 10, n size of 30, and a risk ratio threshold of 3. A third year of identification would result in the implementation of comprehensive coordinated early intervening services. There are 34 districts identified across the analysis; however, there are 28 distinct districts with 5 districts being identified in more than one area. 1 district was identified for all disabilities and <40% of the day in the regular classroom 1 district was identified for emotional disturbance and intellectual disability 1 district  was identified for separate school and intellectual disability 2 districts were identified in 3 areas: <40% of the day in the regular classroom, separate school, and intellectual disability In the category of all disabilities one district was identified for white students. The specific disability analysis resulted in autism, emotional disturbance, and other health impaired having two district each identified for white students. One district was identified for specific learning disabilities for black students 18 districts were identified for two years in the category of intellectual disability for black students In the area of educational placement four districts were identified for students placed in the regular classroom less than 40% of the day four were identified for separate school placements. Black was the only racial category identified for placement.

Discipline analysis The incidence, duration, and type of disciplinary removals from placement, including suspensions and expulsions. For children with disabilities ages 3 through 21, out-of-school suspensions and expulsions of 10 days or fewer; For children with disabilities ages 3 through 21, out-of-school suspensions and expulsions of more than 10 days; For children with disabilities ages 3 through 21, in-school suspensions of 10 days or fewer; For children with disabilities ages 3 through 21, in-school suspensions of more than 10 days; and For children with disabilities ages 3 through 21, disciplinary removals in total, including in-school and out-of-school suspensions, expulsions, removals by school personnel to an interim alternative education setting, and removals by a hearing officer.

Discipline analysis Are there differences in comparison groups based on area being analyzed? YES Identification and disability, uses district enrollment as the comparison group. Educational placement uses district special education child count as the comparison group. Discipline uses district special education child count as the comparison group.

Discipline >10 Days 0ss/Expulsion 2015-16 >10 Days OSS Min. Cell 10; N=30; Threshold ??? Black White Asian Am Indian/ Alaskan Native Hispanic Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander Multiple Races 2 9 2.5 8 3 3.5 >10 Days OSS Min. Cell 5; N=30; Threshold ???   22 19 17 An analysis of the 2015-16 discipline data for greater than 10 days out-of-school suspension and expulsion revealed that if the cell size is set at 10 and the N-size is set at 30 with a threshold of 2, nine districts would be identified in the racial category of black. If the risk threshold was 2.5 or greater, 8 districts would be identified in the racial category of black. By changing the cell size from 10 to 5 the number of districts identified more than doubled. With a cell size of 5, an N-size of 30, and a risk threshold of 2, 22 districts would be identified in the racial category of black. If the risk threshold was 2.5, 19 districts would be identified in the racial category of black. With a risk threshold of 3 or greater, 17 districts would be identified in the racial category of black. Note the different when the cell size changes from having 10 students with > than 10 days OSS/Expulsion to having 5 students with > than 10 days OSS/Expulsion.

Discipline >10 Days 0ss/Expulsion 2015-16 >10 Days OSS Min. Cell 2; N=30; Threshold ??? Black White Asian Am Indian/ Alaskan Native Hispanic Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander Multiple Races 2 32 2.5 24 3 21 3.5 This slide shows what happens if the cell size is reduced to the current size of 2. By changing the cell size from 10 to 2 the number of districts identified tripled for some risk thresholds. With a cell size of 2, an N-size of 30, and a risk threshold of 2, 32 districts would be identified in the racial category of black. If the risk threshold was 2.5, 24 districts would be identified in the racial category of black. With a risk threshold of 3 or greater, 21 districts would be identified in the racial category of black If the cell size is 2 and the risk threshold is 2 the number of districts identified compared to a cell size of 5 increased by 10 districts, @ 2.5 increases by 5 districts @ 3 or 3.5 increases by 4 districts

Two year Summary of oSS/Expulsion >10 days: SFY15 and SFY16 5 cell size, 30 n size, threshold 3 2014-15 2015-16 AF 3.51 3.85 AG 5.72 12.14 AH 6.02 8.79 AI 10.17 9.25 Q 4.66 11.93 AC 12.65 9.20 AJ 14.51 7.86 AA 20.62 14.16 AD 3.63 3.42 AK 6.75 12.80 AL 3.14 3.83 Y 9.66 5.24 10 cell size, 30 n size, threshold 3 2014-15 2015-16 Q 4.66 11.93 AC 12.65 9.20 AA 20.62 14.16 AD 3.63 3.42 The first table shows the number of districts identified with a 2 year pattern when the cell size is 10. There are 4 districts at risk for significant disproportionality. The second table shows the number of districts identified with a 2 year pattern when the cell size is 5. There are 12 districts at risk for significant disproportionality.

Discipline Risk Ratios: All five areas for 2014-15 Total Removals OSS>10 OSS 10< ISS >10 ISS 10< Lea # of Areas  Area Descriptions N 3.49 A 3.85 GG 4.33 F 3.87 BB 15.16 2 Total, OSS>10 O 6.17 B 12.14 C 3.52 G 3.79 CC 8.34 3 Total, OSS>10, ISS10< 3.42 D 8.79 E 4.64 J 3.93 7.16 Total OSS 10< 5.35 H 11.93 T 3.24 Y 3.96 10.30 Total, OSS >10, ISS 10< Q 3.62 S 9.20 4.40 Z 3.19 DD 10.72 Total, OSS 10< 4.42 14.16 U 3.31 AA 3.40 4.67 Total, ISS >10 R 3.61 L 3.36 I 13.25 3.55 M 12.80 K 4.82 20.35 4 Total, OSS >10, OSS 10<, ISS 10< 3.64 V 3.09 EE 13.73 Total, ISS 10< 4.21 W 3.45 FF 5 Total, OSS >10, OSS 10<, ISS >10, ISS 10< 5.82 3.88 4.32 X 3.23 3.70 OSS >10, 0SS 10< 5.73 4.98 3.58 This slide provides a list of districts flagged in the five required discipline analysis areas for school year 2014-15. In the area of Total removals - 16 districts are flagged OSS> 10 days – 8 districts are flagged OSS10 days or less – 12 districts are flagged ISS> 10 days – 6 districts are flagged ISS10 days or less – 10 districts are flagged Thirteen districts are identified in more than one discipline area. The letters assigned on this slide do not align with the letters assigned on the previous slides. Those highlighted in pink are identified in multiple areas of discipline based on 2014-15 school year discipline data.

Timeline to implementation Notify LEAs and provide for a review of polices, procedures, and practices Review Regulations 12/2016 - ongoing Analysis of data 1/2017- 3/2019 Stakeholder Meetings 4/2017 7/2017 8/2017 9/2017 10/2017 Decision on Cell size, N size, and risk thresholds finalized 12/2017 Analysis is an ongoing process based on data availability. Complete 3 year analysis for full implementation is completed in February/March 2019 State revises policies and procedures 2/2018- 4/2018 Release of new procedures for public comment 5/2018- 6/2018 Final procedures released 9/2018 Run data based on new procedures 10/2018- 3/2019 LEAs set aside funds and provide CCEIS 7/2019- 6/2020 State provides TA to identified LEAs 4/2019- Present revised procedures to advisory council

Cell size, n-size, and risk thresholds need to be set for the all 14 areas Survey Link