Significant Disproportionality Stakeholder Meeting September 13, 2019

The new and revised federal regulations Welcome and overview The new and revised federal regulations Historical Data in WV Projected data and discussions Wrap up: questions and next steps

Welcome!

IDEA Regulations for disproportionality 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; and incidence, duration, and type of disciplinary actions, including suspensions and expulsions.

Identification Ages 6-21* Analysis Categories Identification Ages 6-21* All Disabilities Intellectual Disability Specific Learning Disabilities Emotional Disturbance Speech or Language Impairments Other Health Impairments Autism Placement Ages 6-21 Inside regular class less than 40 percent of day Separate schools and residential facilities Discipline Ages 3-21 Out-of-school suspensions/ expulsions of 10 days or less Out-of-school suspensions (including expulsions) of greater than 10 days In-school suspensions of 10 days or less In-school suspensions of greater than 10 days Total disciplinary removals Each category below must be analyzed for each of the seven race/ethnicity areas which means there are 14 categories times 7 (91) calculations for each school district in a state *Ages 3-5 by July 1, 2020

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

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

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 placment category Number of all other children with disabilities

Methodology – Risk Ratio

Minimum Cell Size States may set a reasonable minimum cell size (risk numerator). Presumptively reasonable if 10 or less; anything larger requires rationale and detailed explanation.  

Minimum N-Size States may set a reasonable minimum n-size (risk denominator). Presumptively reasonable if 30 or less; anything larger requires rationale and detailed explanation.  

Alternate Risk Ratio 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.   District-Level Data State-Level Data

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

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

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 (coming later)

If the State Identifies Districts The state must… Ensure districts reserve 15 percent of IDEA funds for Comprehensive Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CCEIS) to identify and 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

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 policies, practices, or procedures contributing to significant disproportionality

Timeline Original date: compliance by July 1, 2018 Proposed to delay for two years Delay found by courts to be illegal US ED is appealing In the meantime, states must move forward using the new regulations for the 18-19 school year and forward This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-NC

Note about SPP Indicators and their relation to significant disproportionality The calculations used for significant disproportionality are NOT the same as those used for Indicator 4 (significant discrepancy). The comparison groups are different Only Out of school equal to or greater than 10 days is used for Indicator 4 The calculations are different from Indicators 9 and 10 as well Indicators 9 and 10 are two step processes Current methodology uses a different calculation method and sets a lower threshold.

West Virginia data and previous methodology Since 2009 Relative Risk Ratio Two consecutive years Equal or exceed 3.0 Minimum cell size: 20 Historically only a few districts have been identified: Prior to 2009 the number of districts identified with significant disproportionality ranged from 6 to 9 districts per year. The primary change in methodology in 2009 was an increase in the cell size to 20. Due to small cell sizes used before this change, districts with small enrollment were more likely to be identified with significant disproportionality. (OSEP’s new methodology requiring the use of an alternate risk-ratio addresses the issue of small enrollment.) From 2010 onward, no districts have been identified as significantly disproportionate for 2 consecutive years. However, 2 districts voluntarily provided CEIS.

Stakeholder discussion and data review This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-SA-NC

Risk Ratio Thresholds: Identification Methodology – 2 years of data, minimum cell = 10, minimum n = 30

Risk Ratio Thresholds: Placement Methodology – 2 years of data, minimum cell = 10, minimum n = 30

Risk Ratio Thresholds: Disciplinary Removals Methodology – 2 years of data, minimum cell = 10, minimum n = 30

Questions or further discussion

Tools to support districts identified There will be multiple tools available to support districts who are identified with significant disproportionality Identifying and addressing the factors (root causes) that may be contributing to the significant disproportionality Identifying and tracking and reporting on students who receive comprehensive CEIS services Tracking funds reserved for CEIS

Next Steps Consider all the recommendation from this group Consider input of other stakeholders Finalize decisions Publish our decisions and move forward with preparing technical assistance and other resources for districts Share resources and other materials