Angela Tanner-Dean Diana Chang OSEP October 14, 2010

Regulatory Citation  34 CFR § Suspension and expulsion rates.  (a) General. The SEA must examine data, including data disaggregated by race and ethnicity, to determine if significant discrepancies are occurring in the rate of long-term suspensions and expulsions of children with disabilities— (1) Among LEAs in the State; or (2) Compared to the rates for nondisabled children within those agencies.

Regulatory Citation  (b) Review and revision of policies. If the discrepancies described in paragraph (a) of this section are occurring, the SEA must review and, if appropriate, revise (or require the affected State agency or LEA to revise) its policies, procedures, and practices relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards, to ensure that these policies, procedures, and practices comply with the Act.

Data Source  Data collected on Table 5 of Information Collection (Report of Children with Disabilities Unilaterally Removed or Suspended/Expelled for More than 10 Days). Discrepancy can be computed by either comparing the rates of suspensions and expulsions for children with IEPs to rates for nondisabled children within the LEA or by comparing the rates of suspensions and expulsions for children with IEPs among LEAs within the State.  Sampling from State’s 618 data is not allowed.

Table 5

Measurement 4a4b Percent = [(# of districts that have a significant discrepancy in the rates of suspensions and expulsions for greater than 10 days in a school year of children with IEPs) divided by the (# of districts in the State)] times 100. Percent = [(# of districts that have: (a) a significant discrepancy, by race or ethnicity, in the rates of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year of children with IEPs; and (b) policies, procedures or practices that contribute to the significant discrepancy and do not comply with requirements relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards) divided by the (# of districts in the State)] times 100.

Target & Reporting Year 4a4b State established (results indicator) 0% (compliance indicator) Revisions: No change to indicator or measurement. Data lag one year. FFY 2009 APR (due 2/1/11) – use FFY 2008 data FFY 2010 APR (due 2/1/12) – use FFY 2009 data Revisions: No change to indicator or measurement. Data lag one year. FFY 2009 SPP (due 2/1/11) – use FFY 2008 data (establish baseline and improvement activities) FFY 2010 APR (due 2/1/12) – use FFY 2009 data

Instruction for Indicator  Describe the results of the State’s examination of the data for the year before the reporting year (e.g., for the FFY 2009 APR, use data from ), including data disaggregated by race and ethnicity to determine if significant discrepancies are occurring in the rates of long-term suspensions and expulsions of children with IEPs, as required at 20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(22). The State’s examination must include one of the following comparisons: The rates of suspensions and expulsions for children with IEPs among LEAs within the State; or The rates of suspensions and expulsions for children with IEPs to nondisabled children within the LEAs.  In the description of the State’s the definition for both 4a and 4b, specify which method the State used to determine possible significant discrepancies and explain what constitutes those significant discrepancies.

SPP/APR 2009 Indicator Analysis  Most, 80% (48 of 60 States), compared differences in suspension and expulsion rates for children with disabilities among districts or schools for outlying unitary area.  Twelve States (20%) compared rates for children with disabilities to rates for children without disabilities within a district or schools for outlying unitary areas.  States do not have to use the same methodology to calculate 4a and 4b. Method# of States Differences from State-defined rate36 Differences from Statewide average12 Risk ratio6 Unitary system4 Multiple methods1

Instructions for Indicator  NEW - If the State used a minimum “n” size requirement, report the number of districts excluded from the calculation as a result of this requirement.  States should not report these exceptions in either the numerator or the denominator.

SPP/APR Reporting  For 4B, provide the following: (a) the number of districts that have a significant discrepancy, by race or ethnicity, in the rates of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year for children with IEPs; and (b) the number of districts in which policies, procedures or practices contribute to the significant discrepancy and do not comply with requirements relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards.

SPP/APR Reporting  If significant discrepancies by race or ethnicity occurred and the district with such discrepancies had policies, procedures or practices that contributed to the significant discrepancy and that do not comply with requirements relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards, then describe how the State ensured that such policies, procedures, and practices were revised to comply with applicable requirements.

Correction of Noncompliance  When reporting on correction of identified noncompliance, report consistent with OSEP Memorandum 09-02, dated October 17,  The State must report that it has verified that each LEA with noncompliance: (1) is correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirements; and (2) has corrected each individual case of noncompliance, unless the child is no longer within the jurisdiction of the LEA.

Correction of Noncompliance 4a4b Identification After a State identifies a LEA with significant discrepancies in the rates of long term suspensions and expulsions, the SEA must conduct or require the affected LEA to conduct a review of the policies, procedures, and practices relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards, to ensure that such policies, procedures, and practices comply with applicable requirements. If the State identifies noncompliance during this review, the State is responsible for ensuring timely correction. Identification Noncompliance previously identified as part of measurement.

Correction of Noncompliance 4a4b Correction Any noncompliance identified as a result of the policies, procedures, and practices review must be corrected as soon as possible, but in no case later than a year. Correction Any noncompliance identified as a result of the policies, procedures, and practices review must be corrected as soon as possible, but in no case later than a year.

Reporting on Correction  If States identify noncompliance during the review of policies, procedures, and practices that is required by 34 CFR § (b) must provide data on the correction of identified noncompliance using the APR template.  If the noncompliance identified is not related to suspension and expulsion, the findings should be reported under the respective indicator on the B15 worksheet.

Timeline DataNoncompliance FFY & APR Due date Template Data to analyze Date 618 data are reported to DAC Analysis of Data Review of p/p/p* Identification of Noncompliance Timely Correction of Noncompliance FFY & APR Due date FFY 2009 APR due, 2/1/11 SPP Report baseline, targets, and improvement activities FFY 2008 ( ) 11/1/09 After 11/1/09 submission, analyze data, applying formula to determine significant discrepancy After the 11/1/09 submission and after identification of LEAs with significant discrepancies Between 11/1/09 – 6/30/10 Within one year of identification. FFY 2010 APR due, 2/1/12 FFY 2010 APR due, 2/1/12 APRFFY 2009 ( ) 11/1/10After 11/1/10 submission, analyze data, applying formula to determine significant discrepancy After the 11/1/10 submission and after identification of LEAs with significant discrepancies Between 11/1/10 – 6/30/11 Within one year of identification. FFY 2011 APR due, 2/1/13 * (b) Review and revision of policies. If the discrepancies described in paragraph (a) of this section are occurring, the SEA must review and, if appropriate, revise (or require the affected State agency or LEA to revise) its policies, procedures, and practices relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards, to ensure that these policies, procedures, and practices comply with the Act.

Optional Template  Indicator B4b should be reported on the SPP template because States are reporting baseline, targets (compliance = 0%), and improvement activities.  SPP/APR Calendar

Public Reporting  States are not required to publicly report on B4b for the upcoming APR submission because they are reporting baseline data.  States will be required to publicly report on B4b for the FFY 2010 APR, due February 1, 2012.

Contact Information  Angela Tanner-Dean  Diana Chang