1. Significant Disproportionality and Comprehensive Coordinated Early Intervening Services

2. 2019 OSEP Leadership Conference
OSEP Disclaimer
2019 OSEP Leadership Conference
DISCLAIMER:
The contents of this presentation were developed by the presenters for the 2019 OSEP Leadership Conference. However, these contents do not necessarily represent the policy of the Department of Education, and you should not assume endorsement by the Federal Government.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474)

3. IDEA Part B Section 618 20 U.S.C. § 1418(d) and 34 C.F.R. § 300.646–47
Disproportionality exists when students in a racial or ethnic group are more likely to be
Identified as a student with a disability
Identified as a student with a particular disability
Placed in more restrictive settings
Suspended or expelled
than students in other racial or ethnic groups

4. Summary of IDEA Part B Section 618
In the case of a determination of significant disproportionality in a district, the State shall—
provide for the review and, if appropriate, revision of the policies, procedures, and practices used in such identification or placement to ensure that such policies, procedures, and practices comply with the requirements of this title;
require any local educational agency identified to reserve the maximum amount of funds to provide comprehensive coordinated early intervening services (CCEIS) to serve children in the local educational agency, particularly children in those groups that were significantly over identified ; and
require the local educational agency to publicly report on the revision of policies, practices, and procedures.

5. Comprehensive Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CCEIS)
If any LEA is identified with significant disproportionality and required to reserve federal funds for CCEIS, the LEA must:
Provide CCEIS to particularly serve children in those groups identified with significant disproportionality (statutory)
CCEIS may be provided to children from age 3 through grade 12, particularly, but not exclusively, children in those groups that were significantly over-identified regardless of whether they are children with disabilities, and, as part of implementing comprehensive CEIS, an LEA must identify and address the factors contributing to the significant disproportionality (regulatory)

6. Identify Contributing Factors
LEA should conduct a root cause analysis and create a plan to address the significant disproportionality
Kansas
Used the IDEA Data Center’s Success Gaps Toolkit to address the success gap of over suspension and expulsion of black students with disabilities
Connecticut
Uses a state-developed self-assessment to review policies, procedures and practices, including open-ended questions to help stimulate the root cause process
Missouri
Uses a state-developed self-assessment that includes a school level review of attributes related to policies, procedures and practices. Based on school level review, the LEA establishes goal and activities for improvement
What process has your state used or plan to use to help LEAs identify the contributing factors to significant disproportionality?

7. Efficacy of CCEIS Connecticut
Benefits of redirection: Forces LEA to look at how they are spending their money; Allows LEA the opportunity to spend money on things that previously were considered “nice to do;” Forces prioritization by the LEA
For states that have needed to require LEAs to reserve federal funds to provide CCEIS, have those LEAs continued to be identified with significant disproportionality? If there have been improvements, what do you think caused that? If there has not been improvements, what do you think are the barriers to those improvements?

8. Impact on Maintenance of Effort
Connecticut
“Correlation” between CCEIS and MOE: If an LEA is redirected due to Significant Disproportionality, they cannot use the MOE Adjustment
For states that have needed to require LEAs to reserve federal funds to provide CCEIS, what impact are you seeing on Maintenance of Effort (MOE)?
What questions are you getting from LEAs about the impact on MOE? How are you responding?

9. Contact Us! Connecticut Kansas Missouri Diane Murphy
Kansas
Laura Jurgensen
Missouri
Mary Corey

10. 2019 OSEP Leadership Conference
OSEP Disclaimer
2019 OSEP Leadership Conference
DISCLAIMER:
The contents of this presentation were developed by the presenters for the 2019 OSEP Leadership Conference. However, these contents do not necessarily represent the policy of the Department of Education, and you should not assume endorsement by the Federal Government.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474)