1. Significant Disproportionality Stakeholder Meeting
September 13, 2019

2. 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

3. Welcome!

4. IDEA Regulations for disproportionality
20 U.S.C. 1418(d) and 34 CFR §§ and
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.

5. 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

6. 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)

7. 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

8. 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

9. Methodology – Risk Ratio

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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)

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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 school year and forward
This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-NC

19. 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.

20. 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.

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

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

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

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

25. Questions or further discussion

26. 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

27. 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